To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

1928 United States presidential election in Tennessee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1928 United States presidential election in Tennessee

← 1924 November 6, 1928 1932 →

All 12 Tennessee votes to the Electoral College
 
President Hoover portrait.jpg
AlfredSmith.png
Nominee Herbert Hoover Al Smith
Party Republican Democratic
Home state California New York
Running mate Charles Curtis Joseph Taylor Robinson
Electoral vote 12 0
Popular vote 195,388 167,343
Percentage 53.76% 46.04%

Tennessee Presidential Election Results 1928.svg
County Results

President before election

Calvin Coolidge
Republican

Elected President

Herbert Hoover
Republican

The 1928 United States presidential election in Tennessee took place on November 6, 1928, as part of the 1928 United States presidential election. Tennessee voters chose 12 representatives, or electors, to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.

Background

For over a century after the Civil War, Tennessee was divided according to political loyalties established in that war. Unionist regions covering almost all of East Tennessee, Kentucky Pennyroyal-allied Macon County, and the five West Tennessee Highland Rim counties of Carroll, Henderson, McNairy, Hardin and Wayne[1] voted Republican – generally by landslide margins – as they saw the Democratic Party as the “war party” who had forced them into a war they did not wish to fight.[2] Contrariwise, the rest of Middle and West Tennessee who had supported and driven the state's secession was equally fiercely Democratic as it associated the Republicans with Reconstruction.[3] After the disfranchisement of the state's African-American population by a poll tax was largely complete in the 1890s,[4] the Democratic Party was certain of winning statewide elections if united,[5] although unlike the Deep South Republicans would almost always gain thirty to forty percent of the statewide vote from mountain and Highland Rim support. When the Democratic Party was bitterly divided, the Republicans did win the governorship in 1910 and 1912, but did not gain at other levels.

The 1920 election saw a significant but not radical change, whereby by moving into a small number of traditionally Democratic areas in Middle Tennessee[6] and expanding turnout due to the Nineteenth Amendment and powerful isolationist sentiment,[7] the Republican Party was able to capture Tennessee's presidential electoral votes and win the governorship and take three congressional seats in addition to the rock-ribbed GOP First and Second Districts. In 1922 and 1924, with the ebbing of isolationist sympathy and a consequent decline in turnout,[8] the Democratic Party regained Tennessee's governorship and presidential electoral votes.

Scopes Trial and a Catholic Nominated by the Democrats

In 1925, Tennessee gained national prominence due to the “Scopes Monkey Trial” which aimed to outlaw the teaching of evolution in this powerfully fundamentalist Protestant state with a strong Ku Klux Klan,[9] and a populace extremely hostile to the Catholic faith of most urban immigrants.[10]

However, with most other Democrats sitting the 1928 election out due to the prevailing prosperity,[11] the nomination of Catholic New York Governor Al Smith was always a foregone conclusion from the beginning of the election campaign. Once Smith was nominated – despite his attempt to dispel fears by nominating "dry" Southern Democrat Joseph T. Robinson as his running mate[12] – extreme fear ensued in the South, which had no experience of the Southern and Eastern European Catholic immigrants who were Smith's local constituency. Southern fundamentalist Protestants believed that Smith would allow papal and priestly leadership in the United States, which Protestantism was a reaction against.[13]

Nevertheless, fear that the Republicans would place the heavily black regions of West Tennessee under the influence of “Negro bossism” and possible abolition of lynching meant that whites in the far western region remained all along extremely loyal to Smith[14] although in East Tennessee where many communities had become sundown towns or counties[15] it was believed that Smith was unacceptable because the Catholic Church officially opposed social and political segregation of the races.[16]

Vote

Early in the campaign, Tennessee was seen as a “puzzle” for political pundits, and the state was viewed as “doubtful”.[17] Smith made a major battleground of Tennessee in his October campaign after Republican nominee Herbert Hoover visited earlier in the month and was confident of carrying the Volunteer State,[18] criticising Hoover's campaign as “vague”.[19]

By the beginning of November it was thought by pollsters that Smith would carry the state,[20] but as it turned out the state's votes went quite clearly to Hoover, despite the powerful Democratic loyalty of whites in West Tennessee.[14] Hoover benefitted from a substantial Republican trend in normally rock-ribbed Democratic but heavily white counties of Middle Tennessee. Although Hoover managed to flip only Houston County – where he was the only Republican victor until Mitt Romney in 2012[21] – and heavily populated Davidson and “Little Confederacy” Sullivan Counties where he was the first Republican victor since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868,[21] due to a powerful Prohibitionist anti-Catholic vote he gained very strongly compared to Coolidge's 1924 showing in many white counties that remained Democratic,[22] and this added to the mountain and Highland Rim GOP vote ensured Hoover won the state.

