History of Berks county in Pennsylvania, Part 83

Author: Montgomery, Morton L. (Morton Luther), b. 1846
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Philadelphia : Everts, Peck & Richards
Number of Pages: 1418

USA > Pennsylvania > Berks County > History of Berks county in Pennsylvania > Part 83

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).

Pike, 1816, at public-house of Daniel Oyster.

Maiden-creek, 1817, at public-house of Catherine Gift.

Longswamp, 1817, at public-house of Peter Trexler. Earl, 1817, at public-house of Jacob Pennepacker. Reading, 1817, divided into two wards, North and South, Penn Street the dividing line.

Caernarvon, 1818, at public-house of Thomas L. Jones, Morgantown.

District, 1818, at public-house of John Weller.

Albany, 1819, at public-house of Jacob Foossel- man.

Perry, 1821, at public-house of John Binkley.

Bern, Upper, 1822, at public-house of Benjamin Haas.

Amity, 1822, at public-house of John Potts, Jr.

Richmond, 1823, at public-house of Thomas Dumm. Douglass, 1824, at public-house of Daniel Pile.

Colebrookdale, 1827, at public-house of Henry Rit- ter.

Greenwich, 1827, substituted for Croll's in 1829. Union, 1829, at public-house of David Sterrett.

Tulpehocken, Upper, 1829, at public-house of Chris- tian Long.

Bernville, 1829, at public-house of Philip Filbert. Robeson, 1829, at public-house of Anna Beard.

Brecknock, 1829, at public-house of John Ziemer.

Hamburg, 1830, incorporated a borough and taken from Windsor.

Windsor, 1830, at public-house of John Bailey, Hamburg.

Heidelberg, Lower, 1834, at public-house of Henry

476

HISTORY OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

Heidelberg, 1839, at public-house of Michael Selt- zer, Womelsdorf.

Exeter, 1839, at public-house of Daniel Boyer (now at Stonersville).

Alsace, 1840, at public-house of Jacob Bernhart. Bern, 1840, at public-house of Jacob Ebbling.

Cumru, 1840, at public-house of Michael Nunne- macher, in Reading.

Washington., 1840, at public-house of Joseph Baugh- man.

Reading, 1840, divided into four wards, Sixth and Penn Streets the dividing lines: Northeast Ward, at northeast corner Seventh and Penn Streets, at pub- lic-house of John Miller; Northwest Ward, on Fifth Street, between Washington and Walnut Streets, east side, midway, at public-house of John L. Reifsnyder; Southeast Ward, at southeast corner Eighth and Penn Streets, at public-house of William Rapp; South- west Ward, at southwest corner Fourth and Penn Streets, at public-house of George Gernant. (Pre- viously the elections were held at the court-house, at the intersection of Fifth and Penn Streets.)

Maxatawny, 1841. Kutztown voted separately from this time on. It was incorporated a borough in 1815. The two districts voted together till the election of 1838.

Penn, 1842, at public-house of Daniel Potteiger.

Centre, 1843, at public-house of Elizabeth Kauff- man.

Marion, 1843, at public-house of Edward H. Becker, Stouchsburg.

Reading, 1844. Spruce Ward, erected out of that part of Reading lying between Schuylkill River, Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and Spruce Street, at public-house of George . Goodhart, between Fourth and Fifth Streets, below Laurel.

Heidelberg, North, 1845, at public-house of John Kalbach.

Perry, 1849, at public-house of Jacob Boyer.

Muhlenberg, 1850, at public-house of Gabriel Geh- ret.

Ontelaunee, 1850, at public-house of George W. Althouse (now in Leesport).

Spring, 1850, at public-house of Jacob Hoffman, Sinking Spring.

Jefferson, 1851, at public-house of Samuel Knoll.

Boyertown, 1866, at public-house of Jacob Grant.

Birdsboro', 1872, at public school-house.

Fleetwood, 1873, at public-house of Percival Brum- bach.

Topton, 1877, at public-house of Josiah Fisher. Centreport, [private house.]

Reading, 1864, was divided into nine wards. In 1876 the Tenth Ward was erected out of the Second, and the Eleventh Ward out of the Ninth; and in 1885, the Eleventh Ward was divided into three wards.

The election districts in the county now com-

prise thirteen wards, nine boroughs and forty- one townships,-altogether sixty-three in num- .ber.

POLITICAL SENTIMENT OF COUNTY .- The earliest published vote which I could find was for Representative to Congress in 1788, of the fol- lowing seven counties :

Berks.

