The Town of Odyssey

The following is a rather lengthy description of my research and findings, with excerpts and summaries of said findings, as well as a listing of my sources (the numbers in blue can be considered the citations, each referencing a different source at the bottom). If you would like to see the complete Word document (slightly longer), let me know and I'll get it to you.

~*~

Growing up, I always assumed that the events described in the AIO episode “A Single Vote” were true. Succinctly, that “Shoemaker voted for Marsh, who won by one vote. Marsh voted for Harrigan, who won by one vote. And Harrigan voted for Texas statehood, which won by one vote” (as Whit said in the episode). That is, until The Official Guide was released in 2008 with this to say about the episode: “An unusual story inspired us to write about how one vote made the difference in the statehood of Texas. The section of the story about one senator changing his vote and making Texas a state is completely true. The rest of the story, however, is fiction.”

I was sad to find out that it wasn't a true story. Recently, however, I decided to do my own investigating online to see if I could find any nuggets of truth in the story. I had done some online searching in the past, but hadn't come up with anything conclusive. At first, all I came up with were blogs and message board posts. Some used the same names as in the episode – Jamison Shoemaker and James Harrigan – while others used the names Henry Shoemaker and Edward Hannegan.

Finally, however, I found my first promising piece of evidence: a book titled The Greatest Stories Never Told (written by Rick Beyer), with the stamp of the History Channel on it and a listing of sources in the back. 1

First, what the book had to say about the story:

On a sweltering summer afternoon in 1842, Henry Shoemaker was toiling as a hired hand on a farm in Indiana. Suddenly he remembered it was election day, and he had forgotten to vote. He had personally promised his vote to one of the candidates running for state representative, a Democrat named Madison Marsh.

Shoemaker might be forgiven if he had ducked out on his civic duty and broken that promise. But he didn’t. He saddled his horse, rode to the polling place, and cast his ballot. As a result, Madison Marsh was elected…by one vote.

At that time, state legislators elected U.S. senators. In January of 1843, Marsh and his fellow Indiana lawmakers convened for just such an election. After much maneuvering, Marsh changed his vote on the sixth ballot, electing Democrat Edward Hannegan to the United States Senate…by one vote.

Fast-forward to 1846. A sharply divided U.S. Senate was debating whether or not to declare war with Mexico. A caucus vote was deadlocked until the absent Senator Hannegan was called. He cast his vote in favor of war. One of the results of that war was that California changed hands from Mexico to the United States.

Henry Shoemaker had no idea what he was setting in motion that day he went to the polls, never thought that his one vote would make the difference between peace and war. But now that you know, never assume that your one vote doesn’t count.

Senator Edward Hannegan also cast the deciding vote to give statehood to Texas. So if Henry Shoemaker hadn’t cast his vote that day in 1842, it is possible that neither California nor Texas would be part of the United States today.

...

The reason we know all about Henry Shoemaker’s vote is that it was a contested ballot. There wasn’t a ticket available listing all the candidates Shoemaker wanted to vote for, so he took out his knife and cut out names from four different tickets in order to cast his ballot. The inspector at the polling place threw out Shoemaker’s improvised ticket, and that resulted in a tie. After numerous hearings and lengthy testimony, the vote was allowed and the tie was broken.

This account is obviously in agreement with the major events of “A Single Vote,” but I wasn’t satisfied. What sources had this author used to verify the facts? I was pleased to discover a listing of his sources in the back of the book ... and it was there that I found the motherlode, in a 1935 article in a Indiana Magazine of History titled “The Importance of a Single Vote.” 2

Here are some significant pieces of information from that article:

• The legislative apportionment called for one joint representative for Steuben and DeKalb counties, and the candidates for the place were Madison Marsh of DeKalb and Enos Beall of Steuben . According to the returns made by the local canvassing board, the election resulted in a tie between Marsh and Beall ... Marsh contested the election, claiming that the election officers of Smithfield Township, DeKalb County, had illegally rejected the ballot of Henry Shoemaker, which, had it been counted, would have given Marsh an additional vote in DeKalb County, thereby giving him a total of 361 votes in the combined returns, and a seat in the house.
• Marsh was a Democrat, and on the election of a United States Senator voted first for Howard, and when Howard's name was dropped he voted for Edward A. Hannegan, his name having then been brought forward, thereby giving Hannegan a majority over Smith and electing him to the Senate. Had Shoemaker's vote been rejected and neither Beall nor Marsh seated, neither having received a majority of all votes cast, seventy-five votes in the Legislature would have been a majority and Smith would have been re-elected on the second ballot.

