# 1816 United States presidential election

Presidential elections were held in the United States from November 1 to December 4, 1816. The Democratic-Republican ticket of secretary of state James Monroe and the governor of New York Daniel D. Tompkins defeated the de facto Federalist candidate, the senior U.S. senator from New York Rufus King. Although not formally nominated, King became the last Federalist presidential candidate upon receiving 34 votes from Federalist unpledged electors. In the subsequent election, the Federalists carried three states but did not field their own candidate, instead supporting the incumbent Monroe, before disappearing by the end of the 1820s.
The outgoing President James Madison did not seek re-election to a third consecutive term. Monroe emerged as the Democratic-Republican frontrunner and secured the party's nomination at its congressional nominating caucus in March, narrowly defeating the secretary of war William H. Crawford. The caucus nominated Tompkins for vice president over the governor of Pennsylvania Simon Snyder. The Federalists were disorganized following the end of the War of 1812 and did not hold a caucus or formally select a candidate. King himself remained aloof from the campaign and did nothing to promote his candidacy. No consensus on a vice presidential candidate emerged among the Federalist electors, who scattered their votes between four candidates.
Monroe benefited from the popularity of the outgoing Madison administration and resurgent nationalism following the end of the war. Madison's 1816 message to Congress endorsed an ambitious economic program that robbed the Federalists of much of their platform, most notably chartering the Second Bank of the United States. In spite of significant discontent with the caucus system and the incumbent Virginia dynasty, the Democratic-Republicans were able to avoid a major factional schism in contrast to the previous election. The Federalists meanwhile were demoralized, dogged by accusations of treason, and ill-prepared to mount a national campaign. Most took Monroe's election for granted and did not attempt to prevent it. In three states where electors were chosen by the legislature, Federalists controlled the selection process and appointed unpledged electors who voted for King. Monroe carried the 16 remaining states, including every state where electors were chosen by popular vote, amidst widespread voter apathy and anemic turnout.

## Nominations
### Democratic-Republican Party
#### Caucus

Monroe followed an uncertain path to the nomination in 1816. He had feuded with Madison for most of the preceding three decades, running against him for a seat in the United States House of Representatives in 1789 and for the presidency in 1808. Monroe mended relations with Madison during the War of 1812, serving as secretary of state and secretary of war in the latter's administration, and by 1816 was positioning himself as the president's natural successor. Monroe was not personally popular, and his candidacy encountered resistance from northern Democratic-Republicans and others opposed to the extension of the Virginia dynasty. During the winter of 1815–16, New York governor Daniel D. Tompkins and Monroe's successor as secretary of war William H. Crawford emerged as rivals for the presidency.
Popular in his home state, Tompkins could count on the loyal support of the Anti-Clintonian faction of the New York Democratic-Republican Party, but his candidacy struggled to attract a national following. While the New York General Assembly formally nominated him for president on February 14, his lack of name recognition, youth, and volatility were seen as serious disadvantages. By March, Tompkins had seemingly given up all hope of his nomination and instead focused his efforts on the vice presidency.
Although Crawford publicly denied interest in the presidency, his candidacy quickly gathered significant support from editors and politicians ahead of the party's congressional nominating caucus, and by February had amassed enough strength to present a serious challenge to Monroe. Despite this, Crawford remained hesitant to openly seek the nomination. Having personally assured the secretary of state that he would not be a candidate in 1816, he was reluctant to damage his standing in the party with a fight for the nomination. The continued enthusiasm for his candidacy following his public refusal in February left the war secretary unsure of how to proceed.
Substantial public opinion opposed the caucus system as corrupt, undemocratic, and potentially unconstitutional. While Monroe preferred to retain the caucus system, Crawford's popularity among Democratic-Republicans in Congress made calling a caucus immediately disadvantageous to Monroe's chances of gaining the nomination. When finally an anonymous notice announced the date of the caucus as March 12, the meeting was attended by only 58 members, principally supporters of Crawford. The gathering was judged too small to command public credibility, and on the motion of Jeremiah Morrow of Ohio, the caucus adjourned until March 16. During the recess, Crawford instructed the U.S. senators from Georgia Charles Tait and William W. Bibb to withdraw his candidacy, having decided to postpone his ambitions until 1824. When the caucus met again on the 16th, all but 22 Democratic-Republican members were in attendance. Henry Clay and John W. Taylor again moved that it was "inexpedient" to nominate a presidential candidate, but were voted down; the caucus then nominated Monroe by a vote of 65 to 54.
Monroe owed his majority over Crawford to the 11 Virginians in attendance, who supplied the margin of victory. Crawford received the votes of the New York, New Jersey, Georgia, and Kentucky delegations, notwithstanding their candidate's withdrawal. Of the 22 Democratic-Republican members who did not attend the caucus, the majority were Crawfordites who absented themselves at Crawford's request to allow Monroe's nomination. The narrow margin between the candidates and the presumed sympathies of the 22 absent members encouraged the belief that "Crawford would certainly have been nominated had he made even the slighted effort on his behalf."
In the event of his defeat, Crawford had instructed Tait and Bibb to issue a statement that he had been drafted without his consent; this the senators neglected to do. Crawford would subsequently attribute Monroe's lack of support for his candidacy in 1824 to this embarrassment.
Presidential nomination :
| Candidate | 1st |
| James Monroe | 65 |
| William H. Crawford | 54 |