Bucks.

Chester.

Dauphin.

Lancaster.

Montgomery.

Philadelphia.

Federal Representatives. Anti-Federal Representatives.

187 450

682 259

901 211

121

486 320

771 367 2586 300 1316

This table would seem to be comparatively insignificant. Yet it is worthy of serious study. A comparison of this vote with the vote of the counties for a period covering nearly one hun- dred years will reveal a political sentiment almost unchanged throughout the whole period, especially that which relates to Berks on the one side, and Chester and Lancaster on the other. The Anti-Federal party, in 1788, comprised what is now the Democratic party-the party generally representing confederation and State rights as contradistinguished from national rights ; and the Federal party comprised what is now the Republican party-the party repre- senting national rights and indivisible unity.

. VOTE FOR GOVERNOR,-Since 1788 the peo- ple of the county manifested a most remarkable adherence to the Democratic party and the principles which it advocated, chief among which was the principle of local self-govern- ment. In the return of 1802 the Democratic vote was eight times that of the Federal. After- ward this proportion was at no time surpassed, not even equaled. And the vote was regularly for the Democratic candidate, excepting upon two occasions, in 1817 and 1820, when the people of the county manifested their respect for a distinguished son of one of the first families of the county, though on the opposing ticket, as they theretofore had, and thereafter have, done for party. These occasions were when the Hon. Joseph Hiester was a candidate on the Federal ticket for Governor. He had distinguished him- self in political affairs of and for the county through a period of forty years. And Berks

POLITICS AND CIVIL LIST.

477

County did not stand alone in honoring him. Of the eleven counties in the southeastern sec- tion of the State, he had eight in 1817. This important section of the State gave him a ma- jority of seven thousand one hundred and ninety- one, though the State was against him by a majority of seven thousand and five. And in 1820 he had nine of the eleven counties, with a majority of eight thousand one hundred and ninety-four, and in the State a majority of one thousand six hundred and five. In this con- nection, the vote of Hiester for Congress, as against Daniel Clymer, in 1798, can be referred to in order to show Hiester's popularity. The vote was more than four to one in his favor. All the districts in the county except one gave him large majorities. The exception was the "Forest " District, this having been influenced by the Clymer family, resident in Caernarvon township, in this district, for Daniel Clymer, the opposing candidate.

Even through the excitement incident to the Civil War, 1861-65, the county continued De- mocratic by large majorities. But the city of Reading was otherwise. It had been theretofore generally Democratic. At the election previous to 1860, it had been almost three to one; but in 1860, 1863 and 1866 it was Republican. Then in 1869 it was, and since has been, Dem- ocratic. This is remarkable too. It has been generally said that a manufacturing community is Republican in sentiment, through manufac- tures and protective tariff. But this is not the case with Reading.

VOTE FOR PRESIDENT .- In 1828 the vote for Jackson in Berks was five to one against Adams. Then it was that the county distin- guished itself in voting for Jackson. It would seem that the people here, as the people had elsewhere, felt keenly the outrage perpetrated upon them by the House of Representatives, in not having respected the will of the majority by the selection of the candidate for President whose electors had received the greatest num- ber of votes. The idea of self-government was again uppermost in their minds, and this idea they felt it their duty to express by ballot in a most unequivocal manner. The vote of Read- ing was in about the same proportion. And at

Jackson's re-election, in 1832, the result of the vote, both in the county and city, was for him in the proportion of about four to one.

The vote in the county for President from 1828 to 1880 was always Democratic by a large majority. And the city of Reading was also Democratic by a considerable majority till 1860. Then a decided change took place through the great upheaval in political affairs. Lincoln was given a majority of more than five hundred over Breckenridge, and of more than three hun- dred over all, Douglass and Bell included. And this Republican feeling in the city prevailed till the re-election of Grant, when, remarkable to say, a majority of 1207 was given for him. Afterward a change took place for the Demo- cratic party, which has prevailed since.

In 1828 the vote of the county was about nine per cent. of the vote of the eleven counties, and only three and seven-tenths per cent. of the State ; in 1860 it was nearly the same ; and in 1880 it was seven and three-tenths per cent. of the eleven counties, and only three per cent. of the State.

In 1828 the vote of the eleven counties was forty-one and four-tenths per cent. of the vote of the State ; in 1860 it was forty per cent. and in 1880 it was forty-two per cent.