Based on this article, I concluded that the true story behind “A Single Vote,” while more complicated than the episode (for one thing, there was a controversy over whether or not to accept Shoemaker’s ballot; for another, the legislators voted for senator six times, and it wasn’t until the sixth time that someone – Hannegan – finally got the one vote he needed to have the majority vote and win the election), was true.

But I didn’t stop there. This Indiana Magazine of History article also cited its sources, so I looked at select pages from the following documents, dated from 1842-1885, on archive.org:

• Journal of the Senate of the State of Indiana; during the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly. (1842) 3
• Journal of the House of Representatives of the state of Indiana, during the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly. (1842) 4
• History of Steuben County, Indiana, together with... biographies of representative citizens (1885) 5
• History of DeKalb County, Indiana : together with sketches of its cities, villages and towns ... and biographies of representative citizens : Also a condensed history of Indiana .. (1885) 6

This is what the Journal of the Senate confirmed, as summarized by me: There were six joint votes to elect the state senator that day. There were 150 people voting that day, so 76 was the number of votes required for someone to get the majority of all the votes (a necessary thing to be elected). However, in the first five votes, no one got more than 75 votes. Surprisingly, Hannegan only got a handful of votes each of those five times. However, in the sixth vote – taken after a break – the Democrats dropped Howard (the other Democrat candidate) – and Hannegan got 76 votes – exactly the number of votes he needed. The second-highest vote-getter, Oliver Smith, got 69 votes. So Hannegan did indeed get elected by one vote – not in the sense of his beating an opponent by one vote, but in the sense of, if he had gotten one vote fewer, he would not have been elected.

The Journal of the House of Representatives confirmed that there had indeed been a lengthy controversy about whether or not to accept Shoemaker’s vote. Marsh contested the tie, saying that the vote of one Henry Shoemaker was illegally rejected. Shoemaker’s ballot wasn’t a normal ballot. The polling place hadn’t had a ballot with the names of the people he wanted to vote for on it, so he used a knife to cut out pieces from different ballots to make his own ballot.

This is what the History of Steuben County and the History of DeKalb County confirmed: Marsh and Enos Beall tied in a race for the joint representative for Steuben and DeKalb counties (360 votes each).

Here are a few final pieces of evidence regarding the last link in this story – Texas statehood:

Texas State Library and Archives Commission wrote:A number of votes were needed before Texas could be annexed to the United States. The "one vote" admission story is based on the February 27, 1845 vote in the United States Senate on the Joint Resolution to admit Texas. The original vote in the Senate was a tie at 26-26. Senator Henry Johnson of Louisiana changed his vote, allowing the measure to pass 27-25. Thus, it can be said with some justification that Texas annexation was the result of a single vote. 7

• History book: Hannegan also voted “yes” to the measure to annex Texas. 8
• Journal article: Another confirmation that Hannegan voted “yes” for Texas annexation in that 27-25 vote. 9
• Magazine article: Hannegan cast the decisive vote in deciding whether to annex Texas. Other particulars of this story are also detailed in this article. 10

From these final sources I have concluded that, while Hannegan wasn’t the one who dramatically changed his vote concerning Texas statehood (that was Henry Johnson), Hannegan did vote “yes” as well, and his “yes” was important in breaking the tie (if he had voted “no,” the vote would’ve remained 26-26 instead of 27-25).