This would be the best Republican performance in Tennessee between Grant's 36.85% 1868 landslide and Richard Nixon’s carrying the state by 37.95% in 1972.[23]

Results

Presidential Candidate Running Mate Party Electoral Vote (EV) Popular Vote (PV)
Herbert Hoover Charles Curtis Republican 12[24] 195,388 53.76%
Al Smith Joseph Taylor Robinson Democratic 0 167,343[a] 46.04%
Norman Thomas James Maurer Socialist 0 631 0.17%
William Z. Foster Benjamin Gitlow Communist 0 111 0.03%

Results by county

County Herbert Clark Hoover
Republican
Alfred Emmanuel Smith
Democratic
Various candidates
Other parties
Margin Total votes cast[25][b]
# % # % # % # %
Anderson 2,306 81.11% 537 18.89% 0 0.00% 1,769 62.22% 2,843
Bedford 1,405 47.84% 1,532 52.16% 0 0.00% -127 -4.32% 2,937
Benton 949 43.08% 1,241 56.33% 13 0.59% -292 -13.25% 2,203
Bledsoe 899 59.97% 600 40.03% 0 0.00% 299 19.95% 1,499
Blount 4,135 85.17% 715 14.73% 5 0.10% 3,420 70.44% 4,855
Bradley 2,854 75.70% 913 24.22% 3 0.08% 1,941 51.49% 3,770
Campbell 3,007 83.60% 585 16.26% 5 0.14% 2,422 67.33% 3,597
Cannon 588 48.60% 622 51.40% 0 0.00% -34 -2.81% 1,210
Carroll 2,987 62.87% 1,743 36.69% 21 0.44% 1,244 26.18% 4,751
Carter 4,934 90.37% 512 9.38% 14 0.26% 4,422 80.99% 5,460
Cheatham 488 34.78% 913 65.07% 2 0.14% -425 -30.29% 1,403
Chester 588 44.44% 735 55.56% 0 0.00% -147 -11.11% 1,323
Claiborne 2,565 67.68% 1,225 32.32% 0 0.00% 1,340 35.36% 3,790
Clay 556 49.03% 576 50.79% 2 0.18% -20 -1.76% 1,134
Cocke 2,909 80.05% 722 19.87% 3 0.08% 2,187 60.18% 3,634
Coffee 1,126 48.72% 1,175 50.84% 10 0.43% -49 -2.12% 2,311
Crockett 710 48.66% 749 51.34% 0 0.00% -39 -2.67% 1,459
Cumberland 1,188 70.09% 507 29.91% 0 0.00% 681 40.18% 1,695
Davidson 15,359 53.26% 13,453 46.65% 27 0.09% 1,906 6.61% 28,839
Decatur 748 47.95% 812 52.05% 0 0.00% -64 -4.10% 1,560
DeKalb 2,261 57.23% 1,690 42.77% 0 0.00% 571 14.45% 3,951
Dickson 891 38.42% 1,428 61.58% 0 0.00% -537 -23.16% 2,319
Dyer 842 24.04% 2,661 75.96% 0 0.00% -1,819 -51.93% 3,503
Fayette 122 9.98% 1,100 90.02% 0 0.00% -978 -80.03% 1,222
Fentress 1,399 78.07% 375 20.93% 18 1.00% 1,024 57.14% 1,792
Franklin 928 35.26% 1,698 64.51% 6 0.23% -770 -29.26% 2,632
Gibson 1,372 31.97% 2,911 67.84% 8 0.19% -1,539 -35.87% 4,291
Giles 1,032 27.94% 2,661 72.06% 0 0.00% -1,629 -44.11% 3,693
Grainger 1,464 75.39% 466 24.00% 12 0.62% 998 51.39% 1,942
Greene 3,599 61.04% 2,297 38.96% 0 0.00% 1,302 22.08% 5,896
Grundy 380 38.31% 608 61.29% 4 0.40% -228 -22.98% 992
Hamblen 1,902 59.96% 1,270 40.04% 0 0.00% 632 19.92% 3,172
Hamilton 13,244 64.49% 7,190 35.01% 103 0.50% 6,054 29.48% 20,537
Hancock 1,039 82.79% 216 17.21% 0 0.00% 823 65.58% 1,255
Hardeman 491 25.05% 1,459 74.44% 10 0.51% -968 -49.39% 1,960
Hardin 1,585 68.88% 709 30.81% 7 0.30% 876 38.07% 2,301
Hawkins 2,969 71.28% 1,190 28.57% 6 0.14% 1,779 42.71% 4,165
Haywood 178 8.08% 2,024 91.92% 0 0.00% -1,846 -83.83% 2,202
Henderson 2,005 72.86% 714 25.94% 33 1.20% 1,291 46.91% 2,752
Henry 1,041 28.04% 2,667 71.83% 5 0.13% -1,626 -43.79% 3,713
Hickman 511 32.97% 1,039 67.03% 0 0.00% -528 -34.06% 1,550
Houston 374 59.18% 258 40.82% 0 0.00% 116 18.35% 632
Humphreys 441 36.21% 771 63.30% 6 0.49% -330 -27.09% 1,218