The county, in the total vote, compared with the State, lost seven-tenths of one per cent. in fifty years, and the eleven counties gained six- tenths of one per cent. This is certainly main- taining to a remarkable degree public political interests, notwithstanding the increase of the vote from 152,500 to 852,132, or over five times the number. In 1880 the number of taxables in the whole State was 1,112,422. Hence nearly seventy-seven per cent., or over three-fourths of the electors in the State, ex- ercised their right of political suffrage.

The taxables of the county, of the eleven counties and of the State, for two certain periods, 1836 and 1880, are compared with the number of votes polled, in order to show the relative proportion of the taxables who voted.

1836.

Per

T'xables

Vote.

Cent. 56

Berks County

11,740

6,550

Eleven Counties.

119,588

73,607

State

309,421

178,586

478

HISTORY OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

1830.

T'xables

Vote.

Per Cent.

Berks County.

30,438

26,181

Eleven Counties.

424,445

358,117

State ..

1,112,422

852,132

By this statement it would appear that a small number over half of the taxables in the county voted in 1836, and over four-fifths in 1880 ; showing that in forty-four years the pro- portion had increased thirty per cent., or nearly one-third. In the eleven counties the increase was twenty-three per cent., and in the State twenty per cent. The county is therefore in advance of the average interest in political af- fairs.

In reference to the party vote in the county, the Democratic vote compared with the oppo- sition was as follows : In 1828 it was five times the number; in 1832, four times ; in 1836, three times ; from 1840 to 1884 the average was a little less than double. In 1856 Buchanan had a majority of 6903 ; but in 1860 Brecken- ridge had only 1581. In 1880 Hancock had a majority of 7731.

The majority of the Democratic party in the county at each Presidential election from 1828 to 1884 was as follows :

Democratic Majority in County.

1828-Democratic ... .. 4663

Nat. Repub. 937

3726

1832-Democratic .. 4472

Nat. Repub. 1150

3322

1836-Democratic. .4967

Whig 1583

3384

1840-Democratic. .7425

Whig. .3582

3843

1844-Democratic. ... 8675

Wbig 4001

4674

1848-Democratic .. 9485

Whig 5082

4403

1872-Democratic ... 10,201

Republican ..... 7,741

2,460

7,731

1876-Democratic ... 15,611 Republican. .. 8,020

1884-Democratic ... 16,484 Republican. .9,587

7,591

6,897

VOTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. -- On the question of amending the State Con- stitution the tables are interesting. In 1825 all of the eleven counties excepting one, Le- high, were against a convention, with a total vote of three to one. In 1835 all were against it nearly two to one. But the State was carried for it. In 1838, on the question of ratifying the work of the convention, Berks and. Bucks voted for the amendments, but the other nine counties against them, the total majority in this section of the State against them having been nearly seventeen thousand. But the State adopted them by a majority less than twelve hundred in a total vote of 226,730.

In 1850, on the question of making the judges of both Supreme and County Courts elective, Berks and six others of the eleven counties were for it by a large majority ; and the State was for it by a vote of two to one.

'In 1871 the question of a convention was again submitted to the people of the State. Of the eleven counties, Berks was the.only county against it, with the remarkable vote of two to one. But the eleven counties were altogether for it, three to one ; and the State almost five to one. On the ratification of the work of the convention, by adopting the new Constitution recommended, Berks County at the special election in 1873 was decidedly for it-five to one. The eleven counties combined and the State were also for it, more than two to one. Dauphin and Lebanon were against it.

VOTE FOR PROHIBITION AND LICENSE .- The liquor question was submitted to the people twice-first in 1854, then in 1873. On both occasions Berks County was decidedly for it- first by a vote of four to one, and afterward by a vote of three to one. And Lehigh was at first more decidedly for it, by a vote of six to one, and afterward nearly three to one. Chester and Delaware were against it at both elections.

1852-Democratic ...... 9503 Whig . .4913

4590

1856-Democratic ... 11,272 American and

Republican .. 4,319

6,953

1860-Democratic ... .8,846 Rep. and Opp. 7,265

1,581

1864-Democratic ... 12,929

Republican .. ... 6,197

6,732

1868-Democratic ... 13,973

Republican ..... 7,917

6,056

1880-Democratic ... 16,956 Republican ..... 9,225

479

POLITICS AND CIVIL LIST.

Philadelphia, in 1854, was against it about five to four; but in twenty years public opinion had changed so much as to be for license two to one.

PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVE MEN .- Be- fore 1820 it would seem that the major part of the voters of the county did not show so strong a partisan spirit in reference to the election of their representatives to Congress as they did afterward. Joseph Hiester was apparently a very popular man with his constituents. He maintained their confidence and political sup- port through a period embracing thirty years, notwithstanding his identification with the Fed- eral party and also the publication of certain letters in local newspapers reflecting against him. And he was eminently worthy of this confidence and support. He succeeded in ac- complishing what no other man in the history of the county has been able to do; for, besides securing his repeated election to Congress on the ticket of the minority party, he even influ- enced the suffrage of the Democrats in the county in his own behalf against their own regular nominee for Governor to such an extent as to be elevated to the highest executive office of the State. The people not only honored him, but he also honored the people. He was an exceptional man. In the three-score of years which have elapsed since his retirement from political life we have not had his equal. And yet the people have not been inspired to signalize his nativity, his successful business career and his political prominence by the erection of a monument, or even by the naming of a township after him, though many town- ships were erected within twenty years after his decease in 1832. When Bern township was sub-divided, one of the sub-divisions could have been named after him with undoubted propriety. The indifference of the people of the county in this matter is to a great degree expressive of their simple and unostentatious life; but it is inexcusable-not so much in re- spect to the person of Governor Heister as to his enterprising, representative and truly patri- otic character.

During the period from 1829 to 1844 Rev. Henry A. Muhlenberg-the son-in-law of Gov-

ernor Joseph Heister-was the most prominent political representative in the county. By a re- election to Congress for five consecutive terms he evinced much popularity. In 1835 he re- ceived the nomination of the Democratic party for Governor ; but he was not elected, owing to the action of an independent element in the party, which was led by Governor Wolf, the incumbent then in the executive office and con- cluding his second term. At that time the Anti-Masonic party was strong in the State, and, through the division of the Democratic party, it was enabled to elect its candidate, Joseph Ritner. Muhlenberg polled the largest vote of the three candidates in the county ; but by the vote polled for Wolf there would seem to have been a considerable opposition to him. In the entire State, Wolf had a larger vote than Muhlenberg. Several years afterward, Presi- dent Van Buren appointed Muhlenberg to be the first minister to Austria, and, in accepting this distinguished appointment, he resigned his seat in Congress. This was the first honor conferred by a President of the United States upon the county of Berks, and the people appreciated it highly. In 1844 Muhlenberg again became the regular nominee for Gov- ernor on the Democratic ticket, but he died before the election. Francis R. Shunk was nominated in his stead and elected by a small majority. It is possible that Muhlenberg would have been elected if he had lived. The op- position to him in the county had, however, not yet subsided. There was a great difference between Heister and Muhlenberg; the former was a Federalist in a Democratic county, suc- cessful in winning and holding a strong politi- cal support for himself, and he was a stanch advocate of a protective tariff, of the free school system and of the United States Bank (of which it is probable that he was one of the original subscribers of stock); but the latter was a Dem- ocrat, and as such he was opposed to the meas- ures mentioned.

Twenty years after Muhlenberg's time in Congress, the first considerable dissatisfaction arose in the Democratic party in the county, and this resulted in the defeat of Hon. J. Glancy Jones, who was the regular nominee.

480

HISTORY OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

Jones had been the representative to Congress from this district since 1851, and, whilst serv- ing his fourth term, he, in 1858, announced himself as a candidate for re-election. At that time there was a great political change working its way amongst the people throughout the State-gradually, if not rapidly-and, to a cer- tain extent, this change was manifesting itself in Berks County. It was induced, principally, by the action of the Buchanan administration on the Kansas question. Jones was intimately associated with the administration, having been chairman of the committee on ways and means, -the most prominent committee in the House of Representatives,-and, when the feeling was de- veloping itself against President Buchanan, the leader of this opposition naturally endeavored to extend this feeling into Berks County, so as to operate against Jones, one of his ablest supporters. And in this movement they were successful. Jones had made the nomination be- fore the county convention almost by acclama- tion, this having been effected, principally, by a thorough party organization. But immedi- ately afterward, certain influential Democrats in the county developed sufficient feeling against him to be able to call a convention together and express a decided opposition to his re-election. The principal ground upon which they based their opposition was his unsatisfactory course on the subject of the tariff. In his movements with Buchanan's administration he had, more or less, committed himself against this import- ant measure, which was thought to be inti- mately connected with the increasing prosperity of the county, throngh manufactures. The in- dependent Democrats, therefore, nominated John Schwartz, a prominent iron-master,-a man of large ability and experience, and a highly-respected survivor of the War of 1812-15,-and the Republicans united in sup- porting him. This union cansed the defeat of Mr. Jones by a very small majority ; and it was the first real defeat which the Democrats had met with in the history of the party in the county, especially since the thorough organiza- tion of the party under President Jackson. The county was thoroughly Democratic, for, at the previous Presidential election, in 1856, the

