1952 United States presidential election in Tennessee explained

See main article: 1952 United States presidential election.

Election Name:	1952 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Country:	Tennessee
Flag Year:	1923
Type:	presidential
Ongoing:	no
Previous Election:	1948 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Previous Year:	1948
Next Election:	1956 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Next Year:	1956
Election Date:	November 4, 1952^[1]
Image1:	Dwight David Eisenhower 1952 crop.jpg
Nominee1:	Dwight D. Eisenhower
Party1:	Republican Party (United States)
Home State1:	New York^[2]
Running Mate1:	Richard Nixon
Electoral Vote1:	11
Popular Vote1:	446,147
Percentage1:	49.99%
Nominee2:	Adlai Stevenson
Party2:	Democratic Party (United States)
Home State2:	Illinois
Running Mate2:	John Sparkman
Electoral Vote2:	0
Popular Vote2:	443,710
Percentage2:	49.71%
Map Size:	350px
President
Before Election:	Harry S. Truman
Before Party:	Democratic Party (United States)
After Election:	Dwight D. Eisenhower
After Party:	Republican Party (United States)

The 1952 United States presidential election in Tennessee took place on November 4, 1952, as part of the 1952 United States presidential election. Tennessee voters chose 11 representatives, or electors, to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.^[3]

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 Western Highland Rim counties of Carroll, Henderson, McNairy, Hardin and Wayne^[4] 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.^[5] 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.^[6] After the disfranchisement of the state’s African-American population by a poll tax was largely complete in the 1890s,^[7] the Democratic Party was certain of winning statewide elections if united,^[8] although unlike the Deep South Republicans would almost always gain thirty to forty percent of the statewide vote from mountain and Highland Rim support.

Between 1896 and 1948, the Republicans would win statewide contests three times but only in the second did they receive down-ballot coattails by winning three congressional seats in addition to the rock-ribbed GOP First and Second Districts.^[9] In the early 1910s, prohibitionist “Independent Democrats” fled the party and formed a coalition, known as the “Fusionists,” with Republicans to elect Ben W. Hooper Governor,^[10] whilst in 1920 the national anti-Wilson and anti-League of Nations tide allowed the GOP to carry a few traditionally Democratic areas in Middle Tennessee and with them the state,^[11] and in 1928 anti-Catholicism against Democratic nominee Al Smith gave this powerfully fundamentalist state to Herbert Hoover.^[12]

After the beginning of the Great Depression, however, for the next third of a century the Republicans would rarely contest statewide offices seriously despite continuing dominance of East Tennessee and half a dozen Unionist counties in the middle and west of the state.^[13] The Crump political machine that dominated state politics for a decade and a half, however, broke down in 1948 after Crump supported Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond but his own subordinates dissented knowing that a Democratic split would hand the state to the Republicans.^[14] Even Crump’s long-time ally Senator Kenneth D. McKellar broke with him,^[15] and a Middle Tennessee liberal, Estes Kefauver, won the state’s Senate seat. In 1949, after a failed effort six years before,^[16] Tennessee would substantially modify its poll tax and entirely abolish it two years later,^[16] largely due to the fact that the Crump machine had “block bought” voters’ poll taxes.^[17]

The abolition of the poll tax would, if not to the same extent as in South Carolina, substantially increase voter turnout in Tennessee. There was also the issue of the substantial Dixiecrat vote from 1948, especially with Thurmond’s endorsement of Republican nominees former Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower and California Senator Richard Nixon.^[18]

Predictions

Source	Ranking	As of
Lansing State Journal^[19]		September 17, 1952
Lubbock Morning Avalanche^[20]		October 24, 1952
The Greeneville Sun^[21]		October 25, 1952
The Modesto Bee^[22]		October 27, 1952
The Commercial Appeal^[23]		October 31, 1952