Being able to finally dig to the bottom of this mystery has been a rewarding, gratifying experience. I’m happy to find out, along with the Indiana Magazine of History article, that “The story of the election of Marsh is definitely and truly established in the records of the Legislature.”

Sources:

1. http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Stories- ... 495&sr=8-1 -- Click the "Click to Look Inside" button and do a search for "Marsh," "Shoemaker," or "Hannegan" (pgs. 80-81). The index page is also viewable (pg. 201).
2. http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/imh/vie ... -031-2-a03
3. http://www.archive.org/details/journalo ... 184243indi
4. http://www.archive.org/details/journalo ... 184243indi
5. http://www.archive.org/details/historyofsteuben00inte
6. http://www.archive.org/details/historyofdekalbc00inte
7. FAQ from the Texas State Library & Archives Commission website: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/ann ... ion12.html
8. Thirty years’ view: or, A history of the working of the American Government 1820 to 1850, Volume 2 (by Thomas Hart Benton)
9. “A Safety Valve Thesis and Texan Annexation” (Frederick Merk) - http://www.jstor.org/stable/1902563 (pages 434-435)
10. “Every Vote Counts” (by C.W. Gilchrist) – article in the November 1948 issue of The Rotarian (available on Google Books; search for “Hannegan” within the issue)

That is SO COOL! I'm going to link what you wrote here to Nathan's FB page, so he can see this!!! Amazing research Lizzie!!!

Wowzers, that is some amazing and dedicated research! Sounds like you've got a similar hobby to me--researching random topics of interest! Though you really dug for the sources, and did a great job!
As for the Odyssey, I always figured the one-vote thing was true, but I never really thought much about the rest of the story's facts--it wasn't a favorite episode of mine. I see why they cut it down and simplified it, though I agree that they could have gone a little further and included a few more things. But yeah, this is awesome!

Leonard Meltsner wrote:That is SO COOL! I'm going to link what you wrote here to Nathan's FB page, so he can see this!!! Amazing research Lizzie!!!

Thanks! I actually already sent my notes to Nathan, but I definitely appreciate the additional exposure Facebook brings.

I tagged Phil Lollar in it, so he should see it, which is good since he wrote it. I don't know if you saw my theory which I wrote, but it is as follows "Lots of places on the internet say that "Texas statehood by 1 vote" isn't true, but this is backed by historical records, although a few names are marginally changed. I'd imagine that Phil Lollar remembered hearing this story upon trying to come up with an episode idea. He looked it up to try and get details, but the internet said it was fake. He remembered the names as best he could, and everyone thought the story was fake, like you put in the Guide."

Wow...great find, Lizzie! And what dedicated research.

Wow! Your research and presentation skills are superb! I was disappointed too that the official guide said that the episode was not completely accurate, but now it's great to know that there is substantial evidence that supports the episode!

I would like a copy of the document. Thanks!

That is amazing I went through the same process of assuming it and then false! Great job.

wow, that was amazing Lizzie G! I too was under the impression that the story had been fictional. Thanks for sharing!!!

Wow, that must have taken alot of time. A single vote is one of my favorites, I never really thought about if it was true or not. Thank you LizzieG for doing this.

Good job, Liz! I enjoyed reading your findings.

I hope the new Official Guide will include an update on this episode (and with some follow-up research of their own).

The replacement of Whit's line after the complaints was probably still a good idea even if the story was after all "mostly true."

(the main change):
"Is that really true?"
Whit:
"Yep" (1988)
"Now, I had to fill in some of the details, but..." (1990)

IForgotMyUserName wrote:I hope the new Official Guide will include an update on this episode (and with some follow-up research of their own).

The replacement of Whit's line after the complaints was probably still a good idea even if the story was after all "mostly true."

(the main change):
"Is that really true?"
Whit:
"Yep" (1988)
"Now, I had to fill in some of the details, but..." (1990)

Ooh, great catch! I never caught that line change, but I'll have to listen for it now.

Amazing! Thanks for your hard work researching and reassuring me that one of my favorite episodes really is based on a true story.