To the Independent Voters of the City and County of Lancaster. Fellow-Citizens… [opening lines of 1818 broadside].

“For those sects of religious people, whose tenets prevent them from bearing arms, we have the highest veneration…”

---

Known as the “Red Rose City,” Lancaster, Pennsylvania became a borough in 1742, and a chartered city on March 10, 1818, the year this broadside was issued. “But no sooner had the borough become a city, than politics as a science began to permeate all classes with political ambitions to gratify [...] Bitter was the feeling between the Federalists and their dissenters in the beginning of the city as a municipality…” (Riddle)

Issued by one dissenting faction, this rare, unrecorded broadside begins with an appeal to ‘Independent Voters,’ highlighting a recent gathering at Jacob Rathson’s house, where a committee was formed to represent their viewpoints.

In a robust critique, the text takes issue with an inflammatory circular released by another faction, those supporters of the “settled ticket.” It accuses their document of promoting divisive principles to gain an advantage in the upcoming election, casting doubt on the fairness of the candidate nomination process. The suggestion here is that a select few exerted undue influence, potentially sidelining the broader community’s voice.

A prominent point of contention in the broadside concerns the use of George Washington’s name for political gain. It contends that this practice contradicts Washington’s principles of unity and non-partisanship, highlighting the exploitation of his legacy for political purposes:

The very persons who with the most consummate impudence have succeeded in playing off their low tricks of deception on us; arrogate to themselves the title of being the exclusive friends of WASHINGTON. Even the name of the illustrious father of his country is prostituted to subserve the ‘interest of the party.’ Any person at all acquainted with the political tenets of that great man, must know that UNION was his polar star. Rising superior to all party considerations, he acknowledged none but his country at large; and viewing with contempt the man who would promote internal discord, he was actuated solely by the principles of universal philanthropy. ...

Shifting its focus, the broadside defends their choice for office, Frederick Hambright, a War of 1812 veteran:

Sometime in the year 1814, Mr Hambright marched to Baltimore, as ensign of a volunteer company, of which his brother was captain. This company remained at Baltimore not quite three months, and according to the accounts given, both by officers and privates, ‘had much fun, and no fighting.’ [This point being made by the opponents of Hambright’s candidacy] If there is any fun in leaving a comfortable home and being deprived of all the enjoyments of social life—if there is any fun in leaving a good feather bed and a warm fire-side, in exchange for the inclemency of the chilling blasts of winter, then probably they had some diversion; but we apprehend, if those who endeavour to detract from the merits of the soldier, had submitted to similar privations, they would have found ‘very little fun in it.’ Those of your fellow-citizens, who served on this occasion, will know how to appreciate the patriotism of men who remained at home in the time of danger, and now wish to strip you of your merit, by saying it was a trip of diversion.

A central theme is the broadside’s challenge to the concept of “rotation in office.” It questions whether it is just to elect candidates about whom the community knows little, suggesting that familiarity should factor into the decision-making process:

The illustration which is given of ‘rotation in office,’ is indeed a ‘homely’ one. But one side of the picture is held up to view, while the other is carefully concealed. On it we would see that Emanuel was first sheriff; afterwards Harry, his brother-in-law, jailor; and after the intervention of only three years, Harry is seen in the back ground, modestly stepping forward again, considerably fattened with the spoils of office. Leaving the gentlemen to their own refinements on ‘rotation in office,’ we will now proceed to consider the merits of Mr. White. He is scarcely known to us yet, having been but a few years among us, we should therefore be cautious about investing him with too much authority, until we have an opportunity of becoming better acquainted with his character. ‘The office of sheriff is,’ we acknowledge, ‘one of great responsibility, and of the highest trust in the gift of the people.’ If then we bestow it on a person of whom we scarcely know any thing, would it not be carrying our civility to strangers rather too far? Would it not be an acknowledgment that we have no native citizens of our county capable of exercising with correctness the functions of the office? In the selection of persons to fill any office of importance, it should be an invariable rule, when the opposing candidates are in other respects equal, to give the preference to those whom we have known from their infancy…

Addressing religious objections to bearing arms, the broadside argues personal beliefs shouldn’t sway election choices, advocating separation of convictions from politics. The text also challenges the notion that candidates must already hold federal positions to be considered worthy: this overlooked qualified individuals who could make meaningful contributions to public office.

Ultimately, the broadside champions voter unity and endorses Frederick Hambright and William B. Ross as the best choice for the residents of the newly-minted city. The dramatic flair of its concluding sentence would surely quicken the pulse any lover of the English language who engaged in political scribble in 1818 America: “Let the people of Lancaster County rise in the majesty of their strength—stifle the virulence of party feeling, and by their united efforts immolate the hydra of faction upon the altar of unanimity.”

Price: $2,500.00