USA > New Hampshire > Grafton County > Bristol > History of the town of Bristol, Grafton County, New Hampshire, Volume I > Part 26
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59
In 1824, Moses H. Bradley, Esq., of Bristol, Democrat, represented his district in the New Hampshire senate, and Capt. James Minot, of Bristol, Democrat, was elected to the state senate in 1827. At this election Bristol cast one hundred and eleven votes, and of these Minot received all but one. In the district, 1,545 votes were cast, of which Minot received 1,392 ; the nominee of the opposing party had one hundred and fifty-one ; scattering two. The next year, James Poole, of Han- over, was nominated and elected from this district, but died before the legislature assembled. In joint convention the legis- lature elected Mr. Minot to fill the vacancy ; but he declined to ac- cept on the ground that he did not care to fill a dead man's shoes. In 1835, Nathaniel S. Berry, of Bristol, was elected senator from this district, and was reelected in 1836.
In 1840, the subject of slavery had become a disturbing element in politics. Whigs and Democrats were divided in sentiment, and from both these parties arose the Independent Democrats and the Liberty party. In the fall of 1840, occurred the presidential campaign when Harrison and Van Buren were the opposing candidates. This was known as the "hard cider campaign," and party spirit ran high.
. 232
HISTORY OF BRISTOL
In 1841, the Whigs polled in Bristol one hundred and eight votes; the Democrats, seventy-nine, and the Liberty party twenty- one. In 1842, however, with four parties in the field, the Whigs cast only sixty-six votes; the Democrats, seventy-four ; the Liberty party, forty-four, and the Independent. Democrats, thirty-two.
In 1844, the Democratic National convention in Baltimore took such a stand on the subject of slavery, that Nathaniel S. Berry, one of the delegates from New Hampshire, withdrew from the party and became one of the organizers of the Free Soil party in this state. This party held its first state conven- tion at Concord in October, 1845, and Mr. Berry became its standard bearer for governor. The Liberty party also nomi- nated him as its candidate; and at the election in Bristol in March, following, he was given ninety-four votes. Anthony Colby, the Whig candidate, received only sixty-eight votes, and Jared Williams, Democrat, had forty-two. The Liberty party did not hold another state convention, being absorbed by the new Free Soil party.
In 1844, all three parties, the Democrats, the Whigs, and the Liberty party, nominated selectmen in Bristol. The three selectmen were balloted for on one ticket. One hundred and ninety-nine votes were cast at the first ballot, and only one man was elected - Samuel C. Brown, Whig, for first selectman. On the second ballot there was no choice, and on the third, Walter Sleeper, Free Soiler, was elected. On the fourth ballot there was no choice, but on the next Daniel S. Mason, Whig, was chosen, he receiving ninety-six votes as compared with sixty- eight for Abbott Lovejoy, Democrat. Two ballots were required to elect a town clerk. Sherburn S. Merrill, Levi Bartlett, and Solomon Cavis were the three party candidates, and Levi Bart- lett, Whig, was elected. Two days were required to do the work of this meeting.
In 1845, two ballots were required to elect a representative. On the first ballot, Samuel H. Stevens, Whig, had one hundred and two votes, and Sherburn S. Worthing, Democrat, had one hundred and three, and as there were seven scattering votes, there was no choice. At the next ballot, Worthing had one hundred and eight votes, and Stevens one hundred and ten; and the latter was elected. There was no choice on the first or second ballot for third selectman; but on the third, Reuben Rollins, Whig, was elected, receiving eighty-six votes. Jesse F. Ken- dall, Whig, received fifty-seven, and Stephen Nelson, Democrat, fourteen.
In 1847, the candidates for representative were John M. R. Emmons, Whig; Sherburn S. Merrill, Democrat, and Amos Brown, Whig. Mr. Brown was elected on the second ballot.
In 1847, Mr. Berry was again the standard bearer of the
233
POLITICAL HISTORY
Free Soil party in the state, and received in Bristol eighty-eight votes; Anthony Colby, the Whig candidate, received eighty- nine, and Jared W. Williams, the Democratic candidate, fifty ; but, in 1848, the vote for Mr. Berry was one hundred and sixty- six ; the Democratic vote was also increased somewhat, while the Whig vote nearly disappeared, being only six. In 1849, the Whigs rallied, and, although the Free Soil party presented the same candidates as the year before, the vote of the town was about evenly divided among the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats, and so continued till 1854.