Jackson 617 42.14% 832 56.83% 15 1.02% -215 -14.69% 1,464
Jefferson 2,582 85.53% 437 14.47% 0 0.00% 2,145 71.05% 3,019
Johnson 3,057 93.74% 196 6.01% 8 0.25% 2,861 87.73% 3,261
Knox 14,627 71.57% 5,767 28.22% 44 0.22% 8,860 43.35% 20,438
Lake 166 14.74% 960 85.26% 0 0.00% -794 -70.52% 1,126
Lauderdale 430 13.32% 2,798 86.68% 0 0.00% -2,368 -73.36% 3,228
Lawrence 3,581 56.19% 2,780 43.62% 12 0.19% 801 12.57% 6,373
Lewis 269 39.39% 414 60.61% 0 0.00% -145 -21.23% 683
Lincoln 743 23.76% 2,377 76.02% 7 0.22% -1,634 -52.25% 3,127
Loudon 2,128 78.26% 590 21.70% 1 0.04% 1,538 56.56% 2,719
Macon 1,937 82.22% 419 17.78% 0 0.00% 1,518 64.43% 2,356
Madison 1,894 34.62% 3,577 65.38% 0 0.00% -1,683 -30.76% 5,471
Marion 1,659 58.83% 1,161 41.17% 0 0.00% 498 17.66% 2,820
Marshall 735 31.69% 1,584 68.31% 0 0.00% -849 -36.61% 2,319
Maury 1,362 27.16% 3,652 72.84% 0 0.00% -2,290 -45.67% 5,014
McMinn 4,440 68.51% 2,025 31.25% 16 0.25% 2,415 37.26% 6,481
McNairy 2,326 65.80% 1,209 34.20% 0 0.00% 1,117 31.60% 3,535
Meigs 722 55.07% 589 44.93% 0 0.00% 133 10.14% 1,311
Monroe 3,312 61.99% 2,031 38.01% 0 0.00% 1,281 23.98% 5,343
Montgomery 1,748 48.34% 1,868 51.66% 0 0.00% -120 -3.32% 3,616
Moore 133 23.29% 431 75.48% 7 1.23% -298 -52.19% 571
Morgan 1,487 76.93% 446 23.07% 0 0.00% 1,041 53.85% 1,933
Obion 789 24.05% 2,492 75.95% 0 0.00% -1,703 -51.90% 3,281
Overton 1,195 51.80% 1,105 47.90% 7 0.30% 90 3.90% 2,307
Perry 360 36.66% 622 63.34% 0 0.00% -262 -26.68% 982
Pickett 745 65.64% 383 33.74% 7 0.62% 362 31.89% 1,135
Polk 1,760 63.22% 1,012 36.35% 12 0.43% 748 26.87% 2,784
Putnam 1,612 42.91% 2,145 57.09% 0 0.00% -533 -14.19% 3,757
Rhea 1,588 65.24% 846 34.76% 0 0.00% 742 30.48% 2,434
Roane 2,971 79.14% 761 20.27% 22 0.59% 2,210 58.87% 3,754
Robertson 848 35.30% 1,543 64.24% 11 0.46% -695 -28.93% 2,402
Rutherford 1,429 40.32% 2,115 59.68% 0 0.00% -686 -19.36% 3,544
Scott 2,700 91.59% 244 8.28% 4 0.14% 2,456 83.31% 2,948
Sequatchie 298 43.76% 383 56.24% 0 0.00% -85 -12.48% 681
Sevier 3,874 92.57% 308 7.36% 3 0.07% 3,566 85.21% 4,185
Shelby 11,969 39.76% 18,040 59.93% 92 0.31% -6,071 -20.17% 30,101
Smith 1,150 44.13% 1,446 55.49% 10 0.38% -296 -11.36% 2,606
Stewart 403 24.28% 1,257 75.72% 0 0.00% -854 -51.45% 1,660
Sullivan 4,151 56.35% 3,216 43.65% 0 0.00% 935 12.69% 7,367
Sumner 1,045 29.12% 2,541 70.80% 3 0.08% -1,496 -41.68% 3,589
Tipton 425 18.25% 1,889 81.11% 15 0.64% -1,464 -62.86% 2,329
Trousdale 179 22.74% 607 77.13% 1 0.13% -428 -54.38% 787
Unicoi 2,044 84.22% 376 15.49% 7 0.29% 1,668 68.73% 2,427
Union 1,826 83.30% 360 16.42% 6 0.27% 1,466 66.88% 2,192
Van Buren 257 49.71% 260 50.29% 0 0.00% -3 -0.58% 517
Warren 923 45.13% 1,112 54.38% 10 0.49% -189 -9.24% 2,045
Washington 4,889 75.99% 1,545 24.01% 0 0.00% 3,344 51.97% 6,434
Wayne 1,756 81.71% 382 17.78% 11 0.51% 1,374 63.94% 2,149
Weakley 1,358 35.25% 2,495 64.75% 0 0.00% -1,137 -29.51% 3,853
White 776 43.16% 1,022 56.84% 0 0.00% -246 -13.68% 1,798
Williamson 693 30.20% 1,595 69.50% 7 0.31% -902 -39.30% 2,295
Wilson 1,049 39.17% 1,629 60.83% 0 0.00% -580 -21.66% 2,678
Totals 195,388 55.32% 157,143[a] 44.49% 661 0.19% 38,245 10.83% 353,192

