The 1794 congressional election in Philadelphia saw John Swanwick, a democratic republican, win over Thomas Fitzsimons, a federalist. The 1794 Philadelphia congressional election results were a new direction for the state, considering a Republican had held the seat since the new government had been formed. Hence, this election was significant as it was a test of strength between the new democratic Republicans and the Federalists, who had the upper hand for a long time. This paper presents how the candidate, issues and voters resulted in the election tuning out the way it did. The victory of John Swanwick, a democratic republican, against Thomas Fitzsimons, a federalist, in the Philadelphia 1794 congressional race resulted from the alignment of the candidate’s background and stance with the significant issues affecting most of the voters during that period.
Candidate
The democratic-republican candidate, John Swanwick, was more relatable to the people than his competitor, Thomas Fitzsimons, contributing to his winning the election. The way a candidate projects themselves through their voting cords, backgrounds, unusual habits, and personalities are assessed by the voter and contribute to their decision-making on the ballot. John Swanwick was a protestant, while his competitor was a Roman catholic (101). Most Philadelphians were protestants at the time, which meant they related more to Swanwick’s religious beliefs (114). Additionally, Swanwick’s background shows that although he was wealthy, he was not admitted to the elite social circles. Not being part of the social elite made him more relatable to the commoners, particularly the lower class, who did not like the elites. Thus, from his background, Swanwick’s association with the protestant church and his dissociation with the elites contributed to his preference as a candidate among most people.
Issues
Besides, John Swanwick’s stance on the two significant issues, excise tax and whisky rebellion, contributed most of his votes. Excise tax was a considerable issue, as it was being collected on select products manufactured within the US, such as whiskey, sugar, and tobacco products. The people in western Pennsylvania did not take positively to the tax as it was a major commodity in the area. Also, Philadelphia had 23 people dealing in tobacco and employed more than 400 workers and 21 distillers, brewers, and sugar refiners who were also affected by the excise tax (104). Swanwick opposed the excise tax, unlike his federalist opponent, Thomas Fitzsimons, who supported it. As a result of the different views on this significant issue, Swanwick gathered major support from farmers, inn and tavern keepers, and the other people who dealt with the products that were heavily taxed and were against the excise duty.
Consequently, the whisky rebellion in Western Philadelphia played an essential role in who the voters in that region supported and who they did not. Swanwick supported the whisky rebellion, although he disagreed with their protest method (102). His pro-democratic view on the whiskey rebellion was that the treasury, with revenue officers, bank directors, stockholders, and speculators, would take up arms as they did the calculations to force people to pay such taxes. According to his viewpoint, the government wanted people to turn to arms so that they could send the military instead of partaking in reconciliatory means. Due to his pro-whiskey rebellion, Swanwick got a lot of support from western Philadelphia, particularly among farmers, distillers, and whiskey brewers. However, since he blamed the treasury and associated individuals for the situation, his support among those government officials was low, especially in the treasury and bankers.
Voters
Many factors affected the voters’ decision to vote for a democratic republican over a Federalist, particularly the support they showed during the Yellow Fever and the cost of living for the different groups during the period. The yellow fever disorder became prevalent in Philadelphia during 1793, and during this period, most of the support came from people who were associated with democratic republicans. Physicians such as Dr Rush were at the forefront of taking care of patients with yellow fever when most physicians and federalists fled the city when it broke out (109). Even in the yellow fever committee and those who made the most significant contribution towards its end, only one person was an admitted federalist. Hence, during the yellow fever pandemic, democrats were at the forefront while federalists fled the city. Regarding elections and the voters’ choices, most areas that experienced the greatest deaths from yellow fever had the most support for Swanwick. North Mulberry, South Mulberry, and Dock, with the highest deaths, also had the highest votes for Swanwick, which shows that the support of democratic republicans during the yellow fever was rewarded with votes from the most afflicted regions.
Conclusion
Therefore, looking at the voting patterns in the 1794 election, Swanwick received the most support from the city fringes where most artisans, laborers, and shopkeepers lived. These people were most affected by the excise duty, cost of living, and yellow fever issues. Unlike his competitor Fitzsimons, Swanwick supported these people by opposing the excise tax and supporting the whiskey revolution. Even his party, the democratic-republican, was at the forefront of helping during the yellow fever. Hence, most people voted for Swanwick because his religion and stance on major issues aligned with the common people who made up the greatest number in Philadelphia as voters.
Works Cited
Chapter 5.First American Party System: The Philedplpehia Congressional Election of 1794
write