In 1849, a memorable town meeting was held. Three ballots were required to elect a town clerk. Hadley B. Fowler, Democrat, was elected, running largely ahead of his ticket, He received ninety-six votes as compared with fifty-eight for Jacob N. Darling, Whig, the next strongest candidate. For first selectman, the leading candidates were Abbott Lovejoy, Democrat ; Walter Sleeper, Free Soiler, and John M. R. Em- mons, Whig. After seven ballots, Walter Sleeper was declared elected, but he declined to serve. After two more ballots, John M. R. Emmons was elected. Two ballots were then taken for a second member of the board, and Gilman Ingalls, Jr., Whig, was elected. After two more ballots, Calvin Swett, Free Soiler, was declared elected third selectman. Two days were consumed in doing the town business this year.
In 1850, Samuel C. Brown, Whig, was elected first select- man on the first ballot, but it required three ballots to select a second member of the board, Calvin Swett, Free Soiler, securing the election. Joseph Kidder, Whig, was elected as the third member on the second ballot.
The campaign of 1851 was a peculiar one in this state, and marked with great bitterness. The Democrats put in nomination for governor John Atwood, who soon made him- self obnoxious to the leaders of the party by utterances against slavery, for the pro-slavery element dominated the Democratic party at that time. Another convention was held ; Mr. Atwood's name was stricken from the ticket, and the name of Samuel Dinsmoor, who had previously served five terms as governor, was placed at its head once more. The Free Soil party then nominated Mr. Atwood, and the Whigs nom- inated Thomas E. Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer received the largest vote in town- eighty-one, while Atwood was given seventy- four, and Dinsmoor, who was elected, received sixty-four. There were four leading candidates for representative in 1851. On the first ballot, Calvin Swett, Free Soiler, received twenty-six votes ; Napoleon B. Bryant, Democrat, a young and promising lawyer who had just settled in Bristol, received thirty-nine; Gilman In- galls, Jr., Whig, fifty-five; and Frederick Bartlett, Whig, ninety- seven; scattering, fourteen. On the second ballot, Mr. Bartlett was
234
HISTORY OF BRISTOL
elected. For twelve years previous to this town meeting, Sam- uel C. Brown, Whig, had served as moderator. Each year Col. Oscar F. Fowler was the nominee of the Democrats. At this meeting, the Whigs and Free Soilers had a new candidate, Mr. Brown having removed from town, and Col. Fowler was elected. Col. Fowler was a fine presiding officer, and party affiliations alone had prevented his election to this and other offices in the gift of his townsmen. Though he continued to be the nominee of his party for moderator he did not succeed in being again elected. In October, there was a special election for the choice of a delegate to the state constitutional convention that was to meet in Concord Nov. 6. There was no contest, and Frederick Bart- lett was elected.
From 1845 till 1855, the active parties in town were the Democrats, the Whigs, and Free Soilers. In 1852, the Know Nothing party was organized in the state. The prejudices of the people were aroused against foreigners, and especially against Roman Catholics, and accessions to the party were rapid. It was a secret organization. Its members were bound with an oath, and governed with rigid rules. A penalty was imposed for even divulging the name of a member. The move- ment spread into all parts of the state, and, in 1854, Subordinate Council, No. 117, was organized in Bristol. In March, 1854, before the advent of this party in Bristol, the vote of the town was, for governor, Nathaniel B. Baker, Democratic candidate,
eighty-nine; James Bell, Whig, thirty-five; Jared Perkins, Free. Soiler, one hundred and nineteen; but at the next annual meeting the Know Nothings cast one hundred and sixty-two votes for Ralph Metcalf, who was elected governor; the Demo- crats polled seventy-nine, the Free Soilers six, and the Whigs eight. The Free Soil party did not again appear in town on a state ticket. The Whigs held together till the following year, when they, too, disappeared. The Know Nothing party had a brief existence of two years ; and then appeared the Republican party, the successor of the three just named, which became the dominant party in town and has since maintained its supremacy. In 1857, it had a majority of seventy-five ; its largest majority was in 1868, when it reached one hundred and thirty-five; its smallest was in 1874, when it was only thirteen. This small margin was partially accounted for by the large vote cast by the Prohibitionists, nearly their entire strength being drawn from the Republican ranks. Two years later, when the Prohibition vote had nearly disappeared and a strong man headed the Republican ticket, the majority again reached one hundred. In 1878, it was one hundred and seven ; in 1886, only twenty-four; but, in 1894, it again reached one hundred and two, and in 1900, it was one hundred and thirty-one.