#### Nominees

Democratic-Republican Party1816 Democratic-Republican Party Ticket :
| James Monroe | Daniel D. Tompkins |
| for President | for Vice President |
| 7th U.S. Secretary of State (1811–1817) | 4th Governor of New York (1807–1817) |

#### Candidates

Candidates in this section are sorted by vote count in the congressional nominating caucus :
| William H. Crawford | Daniel D. Tompkins |
| U.S. secretary of War (1815–1817) | 4th governor of New York (1807–1817) |
| LN: March 16, 1816 54 votes | W: March 13, 1816 0 votes |

#### Vice presidential nomination

With the matter of the presidential candidate concluded, the caucus proceeded to nominate Tompkins for vice president; the governor of Pennsylvania Simon Snyder finished a distant second. His presidential aspirations thwarted, Tompkins nevertheless exceeded Monroe's margin over Crawford by 20 votes, defeating Snyder 85 to 30.
Vice Presidential nomination :
| Candidate | 1st |
| Daniel D. Tompkins | 85 |
| Simon Snyder | 30 |

### Federalist Party
#### Failure to nominate a ticket

The Federalist Party entered the election in disarray. Following peace with Britain in 1815, "the strength that the Federalists had shown in the middle states during the war years melted away." Disconnected state parties lacked a unifying national organization capable of fielding candidates or mounting a national campaign. Where Federalists were more than a negligible presence, charges of disloyalty hounded the party in the wake of the Hartford Convention. This enfeebled party apparatus proved incapable of even selecting a candidate to oppose Monroe: although different names were mentioned in hearsay reports and private correspondence, no caucus was ever held, no consensus among state parties or the Federalist press emerged, and as late as December it remained unclear for whom (if anyone) the Federalist electors from Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Massachusetts would vote.
If the Federalists were to choose a candidate, King appeared by far the likeliest possibility. A respected senator and former delegate to the Constitutional Convention who had twice been the party's vice presidential candidate in 1804 and 1808, by 1816 King was the only individual capable of uniting the party's remaining supporters. In February, the New York Evening Post predicted that King and the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Langdon Cheves would be the nominees of the Federalist caucus for president and vice president. However, in the interim, the New York Federalist Party nominated King for governor in the April 1816 election after the party's original candidate, William W. Van Ness, withdrew. King lost the election to Tompkins, and although the Democratic-Republican majority was not overwhelming, the defeat ended any hope of King's nomination for president. While some Federalists suggested the former U.S. senator from Maryland John Eager Howard or even Crawford as possible candidates, no serious movement to nominate either man ever materialized. The Federalists thus entered the fall campaign without a ticket, and with most party leaders resigned to an inevitable Democratic-Republican victory.

#### Candidates

Candidates in this section are sorted by number of electoral votes for president and then alphabetically by last name :
| Rufus King | William H. Crawford | John E. Howard |
| U.S. senator from New York (1813–1825) | U.S. secretary of War (1815–1817) | U.S. senator from Maryland (1796–1803) |
| NN | W: March 16, 1816 | DNR |