Results

Results by county

County^[24]	Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican		Adlai Stevenson Democratic		Stuart Hamblen Prohibition		Vincent Hallinan People's		Margin		Total votes cast
		%		%		%		%		%
	Anderson		10,489		53.88%		8,939		45.92%		38		0.20%		0		0.00%		1,550		7.96%		19,466
	Bedford		2,611		37.44%		4,362		62.56%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-1,751		-25.12%		6,973
	Benton		1,304		34.57%		2,452		65.01%		16		0.42%		0		0.00%		-1,148		-30.44%		3,772
	Bledsoe		1,229		50.85%		1,158		47.91%		30		1.24%		0		0.00%		71		2.94%		2,417
	Blount		11,708		69.22%		5,163		30.53%		24		0.14%		18		0.11%		6,545		38.69%		16,913
	Bradley		4,606		63.36%		2,646		36.40%		9		0.12%		8		0.11%		1,960		26.96%		7,269
	Campbell		4,557		65.63%		2,346		33.79%		19		0.27%		21		0.30%		2,211		31.84%		6,943
	Cannon		930		37.97%		1,491		60.88%		6		0.24%		22		0.90%		-561		-22.91%		2,449
	Carroll		3,741		56.46%		2,841		42.88%		23		0.35%		21		0.32%		900		13.58%		6,626
	Carter		9,019		76.15%		2,707		22.86%		118		1.00%		0		0.00%		6,312		53.29%		11,844
	Cheatham		536		19.31%		2,222		80.04%		5		0.18%		13		0.47%		-1,686		-60.73%		2,776
	Chester		1,674		53.01%		1,484		46.99%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		190		6.02%		3,158
	Claiborne		3,221		59.62%		2,182		40.38%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		1,039		19.24%		5,403
	Clay		842		46.24%		968		53.16%		11		0.60%		0		0.00%		-126		-6.92%		1,821
	Cocke		5,688		82.02%		1,247		17.98%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		4,441		64.04%		6,935
	Coffee		2,110		37.25%		3,537		62.44%		7		0.12%		11		0.19%		-1,427		-25.19%		5,665
	Crockett		1,343		38.27%		2,155		61.41%		7		0.20%		4		0.11%		-812		-23.14%		3,509
	Cumberland		3,282		59.75%		2,059		37.48%		81		1.47%		71		1.29%		1,223		22.27%		5,493
	Davidson		35,916		40.99%		51,562		58.84%		81		0.09%		71		0.08%		-15,646		-17.85%		87,630
	Decatur		1,406		45.35%		1,681		54.23%		13		0.42%		0		0.00%		-275		-8.88%		3,100
	DeKalb		1,814		48.21%		1,949		51.79%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-135		-3.58%		3,763
	Dickson		1,415		25.22%		4,196		74.78%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-2,781		-49.56%		5,611
	Dyer		3,231		41.30%		4,531		57.92%		61		0.78%		0		0.00%		-1,300		-16.62%		7,823
	Fayette		1,029		46.73%		1,173		53.27%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-144		-6.54%		2,202
	Fentress		2,143		69.65%		934		30.35%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		1,209		39.30%		3,077
	Franklin		2,015		29.48%		4,786		70.03%		29		0.42%		4		0.06%		-2,771		-40.55%		6,834
	Gibson		3,766		35.90%		6,687		63.74%		26		0.25%		12		0.11%		-2,921		-27.84%		10,491
	Giles		1,649		25.98%		4,640		73.11%		29		0.46%		29		0.46%		-2,991		-47.13%		6,347
	Grainger		3,030		76.28%		937		23.59%		2		0.05%		3		0.08%		2,093		52.69%		3,972
	Greene		6,864		64.98%		3,656		34.61%		18		0.17%		25		0.24%		3,208		30.37%		10,563
	Grundy		709		21.47%		2,583		78.23%		7		0.21%		3		0.09%		-1,874		-56.76%		3,302