Previous to the coming of the Know Nothing party, in
235
POLITICAL HISTORY
1855, the Whigs and Free Soilers generally united against the Democrats in the election of representative and town officers, no party being strong enough to elect without the assistance of one of the others.
Previous to 1851, each person elected representative was accorded two terms. That year, Frederick Bartlett was elected a member of the state constitutional convention and also a member of the house. This was considered as equal to two terms in the house, and he was not renominated in 1852. Calvin Swett was nominated by the Free Soilers for representa- tive, and received thirty-five votes; Napoleon B. Bryant was again nominated by the Democrats and received sixty-seven votes, while Gilman Ingalls, Jr., was nominated by the Whigs and was elected, receiving one hundred and thirty-six votes. For the election of selectmen six ballots were required, two for each, resulting in the election of Calvin Swett, Free Soiler ; Daniel B. Bartlett, Democrat, and Daniel S. Mason, Whig.
In 1853, Gilman Ingalls, Jr., was renominated by the Whigs for representative, and, according to precedent, should have been accorded a reelection ; but the Free Soilers nominated Calvin Swett, and the Democrats put in nomination Walter R. Hayward. On the first ballot, Swett received fifty-one votes ; Hayward, eighty-five, and Ingalls, ninety-six; and there was no choice. As voting proceeded during the day, Ingalls and Hay- ward made gains and the other lost. At the eighth ballot, the vote stood as follows : Calvin Swett, twenty-two ; Walter R. Hay- ward, one hundred and thirteen; Gilman Ingalls, Jr., one hundred and fourteen; and there was no choice. A vote was then secured, one hundred and twenty-three to one hundred and seven, not to elect, and so Bristol was not represented in the General Court that year. This contest naturally extended to the election of town officers. It required two ballots to elect a town clerk, when George M. Cavis, the Democratic candidate, was elected over David P. Prescott and Sherburn Wells. For first selectman, the voting commenced with four candidates, Calvin Swett, John M. R. Emmons, Daniel S. Mason, and Daniel B. Bartlett. Five ballots were taken; but, at the last, the persons balloted for had narrowed down to two, Daniel S. Mason and Daniel B. Bartlett; and the latter was elected. Calvin Swett was then elected on the first ballot second selectman; and Frederick Bartlett was elected on the third ballot for the third place on the board.
In 1854, the Democrats renominated Walter R. Hayward for representative, and all other parties united in the support of Warren White, who was elected. For selectmen, seven ballots were necessary. Calvin Swett, Daniel S. Mason, and John M. R. Emmons were elected. The next year, Mr. White was reelected for representative. George W. Dow was the Demo- cratic candidate.
.
236
HISTORY OF BRISTOL
In 1856, three candidates were again in the field for repre- sentative, John M. R. Emmons receiving twenty-one votes from the Whigs; Walter R. Hayward, seventy-one from the Democrats, and Calvin Swett, one hundred and twenty-nine from the Free Soilers. Mr. Swett was elected. The members of the Know Nothing party, who voted for governor that year for the first time, appear to have acted with their old parties in the election of representative and town officers, and old party organizations in local politics were not abandoned till three years later. In 1857, two new names appeared among the nominees for repre- sentative, Hadley B. Fowler, who was brought forward by the Democrats, and received seventy-six votes, and Joseph F. Rollins, who was supported by twenty-one Whigs. Calvin Swett was renominated by the Free Soilers and reelected, receiving one hundred and twelve votes. This year occurred the memorable Fremont and Buchanan campaign. These were the days of "bleeding Kansas" and the discussion of the question of slavery was the all-absorbing one of the campaign, and party spirit ran high. For the first time in the history of the town, a uniformed political company was organized. At the polls in November, the Democrats cast eighty-one votes ; the Republicans, one hundred and sixty-four.
In the presidential campaign of 1860, the " Wide Awake" companies were organized by the Republicans, and torchlight parades were common, hardly a night passing that did not witness a demonstration in Bristol or in some other place in which the Bristol companies took part. On such occasions, houses were illuminated and fireworks discharged according to the means or enthusiasm of the participants. In this campaign, Abraham Lincoln had been nominated by the Republicans. The Demo- cratic convention at Charleston, S. C., had split on the ques- tion of slavery. The northern wing had placed Stephen A. Douglass in nomination, and the southern wing, John C. Breck- enridge, while another party organization, styling itself the Constitutional Union party, had met at Baltimore and nomin- ated John Bell, of Tennessee. Thus there were four presidential candidates in the field. The Bell and Breckenridge parties drew most of their strength from the South, while Douglass was largely supported in the North by the old line Democrats, leaving Lincoln the united support of the Republicans. In Bristol, Lincoln received one hundred and sixty-one votes ; Douglass, sixty-two ; Breckenridge, five, and Bell, three. The presidential campaigns that followed, notably those of 1868 and 1888, were marked by the same enthusiasm as those mentioned, including the organization of uniformed companies, by both parties, flag raisings, political rallies, torchlight processions, and illuminations, with occasional oyster suppers.