## Campaign

The failure of the Federalist Party to nominate a ticket effectively conceded the election to Monroe. In New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and in every state south of the Potomac River, the Federalists did not seriously contest the election. Federalist unpledged electors ran in several states, and in Pennsylvania, Monroe's opponents fielded an Independent ticket composed of disaffected Democratic-Republicans and Federalists. Lacking a candidate, the opposition all but ignored the presidential race and instead reserved their energies for state and local elections in which the remnants of regional Federalist strength might still be salvaged. In New York and New Hampshire, where a real effort was made to defeat the Democratic-Republican ticket, the Federalist campaign was distracted and uncoordinated. So great was the sense of inevitability surrounding Monroe's election that most public speculation focused on the composition of his incoming cabinet.
There was some concern among the Democratic-Republicans that their opponents might seek to capitalize on the divisions apparent in the caucus result, and indeed some Federalists sought to do exactly that. In June, the Federalist Charlestown Courier reprinted an anonymous pamphlet, the Exposition of the Motives for Opposing the Nomination of Mr. Monroe for the Office of President of the United States, purportedly the work of the "fifty-four Democrats" who had voted to nominate Crawford in the caucus. Possibly a forgery, the work alleged that party leaders had ruthlessly blocked the advancement of Monroe's rivals in order to extend the Virginia dynasty, irrespective of Monroe's apparent unfitness for office. Several Federalist editors suggested adopting Crawford as the party's candidate for president, but party leaders ultimately failed to agree upon this strategy.
Rufus King was conspicuously absent from the campaign and to all appearances did not consider himself a candidate. Following his gubernatorial defeat, King encouraged his colleagues to concede Monroe's election and suggested the Federalist Party should disband. King's surviving letters do not mention his candidacy; in a letter to Christopher Gore dated November 5, he refers to Monroe as running unopposed. The Federalist press did not refer to King as the Federalist presidential candidate, and as late as December 3, the Boston Daily Advertiser admitted it did not know for whom the 38 Federalist electors chosen from Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, and three Maryland districts would vote. King would not learn of his selection by 34 of these electors until after the electoral colleges had already met.

## Results
### Statistics

Monroe won the election decisively, carrying 33 of the 39 constituencies representing 183 electoral votes. He received a majority of the electoral votes from 16 states, including every state where electors were chosen by popular vote. Three states where electors were chosen by the legislature—Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts—and three popular election districts in Maryland chose upledged Federalist electors, representing 38 electoral votes. Four Federalist electors (the three Maryland Federalists and one elector from Delaware) did not vote; the remaining 34 voted for Rufus King.
There was no agreement among the Federalists as to a vice presidential candidate. Twenty-two electors voted for Howard, all from Massachusetts; Connecticut's electors split their votes between the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania James Ross (5) and the chief justice of the United States John Marshall (4), while three Delaware electors voted for the U.S. senator from Maryland Robert Goodloe Harper. Tompkins received the votes of all 183 Democratic-Republican electors.

### Indiana's electoral votes

Indiana entered the Union as the nineteenth state on December 11, 1816. When Congress met to count the electoral votes on February 22, 1817, John W. Taylor, the member from New York's 11th congressional district, objected to counting Indiana's electoral votes on the grounds that it had not been a state at the time of the meeting of the electoral colleges. Daniel Cady, representing New York's 14th congressional district, and William Hendricks, the newly-elected member from Indiana, countered that Indiana's representatives to Congress had been seated with the acceptance of the state's constitution, and that it was therefore entitled to participate in the election. Opinion in the House was overwhelmingly in favor of counting Indiana's votes. On the motion of Samuel D. Ingham, the question of the legality of Indiana's votes was postponed indefinitely, and the final electoral count was read with Indiana's votes included.

### Electoral results

Electoral results :
| Presidential candidate | Party | Home state | Popular vote | Popular vote | Electoral vote | Running mate | Running mate | Running mate |
| Presidential candidate | Party | Home state | Count | Percentage | Electoral vote | Vice-presidential candidate | Home state | Electoral vote |
| James Monroe | Democratic-Republican | Virginia | 76,762 | 68.69% | 183 | Daniel D. Tompkins | New York | 183 |
| Rufus King | Federalist | New York | | | 34 | John E. Howard | Maryland | 22 |
| Rufus King | Federalist | New York | | | 34 | James Ross | Pennsylvania | 5 |
| Rufus King | Federalist | New York | | | 34 | John Marshall | Virginia | 4 |
| Rufus King | Federalist | New York | | | 34 | Robert Goodloe Harper | Maryland | 3 |
| Unpledged electors | Democratic-Republican | (n/a) | 17,597 | 15.74% | — | (n/a) | (n/a) | — |
| Unpledged electors | Federalist | (n/a) | 17,300 | 15.48% | — | (n/a) | (n/a) | — |
| Other | Other | Other | 97 | 0.09% | — | Other | Other | — |
| Total | Total | Total | 111,756 | 100% | 217 | | | 217 |
| Needed to win | Needed to win | Needed to win | Needed to win | Needed to win | 109 | | | 109 |
Source (Popular Vote): A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787-1825
* a.^ In nine states, electors were chosen by the legislature rather than by popular vote. The ten states where electors were chosen via popular vote had widely varying restrictions on suffrage.
* b.^ Popular vote figures from Kentucky and Tennessee are incomplete.
* c.^ One elector from Delaware and three electors from Maryland did not vote.
* d.^ King was not formally nominated by the Federalist Party and did not camaign; his electoral votes came from unpledged electors from three states where electors were chosen by the legislature.
* e.^ Federalist unpledged electors carried three Maryland districts. All three electors subsequently abstained.
Popular vote
Monroe
68.7%
Unpledged electors (DR)
15.7%
Unpledged electors (F)
15.4%
Others
0.1% :
Electoral vote—President
Monroe
84.3%
King
15.7% :
Electoral vote—Vice President
Tompkins
84.3%
Howard
10.1%
Ross
2.3%
Marshall
1.8%
Harper
1.4% :