	Hamblen		5,031		67.19%		2,395		31.98%		62		0.83%		0		0.00%		2,636		35.21%		7,488
	Hamilton		29,681		55.14%		23,832		44.27%		139		0.26%		178		0.33%		5,849		10.87%		53,830
	Hancock		1,830		79.50%		458		19.90%		14		0.61%		0		0.00%		1,372		59.60%		2,302
	Hardeman		1,256		31.17%		2,747		68.18%		8		0.20%		18		0.45%		-1,491		-37.01%		4,029
	Hardin		2,459		59.28%		1,677		40.43%		12		0.29%		0		0.00%		782		18.85%		4,148
	Hawkins		5,295		68.19%		2,404		30.96%		13		0.17%		53		0.68%		2,891		37.23%		7,765
	Haywood		940		27.80%		2,432		71.93%		9		0.27%		0		0.00%		-1,492		-44.13%		3,381
	Henderson		3,317		67.45%		1,601		32.55%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		1,716		34.90%		4,918
	Henry		2,421		29.77%		5,677		69.81%		12		0.15%		22		0.27%		-3,256		-40.04%		8,132
	Hickman		1,044		28.38%		2,625		71.35%		4		0.11%		6		0.16%		-1,581		-42.97%		3,679
	Houston		465		27.45%		1,229		72.55%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-764		-45.10%		1,694
	Humphreys		898		25.16%		2,670		74.81%		1		0.03%		0		0.00%		-1,772		-49.65%		3,569
	Jackson		1,138		40.25%		1,686		59.64%		3		0.11%		0		0.00%		-548		-19.39%		2,827
	Jefferson		4,622		78.87%		1,228		20.96%		9		0.15%		1		0.02%		3,394		57.91%		5,860
	Johnson		3,590		87.65%		506		12.35%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		3,084		75.30%		4,096
	Knox		44,358		62.32%		26,681		37.48%		113		0.16%		26		0.04%		17,677		24.84%		71,178
	Lake		487		24.66%		1,475		74.68%		6		0.30%		7		0.35%		-988		-50.02%		1,975
	Lauderdale		1,390		24.26%		4,340		75.74%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-2,950		-51.48%		5,730
	Lawrence		4,561		51.07%		4,299		48.14%		71		0.79%		0		0.00%		262		2.93%		8,931
	Lewis		540		29.05%		1,308		70.36%		11		0.59%		0		0.00%		-768		-41.31%		1,859
	Lincoln		1,654		26.78%		4,510		73.01%		8		0.13%		5		0.08%		-2,856		-46.23%		6,177
	Loudon		4,311		66.52%		2,138		32.99%		17		0.26%		15		0.23%		2,173		33.53%		6,481
	Macon		2,602		69.20%		1,158		30.80%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		1,444		38.40%		3,760
	Madison		7,243		45.50%		8,623		54.17%		30		0.19%		23		0.14%		-1,380		-8.67%		15,919
	Marion		2,227		42.91%		2,938		56.61%		12		0.23%		13		0.25%		-711		-13.70%		5,190
	Marshall		1,525		28.44%		3,837		71.56%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-2,312		-43.12%		5,362
	Maury		3,582		32.58%		7,377		67.09%		36		0.33%		0		0.00%		-3,795		-34.51%		10,995
	McMinn		5,778		62.39%		3,440		37.15%		18		0.19%		25		0.27%		2,338		25.24%		9,261
	McNairy		3,426		55.94%		2,698		44.06%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		728		11.88%		6,124
	Meigs		850		52.31%		754		46.40%		2		0.12%		19		1.17%		96		5.91%		1,625
	Monroe		4,581		55.11%		3,693		44.42%		39		0.47%		0		0.00%		888		10.69%		8,313
	Montgomery		2,573		30.78%		5,759		68.90%		17		0.20%		10		0.12%		-3,186		-38.12%		8,359
	Moore		354		30.00%		826		70.00%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-472		-40.00%		1,180