In 1858, took place one of the hottest political fights in
237
POLITICAL HISTORY
Bristol. Joseph F. Rollins was an aspirant for the honor of representing his town in the legislature; but in 1857, instead of aiding in the election of Calvin Swett, who was entitled under party usage to two terms, he accepted a nomination from his party, and his friends supported him. The consequence was that this year, when Mr. Rollins was again nominated by the Whigs, and when the natural course would have been for the Free Soilers to have acceded to this nomination, they nominated Silas S. Brown, instead. Hadley B. Fowler was nominated by the Democrats. The first vote was, scattering, nine; Joseph F. Rollins, sixty-one; Hadley B. Fowler, seventy-nine; Silas S. Brown, ninety-one; and there was no choice. Seven ballots were taken, and then the meeting adjourned till the next day. The contest was renewed Wednesday, and the eighth ballot showed that there had been hardly the change of a vote from the first, and the town voted to postpone, indefinitely, the election of a representative. Personal feeling had become so aroused by this contest that it was reflected in the election of selectmen that followed. The first vote for first selectman stood, scattering, three; Levi Bartlett, thirteen ; James T. Sanborn, sixty-one ; Levi Locke, sixty-two; Joseph S. Chase, Democrat, seventy- seven, and there was no choice. On the fourth ballot, Frederick Bartlett's name was used, and he was elected. On the second ballot for second selectman, Walter R. Hayward was elected; and Joseph Kidder was chosen on the first ballot for third member of the board.
In 1859, the contest was renewed. Joseph F. Rollins was renominated by the Whigs, and Lewis W. Fling was nominated by the Democrats. Philip C. Bean, Favor Locke, and John M. R. Emmons were also in the field, but from what party or clique does not appear. On the first ballot, six persons had one vote each; Emmons had three; Bean, forty-three; Locke, thirty- eight; Rollins, sixty-six, and Fling, eighty. As voting pro- gressed, Mr. Bean and Mr. Locke dropped out of the race. After six ballots had been taken, it was announced that if Mr. Rollins was given one term he would not seek a reelection. The seventh ballot stood as follows: Charles Wells, one ; Emmons, thirty-one ; Fling, seventy-eight ; Rollins, one hundred and twenty ; and Mr. Rollins was elected.
In 1860, the Democrats renominated Mr. Fling for represen- tative. The Republicans placed in nomination Frederick Bart- lett and he was elected, and reelected in 1861. For first select- man, there were four candidates. On the first ballot, John M. R. Emmons, Republican, had thirteen votes; Joseph Kidder, Republican, thirty-three; George W. Dow, Democrat, sixty- eight; Levi Bartlett, Republican, eighty-eight. Mr. Bartlett was elected on the second ballot.
In 1861, Nathaniel S. Berry, the nominee of the Republican
238
HISTORY OF BRISTOL
party, was elected governor. He received one hundred and fifty- one votes in Bristol, as compared with eighty-four given George Stark, the Democratic candidate. In the discharge of the duties of his office, Mr. Berry was unswerving in what he thought was right. Some of the leaders of the party did not find him to their liking, and sought to prevent his renomination. This effort not' succeeding, they secured the nomination of Paul J. Wheeler, a war Democrat, hoping thus to prevent Mr. Berry's reelection. Not a vote was given in Bristol for this third party candidate, and he received a light vote in the state. Mr. Berry was reelected by the people. His services covered two of the most important years of the Civil war, and his administration was an honor to the state. The people of Bristol were especially interested in his success, from the fact that he was for so many years an esteemed and honored citizen of the town. That year, the Democrats nominated George W. Dow, Nicholas T. Chase, and Nathan B. Buttrick for selectmen; and the Republicans put in nomination Levi Bartlett, John Hastings, and Philip S. Drake. On the fourth ballot, Mr. Bartlett was elected first member of the board, and John Hastings and Philip S. Drake were elected second and third members, respectively. After this, local politics ran smoothly for a few years.