### Results by state

Nineteenth century election laws required voters to vote directly for members of the Electoral College rather than for president. This sometimes resulted in small differences in the number of votes cast for electors pledged to the same presidential candidate if some voters did not vote for all the electors nominated by a party, or if one or several electors ran on multiple tickets. In most cases, this table compares the results for the most popular elector pledged to each ticket. For the single-member electoral districts in Kentucky and Maryland, all votes for electors pledged to one party or nominee are counted in cases where multiple electors were pledged to the same presidential candidate. In Pennsylvania, four electors ran on both the Democratic-Republican and the Independent ticket and were elected without opposition; this table counts the result for the most popular elector to run exclusively on the Democratic-Republican ticket (William Gilliland) for Monroe, and the result for the most popular elector to run exclusively on the Independent ticket (Andrew Gregg) for the Others. Returns from Tennessee and one Kentucky district appear to have been lost.
| | | James Monroe Democratic-Republican | James Monroe Democratic-Republican | James Monroe Democratic-Republican | Unpledged electors Federalist | Unpledged electors Federalist | Unpledged electors Federalist | Others | Others | Others | Margin | Margin | State total | Citation |
| State | Electoral votes | No. | % | Electoral votes | No. | % | Electoral votes | No. | % | Electoral votes | No. | % | State total | Citation |
| Connecticut | 9 | * | * | — | * | * | 9 | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| Delaware | 4 | * | * | — | * | * | 4 | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| Georgia | 8 | * | * | 8 | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| Indiana | 3 | * | * | 3 | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| Kentucky–1 | 4 | no data | no data | 4 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Kentucky–2 | 4 | 1,508 | 100.0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1,508 | 100.0 | 1,508 | |
| Kentucky–3 | 4 | 356 | 100.0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 356 | 100.0 | 356 | |
| Louisiana | 3 | * | * | 3 | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| Maryland–1 | 1 | 2 | 0.74 | — | 270 | 99.26 | 1 | — | — | — | 268 | 98.52 | 272 | |
| Maryland–2 | 1 | 523 | 73.7 | 1 | 184 | 25.9 | — | 3 | 0.4 | — | 339 | 47.8 | 710 | |
| Maryland–3 | 2 | 1,440 | 99.0 | 2 | 13 | 0.9 | — | 2 | 0.1 | — | 1,427 | 98.1 | 1,455 | |
| Maryland–4 | 2 | 1,855 | 95.7 | 2 | — | — | — | 83 | 4.3 | — | 1,722 | 91.4 | 1,938 | |
| Maryland–5 | 1 | 693 | 100.0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 693 | 100.0 | 693 | |
| Maryland–6 | 1 | 938 | 67.9 | 1 | 435 | 31.5 | — | 9 | 0.6 | — | 503 | 36.4 | 1,382 | |
| Maryland–7 | 1 | 750 | 100.0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 750 | 100.0 | 750 | |
| Maryland–8 | 1 | 1,282 | 48.9 | — | 1,338 | 51.1 | 1 | — | — | — | -56 | -2.2 | 2,620 | |
| Maryland–9 | 1 | 30 | 3.3 | — | 886 | 96.7 | 1 | — | — | — | -856 | -93.4 | 916 | |
| Massachusetts | 22 | * | * | — | * | * | 22 | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| New Hampshire | 8 | 15,225 | 53.3 | 8 | 13,338 | 46.7 | — | — | — | — | 1,887 | 6.6 | 28,563 | |
| New Jersey | 8 | 5,441 | 99.0 | 8 | 54 | 1.0 | — | — | — | — | 5,387 | 98.0 | 5,495 | |
| New York | 29 | * | * | 29 | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| North Carolina | 15 | 9,549 | 98.4 | 15 | 158 | 1.6 | — | — | — | — | 9,391 | 96.7 | 9,707 | |
| Ohio | 8 | 3,326 | 84.9 | 8 | 593 | 15.1 | — | — | — | — | 2,733 | 69.7 | 3,919 | |
| Pennsylvania | 25 | 25,749 | 59.4 | 25 | 27 | 0.1 | — | 17,597 | 40.6 | — | 8,152 | 18.8 | 43,346 | |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 1,236 | 100.0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1,236 | 100.0 | 1,236 | |
| South Carolina | 11 | * | * | 11 | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| Tennessee–1 | 1 | no data | no data | 1 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Tennessee–2 | 1 | no data | no data | 1 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Tennessee–3 | 1 | no data | no data | 1 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Tennessee–4 | 1 | no data | no data | 1 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Tennessee–5 | 1 | no data | no data | 1 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Tennessee–6 | 1 | no data | no data | 1 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Tennessee–7 | 1 | no data | no data | 1 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Tennessee–8 | 1 | no data | no data | 1 | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | — | no data | no data | no data | |
| Vermont | 8 | * | * | 8 | * | * | — | * | * | — | * | * | — | |
| Virginia | 25 | 6,859 | 99.9 | 25 | 4 | 0.1 | — | — | — | — | 6,855 | 99.8 | — | |
| TOTALS | 221 | 76,762 | 68.7 | 183 | 17,300 | 15.5 | 38 | 17,694 | 15.8 | 0 | 59,489 | 53.2 | 111,756 | |