	Morgan		2,565		63.22%		1,492		36.78%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		1,073		26.44%		4,057
	Obion		2,682		36.51%		4,623		62.94%		32		0.44%		8		0.11%		-1,941		-26.43%		7,345
	Overton		1,453		39.47%		2,209		60.01%		6		0.16%		13		0.35%		-756		-20.54%		3,681
	Perry		762		39.00%		1,192		61.00%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-430		-22.00%		1,954
	Pickett		1,003		64.71%		547		35.29%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		456		29.42%		1,550
	Polk		2,283		55.63%		1,821		44.37%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		462		11.26%		4,104
	Putnam		3,183		43.73%		4,096		56.27%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-913		-12.54%		7,279
	Rhea		2,520		54.46%		2,090		45.17%		14		0.30%		3		0.06%		430		9.29%		4,627
	Roane		5,583		60.13%		3,702		39.87%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		1,881		20.26%		9,285
	Robertson		1,834		26.59%		5,063		73.41%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-3,229		-46.82%		6,897
	Rutherford		3,196		31.77%		6,793		67.52%		24		0.24%		48		0.48%		-3,597		-35.75%		10,061
	Scott		3,274		73.82%		1,161		26.18%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		2,113		47.64%		4,435
	Sequatchie		535		37.57%		882		61.94%		7		0.49%		0		0.00%		-347		-24.37%		1,424
	Sevier		7,244		87.17%		1,066		12.83%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		6,178		74.34%		8,310
	Shelby		65,170		47.53%		71,779		52.36%		112		0.08%		36		0.03%		-6,609		-4.83%		137,099
	Smith		1,412		34.80%		2,622		64.61%		15		0.37%		9		0.22%		-1,210		-29.81%		4,058
	Stewart		641		22.71%		2,170		76.87%		1		0.04%		11		0.39%		-1,529		-54.16%		2,823
	Sullivan		15,596		56.58%		11,849		42.99%		71		0.26%		47		0.17%		3,747		13.59%		27,563
	Sumner		2,233		28.10%		5,674		71.40%		40		0.50%		0		0.00%		-3,441		-43.30%		7,947
	Tipton		1,312		19.54%		5,351		79.68%		34		0.51%		19		0.28%		-4,039		-60.14%		6,716
	Trousdale		261		17.43%		1,236		82.57%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-975		-65.14%		1,497
	Unicoi		3,453		74.81%		1,163		25.19%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		2,290		49.62%		4,616
	Union		2,087		75.78%		667		24.22%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		1,420		51.56%		2,754
	Van Buren		393		36.12%		674		61.95%		10		0.92%		11		1.01%		-281		-25.83%		1,088
	Warren		1,912		34.68%		3,568		64.72%		21		0.38%		12		0.22%		-1,656		-30.04%		5,513
	Washington		12,023		69.31%		5,245		30.24%		43		0.25%		36		0.21%		6,778		39.07%		17,347
	Wayne		2,439		70.63%		1,008		29.19%		4		0.12%		2		0.06%		1,431		41.44%		3,453
	Weakley		3,043		41.83%		4,198		57.70%		34		0.47%		0		0.00%		-1,155		-15.87%		7,275
	White		1,374		37.00%		2,319		62.44%		13		0.35%		8		0.22%		-945		-25.44%		3,714
	Williamson		2,326		36.17%		4,085		63.53%		19		0.30%		0		0.00%		-1,759		-27.36%		6,430
	Wilson		2,449		32.57%		5,070		67.43%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		-2,621		-34.86%		7,519
Totals	446,147	49.99%	443,710	49.71%	1,432	0.16%	885	0.10%	2,437	0.28%	892,553