In the campaign of 1869, Alfred A. Cox, of Enfield, and Cyrus Taylor, of Bristol, were aspirants for the Republican nomination for senator from this district. Mr. Cox received the nomination, and Prof. Edward D. Sanborn, of Dartmouth Col- lege, was nominated by the Democrats. The district was largely Republican, but on account of objections to the Republican candi- date, and the manner in which the nomination was secured, many Republicans voted for Prof. Sanborn, and he was elected. After his election, it was discovered that he could not fill the office of senator and be a professor in Dartmouth college at the same time, therefore he declined to qualify as senator. Eleven votes had been cast for Cyrus Taylor, thus making him a constitutional candidate, and he was elected senator by the joint convention over Mr. Cox, who had received at the regular election 2,361 votes. The following year, Mr. Taylor was reelected by the people.
In 1870, when Cyrus Taylor was nominated by the Repub- licans for senator, the Democrats put in nomination Lewis W. Fling, also of Bristol, for the same office. Mr. Taylor was an extensive merchant, Mr. Fling a prominent lawyer, and both were widely and favorably known. There was naturally much rivalry among the friends of each to make inroads into the ranks of the other, but without success, as each drew only the party vote in town. In 1871, a new man was nominated for senator by the Republicans, and Mr. Fling was renominated by the Democrats. This year, Mr. Fling drew nineteen votes from the
HON. CYRUS TAYLOR
239
POLITICAL HISTORY
Republicans of Bristol, and so close was the district that these votes elected him to the senate. In 1872, Mr. Fling was renom- inated, and reelected by a majority of thirty-one in the district. Of this majority, twenty-three were from his Republican friends in Bristol.
In 1870, the Prohibition party put in nomination for gov- ernor the Rev. Lorenzo D. Barrows, D.D. Dr. Barrows was well and favorably known here, and drew thirty votes. In 1872, the labor ticket came into the field, but did not receive a vote in Bristol, while the Prohibitionists cast twelve. This year occurred, also, the memorable Greeley presidential campaign, when Horace Greeley was nominated by the Liberal Republicans and Democrats for President. The Republicans of Bristol were not attracted by this device, and not a Republican vote was cast in town for the Greeley ticket.
In 1870, there was a warm contest over the election of select- men. The Prohibition party had now become a disturbing element in local politics. Reuben B. Locke was put forward by this party as a candidate for first selectman, and received twenty- nine votes. George T. Crawford, Democrat, received one hun- dred and eleven votes, and Daniel S. Mason, Republican, one hundred and twenty-two. On the fifth ballot, Mr. Mason was elected. After three more ballots, Mr. Crawford was elected as second member of the board, receiving one hundred and forty votes. The other candidates were Milo Fellows, Prohibitionist, who received nineteen votes, and Richard S. Danforth, Republi- can, who received one hundred and eighteen. For third place, Charles N. Drake, Republican, was elected. Until this year, Mr. Locke had been an old line Democrat, but he had now identified himself with the Prohibitionists. This year, the Democrats nominated him for representative, hoping the Prohi- bitionists would do the same, but they nominated him for selectman, as seen above. For selectman, he drew only the strength of the Prohibition party, and for representative only the strength of the Democratic party. Samuel D. Farrar was nominated for representative by the Prohibitionists and received forty votes.
In 1871, Mr. Locke was renominated by the Democrats for representative, and David Mason was nominated by the Republi- cans, and was elected. William A. Berry, Republican, was elected first selectman, and the other members of the board were George T. Crawford and Charles N. Drake. In 1872, the Democrats made an effort to continue the program of the last two years, by electing Mr. Crawford to the second place. They made no nomination for first place and Mr. Berry received all but seven of the one hundred and sixty-one votes cast. For the second place, the Democrats made a supreme effort to reelect Mr. Crawford, and the Republicans were as determined to elect their candidate.
240
HISTORY OF BRISTOL
The result was Mr. Crawford received one hundred and forty-seven votes, and Jeremiah A. Haynes, Republican, one hundred and six- ty-seven ; and Mr. Haynes was elected. Mr. Crawford was then put in the race for the third place, and received one hundred and fifty votes ; but Robert S. Hastings, Republican, received one hundred and seventy-five, and was elected. Mr. Crawford made a capable selectman, and nothing but a partisan spirit prevented his reelection.
In 1871, the Republicans put in nomination the Rev. James Pike for governor. Mr. Pike had made a creditable record as representative in Washington from this state, and served honor- ably as colonel of the 16th Regiment New Hampshire Volunteers, in the Civil war ; but his nomination was not acceptable to some of the leaders of the party, and from lack of zeal on their part there was no choice by the people. His competitor, James A. Weston, was chosen by the legislature.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.