Notes

  1. ^ a b This total is 10,200 votes greater than that from America at the Polls.
  2. ^ The figures for Smith differ from those in Dave Leip’s Atlas.

References

  1. ^ Wright, John K.; ‘Voting Habits in the United States: A Note on Two Maps’; Geographical Review, vol. 22, no. 4 (October 1932), pp. 666-672
  2. ^ Key (Jr.), Valdimer Orlando; Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York, 1949), pp. 282-283
  3. ^ Lyons, William; Scheb (II), John M. and Stair Billy; Government and Politics in Tennessee, pp. 183-184 ISBN 1572331410
  4. ^ Phillips, Kevin P.; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 208, 210 ISBN 9780691163246
  5. ^ Grantham, Dewey W.; ‘Tennessee and Twentieth-Century American Politics’; Tennessee Historical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Fall 1995), pp. 210-229
  6. ^ Reichard, Gary W.; ‘The Aberration of 1920: An Analysis of Harding's Victory in Tennessee’; The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (February 1970), pp. 33-49
  7. ^ Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 211
  8. ^ Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 287
  9. ^ Larson, Edward J.; Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion ISBN 9780465075102
  10. ^ Whitfield, Stephen J.; ‘“One Nation Under God”: The Rise of the Religious Right’; The Virginia Quarterly Review, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Autumn 1982), pp. 557-574
  11. ^ Warren, Kenneth F.; Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior: A-M, Volume 1, p. 620 ISBN 1412954894
  12. ^ Nelson, Michael (1991); Historic documents on presidential elections, 1787-1988, p. 296
  13. ^ Whisenhunt, Donald W.; President Herbert Hoover, p. 69 ISBN 1600214762
  14. ^ a b McCarthy, G. Michael; ‘Smith v Hoover – The Politics of Race in West Tennessee’; Phylon, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2nd Quarter, 1978), pp. 154-168
  15. ^ Loewen, James A.; Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism, pp. 72-74 ISBN 0743294483
  16. ^ Moore, Edmund A. A Catholic Runs For President (New York, 1956) p. 157
  17. ^ ‘Tennessee a Puzzle in Political Trend: Wide Organization of Women's Hoover Clubs Is Big Factor in Situation’; New York Times, September 24, 1928, p. 3
  18. ^ ‘Hoover Confident of Southern Gains: Believes Tennessee Speech Has Aided Cause; Passes Quiet Day in Capital’; Washington Post,
  19. ^ ‘Smith Challenges Hoover to State Views Clearly; Gets Tennessee Ovations’; New York Times, October 13, 1928, p. 1
  20. ^ Howland, William S.; ‘Smith Fairly Certain to Win Tennessee: Shift of Entire Woman's Vote Alone May Turn Tide to Hoover’; The Washington Post, November 4, 1928, p. M5
  21. ^ a b Menendez, Albert J.; The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868-2004, pp. 298-303 ISBN 0786422173
  22. ^ Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 212
  23. ^ "Presidential General Election Results Comparison – Tennessee". Dave Leip’s U.S. Ekeciton Atlas.
  24. ^ "1928 Presidential General Election Results – Tennessee". Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas.
  25. ^ Scammon, Richard M. (compiler); America at the Polls: A Handbook of Presidential Election Statistics 1920-1964; pp. 415-416 ISBN 0405077114
This page was last edited on 19 September 2020, at 03:28
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.