Democrats had a majority of nearly seven thou- sand, and at the previous gubernatorial election, in 1857, they had a majority of nearly six thousand. The independent candidate and his friends had won a great victory, which had caused general rejoicing amongst them and also amongst the Republicans, to whose united support his election was directly attributable. The defeat of Jones was to President Buchanan a great surprise, if not a great disappointment, for Berks County had been so largely Demo- cratic that it was connted upon for a Democratic representative, and this defeat was a loss to the national administration. Jones was recognized as an able and experienced leader in the Demo- cratic party. His ability and experience had won a considerable prominence in national poli- tics, and also the confidence and friendship of the President. And his services were appreci- ated by the President, if not by his constitu- ents. Immediately after hearing of his defeat, the President appointed him to the Austrian mission. This honorable appointment he ac- cepted, and, therefore, he resigned his seat in Congress.

Mr. Jones represented the national govern- ment at Vienna for over two years with dis- tinction, and then returned home. His return was equivalent to retirement from politics, for in the mean time a new combination had taken possession of the county political affairs, which elevated, and continued to elevate, new men to Congress from this district ; and the Repub- lican party had obtained control of the national administration, which it continued to hold for twenty-four years. In this long period our several representatives in Congress, on account of their opposition to the national administra- tion, naturally did not, and could not, com- mand any political influence, much less political prominence.

Thepolitical activity in the campaign of 1858 was not permitted to subside with the de- feat of Jones, for, during the congratulations of his opponents, he resigned, and his resignation caused a vacancy which the voters were called npon to fill. The Democrats nominated Joel B. Wanner, Esq., who, two years before, had served as mayor of Reading for one term ; and

481

POLITICS AND CIVIL LIST.

the Republicans nominated General William H. Keim, a man highly respected for his ability and business qualifications, and very popular throughout the county in military affairs. The clection was advertised to be held on Novem- ber 30, 1858. The Democrats were despond- ent and without assurance, not having recov- ered from the shock of their defeat, and General Keim was elected. The vote polled was small, especially for the Democratic candidate, and showed much indifference ou the part of the people.

Previously, on two occasions, in respect to county offices, a similar result occurred. In 1846 David Yoder, a prominent and influential farmer in Oley, and a descendant of one of the first families in that township, was elected, as a Whig, to the office of county commissioner, be- cause the nominee on the Democratic ticket was alleged to have been an Irishman, a class of individuals not particularly appreciated by the German element in the county. And in 1853 Charles Van Reed, who was also a prom- inent and influential farmer and a paper manu- facturer in Lower Heidelberg township, and a descendant of one of the old and well-estab- lished families in the county, was elected, as a Whig, to the office of county treasurer. The nominee on the Democratic ticket was Adam Leize, who had held this office for one term,- 1849 to 1851. The incumbent, during the election, was William Ermentrout, whose son was married to Leize's daughter. Many Demo- erats thought that one family was obtaining too much in respect to one office, and, therefore, they opposed the election of Leize, notwith- standing that he had succeeded in making the nomination. Between 1789 and 1820 Daniel Messersmith and John K. Messersmith con- tinued to hold this office, alternately, for a period covering thirty years ; David Bright held it for twelve years, from 1823 to 1835; and Peter Nagle for eight years, from 1835 to 1843. This office was then filled by appointment, but in 1841 an act was passed making it elective.

In 1841 Hon. John Banks (then president judge of Berks County) was the nominee of the Whig party for Governor, but he was far from an election. The Democratic party !

was at that time under thorough organization, and Governor Porter was elected by a largely-in- creased majority in the county as well as in the State. Subsequently, in 1847, whilst the Whigs were in the majority in the State Legis- lature, Judge Banks was elected, by the united support of all the Whigs, to the office of State treasurer for one year.

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.

History of Berks county in Pennsylvania, Part 83

Author: Montgomery, Morton L. (Morton Luther), b. 1846 Publication date: 1886 Publisher: Philadelphia : Everts, Peck & Richards Number of Pages: 1418

Author: Montgomery, Morton L. (Morton Luther), b. 1846
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Philadelphia : Everts, Peck & Richards
Number of Pages: 1418