#### States and districts that flipped from Federalist to Democratic-Republican

* Maryland's 2nd electoral district
* Maryland's 4th electoral district
* New York
* New Jersey
* New Hampshire
* Rhode Island

#### Districts that flipped from Democratic-Republican to Federalist

* Maryland's 8th electoral district

#### Close states and districts

Districts where the margin of victory was less than 5 percentage points:
* Maryland's 8th electoral district, 2.2% (56 votes)
States where the margin of victory was less than 10 percentage points:
* New Hampshire, 6.3% (1,813 votes)

### Electoral votes by state

| State | Electoral votes | For President | For President | For President | For Vice President | For Vice President | For Vice President | For Vice President | For Vice President | For Vice President |
| State | Electoral votes | JMTooltip James Monroe | RKTooltip Rufus King | B | DTTooltip Daniel D. Tompkins | JHTooltip John Eager Howard | JRTooltip James Ross (Pennsylvania politician) | JMTooltip John Marshall | RHTooltip Robert Goodloe Harper | B |
| Connecticut | 9 | — | 9 | — | — | — | 5 | 4 | — | — |
| Delaware | 4 | — | 3 | 1 | — | — | — | — | 3 | 1 |
| Georgia | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Indiana | 3 | 3 | — | — | 3 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Kentucky | 12 | 12 | — | — | 12 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | 3 | 3 | — | — | 3 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Maryland | 11 | 8 | — | 3 | 8 | — | — | — | — | 3 |
| Massachusetts | 22 | — | 22 | — | — | 22 | — | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| New Jersey | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| New York | 29 | 29 | — | — | 29 | — | — | — | — | — |
| North Carolina | 15 | 15 | — | — | 15 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Ohio | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | 25 | 25 | — | — | 25 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 4 | — | — | 4 | — | — | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | 11 | 11 | — | — | 11 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tennessee | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Vermont | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Virginia | 25 | 25 | — | — | 25 | — | — | — | — | — |
| TOTAL | 221 | 183 | 34 | 4 | 183 | 22 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| TO WIN | 109 | | | | 109 | | | | | |

### Maps

* Map of presidential election results by county, shaded according to the vote share of the highest result for an elector of any given candidate
* Map of presidential election results by electoral district, shaded according to the vote share of the highest result for an elector of any given candidate. Electoral boundaries for Maryland and most of Tennessee could not be found

## Electoral college selection

| Method of choosing electors | State(s) |
| Electors are chosen by the state legislature | Connecticut Delaware Georgia Indiana Louisiana Massachusetts New York South Carolina Vermont |
| Electors are chosen by voters in a statewide election | New Hampshire New Jersey North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island Virginia |
| Electors are chosen by voters from single- or multi-member districts | Kentucky Maryland Tennessee |