Analysis

Despite expectations that Democratic nominees Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson II and running mate Alabama Senator John Sparkman had a slightly better chance of carrying the state, Tennessee would be won by Eisenhower with 49.99 percent of the popular vote, against Stevenson’s 49.71 percent. Eisenhower’s 0.28 percentage point victory was the first of three consecutive Republican victories in the state, as Tennessee would not vote Democratic again until Lyndon B. Johnson’s landslide victory in 1964. The result deviated little from long-established partisan patterns, with Chester County — where Eisenhower was the first-ever Republican victor^[25] – the only county Eisenhower carried that neither Harding nor Hoover won. Nonetheless, whereas Harding’s and Hoover’s victories were based upon gains in Middle Tennessee, gains in the pro-Dixiecrat cotton counties of West Tennessee were most critical for Eisenhower: fifteen of the top twenty-four Thurmond counties were also amongst the top twenty-four in terms of Democratic loss since 1936.^[26]

Notes and References

1. Web site: United States Presidential election of 1952 — Encyclopædia Britannica. July 25, 2017.
2. Web site: U.S. presidential election, 1952 . Facts on File . October 24, 2013 . Eisenhower, born in Texas, considered a resident of New York, and headquartered at the time in Paris, finally decided to run for the Republican nomination . https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195323/http://www.fofweb.com/History/HistRefMain.asp?iPin=EAPPE0334&SID=2&DatabaseName=American+History+Online&InputText=%22presidential+election+1952%22&SearchStyle=&dTitle=U.S.+presidential+election%2C+1952&TabRecordType=Subject+Entry&BioCountPass=0&SubCountPass=1&DocCountPass=0&ImgCountPass=0&MapCountPass=0&FedCountPass=&MedCountPass=0&NewsCountPass=0&RecPosition=1&AmericanData=Set . October 29, 2013 . dead .
3. Web site: 1952 Presidential Election Results – Tennessee. Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas.
4. Wright. John K.. Voting Habits in the United States: A Note on Two Maps. Geographical Review. 22. 4. October 1932. 666–672.
5. [Valdimer Orlando Key|Key (Jr.), Valdimer Orlando]
6. Book: Lyons. William. Scheb (II). John M.. Stair. Billy. Government and Politics in Tennessee. 183–184. 1572331410.
7. [Kevin Phillips (political commentator)|Phillips, Kevin P.]
8. Grantham. Dewey W.. Tennessee and Twentieth-Century American Politics. Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 54. 3. Fall 1995. 210–229.
9. Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 287
10. Book: Langsdon, Phillip. Tennessee: A Political History. Franklin, Tennessee. Hillsboro Press. 2000. 287–295.
11. Reichard. Gary W.. The Aberration of 1920: An Analysis of Harding's Victory in Tennessee. The Journal of Southern History. 36. 1. February 1970. 33–49.
12. Book: Larson, Edward J.. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion. 9780465075102.
13. Book: Majors, William R.. Change and continuity: Tennessee politics since the Civil War. 72. 9780865542099. 1986.
14. Guthrie. Paul Daniel. The Dixiecrat Movement of 1948. 181-182. Bowling Green State University. 144207. 1955.
15. Book: Langsdon, Phillip Royal. Tennessee: A Political History. Franklin, Tennessee. Hillsboro Press. 2000. 336–343. 9781577361251.
16. Book: Ogden, Frederic D.. The poll tax in the South. 193. 1958. University of Alabama Press.
17. Ogden, The poll tax in the South, pp. 97-99
18. Book: Mayer, Michael S.. The Eisenhower Years. 767. 1438119089.
19. News: Cornell. Douglas B.. September 17, 1952. Ike Given 50–50 Chance To Break into Solid South. 7, 16. Lansing State Journal. Lansing, Michigan.
20. News: Cornell. Douglas B.. Most Southern States Continue to Back Demos Despite Sizeable Republican Inroads — GOP Has Even Chance to Carry Virginia, Texas, Florida. Lubbock Morning Avalanche. Lubbock, Texas. 1952-10-24. 11.
21. News: October 25, 1952 . US Poll Shows — Eisenhower Leading Stevenson in Electoral Votes, but Governor Has More States in His Column. 1, 8. The Greeneville Sun. Greeneville, Tennessee. Princeton Research Service.
22. News: October 27, 1952. NY Times Survey Indicates Close Election Tuesday. 8. The Modesto Bee. Modesto, California.
23. News: The Importance of You. The Commercial Appeal. Memphis, Tennessee. 1952-10-31. 6.
24. Web site: Our Campaigns. TN US President, November 04, 1952.
25. Book: Menendez, Albert J.. The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868-2004. 298–303. 2005. 0786422173.
26. Strong. Donald S.. The Presidential Election in the South, 1952. The Journal of Politics. August 1955. 17. 3. 343–389. The University of Chicago Press.