1928 United States presidential election in Tennessee explained

See main article: 1928 United States presidential election.

Election Name:	1928 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Country:	Tennessee
Type:	presidential
Ongoing:	no
Previous Election:	1924 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Previous Year:	1924
Next Election:	1932 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Next Year:	1932
Votes For Election:	All 12 Tennessee votes to the Electoral College
Election Date:	November 6, 1928
Image1:	Herbert Hoover - NARA - 532049.jpg
Nominee1:	Herbert Hoover
Party1:	Republican Party (United States)
Home State1:	California
Running Mate1:	Charles Curtis
Electoral Vote1:	12
Popular Vote1:	195,388
Percentage1:	53.76%
Nominee2:	Al Smith
Party2:	Democratic Party (United States)
Home State2:	New York
Running Mate2:	Joseph Taylor Robinson
Electoral Vote2:	0
Popular Vote2:	167,343
Percentage2:	46.04%
Map Size:	350px
President
Before Election:	Calvin Coolidge
Before Party:	Republican Party (United States)
After Election:	Herbert Hoover
After Party:	Republican Party (United States)

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.

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.

Early in the campaign, Tennessee was seen as a "puzzle" for political pundits, and the state was viewed as "doubtful".^[9] 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 Tennessee,^[10] criticising Hoover's campaign as "vague".^[11]

By the beginning of November it was thought by pollsters that Smith would carry the state,^[12] but as it turned out the state's votes went quite clearly to Hoover, despite the powerful Democratic loyalty of whites in West Tennessee. 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^[13] – and heavily populated Davidson and "Little Confederacy" Sullivan Counties where he was the first Republican victor since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868,^[13] 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,^[14] 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.^[15] Tennessee would not vote Republican again until Dwight Eisenhower narrowly won the state in 1952.

Results

Presidential Candidate	Running Mate	Party	Electoral Vote (EV)	Popular Vote (PV)
Herbert Hoover	Charles Curtis	Republican	12^[16]	195,388	53.76%
Al Smith	Joseph Taylor Robinson	Democratic	0	167,343	46.04%
Norman Thomas	James Maurer	Socialist	0	631	0.17%
William Z. Foster	Benjamin Gitlow	Communist	0	111	0.03%

Results by county

1928 United States presidential election in Tennessee by county^[17]
County	Herbert Clark Hoover Republican		Alfred Emmanuel Smith Democratic		Various candidates Other parties		Margin		Total votes cast
		%		%		%		%
	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	44.49%	661	0.19%	38,245	10.83%	353,192

Analysis

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,^[18] and a populace extremely hostile to the Catholic faith of most urban immigrants.^[19]

However, with most other Democrats sitting the 1928 election out due to the prevailing prosperity,^[20] 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^[21] – 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.^[22]

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^[23] although in East Tennessee where many communities had become sundown towns or counties^[24] it was believed that Smith was unacceptable because the Catholic Church officially opposed social and political segregation of the races.^[25]

Notes and 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. [Valdimer Orlando Key|Key (Jr.), Valdimer Orlando]
3. Lyons, William; Scheb (II), John M. and Stair Billy; Government and Politics in Tennessee, pp. 183-184
4. [Kevin Phillips (political commentator)|Phillips, Kevin P.]
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. 'Tennessee a Puzzle in Political Trend: Wide Organization of Women's Hoover Clubs Is Big Factor in Situation'; The New York Times, September 24, 1928, p. 3
10. 'Hoover Confident of Southern Gains: Believes Tennessee Speech Has Aided Cause; Passes Quiet Day in Capital'; The Washington Post,
11. 'Smith Challenges Hoover to State Views Clearly; Gets Tennessee Ovations'; The New York Times, October 13, 1928, p. 1
12. 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
13. Menendez, Albert J.; The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868-2004, pp. 298-303
14. Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 212
15. Web site: Presidential General Election Results Comparison – Tennessee. Dave Leip's U.S. Ekeciton Atlas.
16. Web site: 1928 Presidential General Election Results – Tennessee. Dave Leip's U.S. Election Atlas.
17. Scammon, Richard M. (compiler); America at the Polls: A Handbook of Presidential Election Statistics 1920-1964; pp. 415-416
18. Larson, Edward J.; Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion
19. 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
20. Warren, Kenneth F.; Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior: A-M, Volume 1, p. 620
21. Nelson, Michael (1991); Historic documents on presidential elections, 1787-1988, p. 296
22. Whisenhunt, Donald W.; President Herbert Hoover, p. 69
23. McCarthy, G. Michael; 'Smith v Hoover – The Politics of Race in West Tennessee'; Phylon, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2nd Quarter, 1978), pp. 154-168
24. Loewen, James A.; Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism, pp. 72-74
25. Moore, Edmund A. A Catholic Runs For President (New York, 1956) p. 157