1956 United States presidential election in Tennessee explained

See main article: 1956 United States presidential election.

Election Name:	1956 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Country:	Tennessee
Type:	presidential
Ongoing:	no
Previous Election:	1952 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Previous Year:	1952
Next Election:	1960 United States presidential election in Tennessee
Next Year:	1960
Election Date:	November 6, 1956^[1]
Image1:	Dwight David Eisenhower 1952 crop.jpg
Nominee1:	Dwight D. Eisenhower
Party1:	Republican Party (United States)
Home State1:	Pennsylvania
Running Mate1:	Richard Nixon
Electoral Vote1:	11
Popular Vote1:	462,288
Percentage1:	49.21%
Nominee2:	Adlai Stevenson
Party2:	Democratic Party (United States)
Home State2:	Illinois
Running Mate2:	Estes Kefauver
Electoral Vote2:	0
Popular Vote2:	456,507
Percentage2:	48.60%
Map Size:	350px
President
Before Election:	Dwight D. Eisenhower
Before Party:	Republican Party (United States)
After Election:	Dwight D. Eisenhower
After Party:	Republican Party (United States)

The 1956 United States presidential election in Tennessee took place on November 6, 1956, as part of the 1956 United States presidential election. Tennessee voters chose eleven^[2] representatives, or electors, to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.

Incumbent Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower narrowly carried the state over Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson, becoming the first Republican nominee ever to carry the state more than once.

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 Western Highland Rim counties of Carroll, Henderson, McNairy, Hardin, and Wayne^[3] 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.^[4] 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.^[5] After the disfranchisement of the state's African-American population by a poll tax was largely complete in the 1890s,^[6] the Democratic Party was certain of winning statewide elections if united,^[7] 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 amiss the national anti-Wilson tide of 1920^[8] did they receive down-ballot coattails by winning three congressional seats in addition to the rock-ribbed GOP First and Second Districts.^[9] 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.^[10] State GOP leader B. Carroll Reece is widely believed to have had agreements with E. H. Crump and later Frank G. Clement and Buford Ellington that Republicans would not contest offices statewide or outside their traditional pro-Union areas.^[11] The Crump machine would abruptly fall in 1948 after its leader supported Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond but his own subordinates dissented knowing that a Democratic split would hand the state to the Republicans:^[12] even Crump’s long-time ally Senator Kenneth D. McKellar broke with him,^[13] and a Middle Tennessee liberal, Estes Kefauver, won Tennessee's other Senate seat in 1948. In 1949, after a failed effort six years before,^[14] Tennessee would substantially modify its poll tax and entirely abolish it two years later,^[14] largely due to the fact that the Crump machine had “block bought” voters’ poll taxes.^[15]

Only eight years later, Kefauver would be on the ballot in Tennessee as the Democrats' candidate for Vice President in this election.

Predictions

Source	Ranking	As of
Chattanooga Daily Times		September 19, 1956
Spokane Chronicle^[16]		October 16, 1956

Statewide results

Results by county

County^[17]	Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican		Adlai Stevenson Democratic		T. Coleman Andrews States’ Rights		Enoch Holtwick Prohibition		Margin		Total votes cast
		%		%		%		%		%
	Anderson		11,071		52.42%		9,368		44.35%		682		3.23%		0		0.00%		1,703		8.07%		21,121
	Bedford		2,258		33.08%		4,517		66.18%		50		0.73%		0		0.00%		-2,259		-33.10%		6,825
	Benton		1,279		36.22%		2,231		63.18%		21		0.59%		0		0.00%		-952		-26.96%		3,531
	Bledsoe		1,429		56.57%		1,079		42.72%		18		0.71%		0		0.00%		350		13.85%		2,526
	Blount		12,667		70.90%		5,076		28.41%		113		0.63%		11		0.06%		7,591		42.49%		17,867
	Bradley		6,247		65.00%		3,225		33.56%		139		1.45%		0		0.00%		3,022		31.44%		9,611
	Campbell		5,065		64.78%		2,628		33.61%		126		1.61%		0		0.00%		2,437		31.17%		7,819
	Cannon		919		37.13%		1,547		62.51%		9		0.36%		0		0.00%		-628		-25.38%		2,475
	Carroll		4,235		55.80%		3,232		42.58%		123		1.62%		0		0.00%		1,003		13.22%		7,590
	Carter		11,218		78.80%		2,933		20.60%		85		0.60%		0		0.00%		8,285		58.20%		14,236
	Cheatham		498		17.72%		2,297		81.71%		11		0.39%		5		0.18%		-1,799		-63.99%		2,811
	Chester		1,460		48.85%		1,495		50.02%		32		1.07%		2		0.07%		-35		-1.17%		2,989
	Claiborne		3,377		62.21%		1,973		36.35%		34		0.63%		44		0.81%		1,404		25.86%		5,428
	Clay		902		48.31%		948		50.78%		17		0.91%		0		0.00%		-46		-2.47%		1,867
	Cocke		5,526		82.29%		1,121		16.69%		39		0.58%		29		0.43%		4,405		65.60%		6,715
	Coffee		2,389		32.42%		4,930		66.90%		50		0.68%		0		0.00%		-2,541		-34.48%		7,369
	Crockett		1,026		33.02%		1,964		63.21%		105		3.38%		12		0.39%		-938		-30.19%		3,107
	Cumberland		3,200		62.00%		1,925		37.30%		36		0.70%		0		0.00%		1,275		24.70%		5,161
	Davidson		37,077		39.08%		56,822		59.89%		975		1.03%		0		0.00%		-19,745		-20.81%		94,874
	Decatur		1,512		48.76%		1,554		50.11%		35		1.13%		0		0.00%		-42		-1.35%		3,101
	DeKalb		1,690		45.76%		1,982		53.67%		21		0.57%		0		0.00%		-292		-7.91%		3,693
	Dickson		1,247		24.38%		3,799		74.29%		68		1.33%		0		0.00%		-2,552		-49.91%		5,114
	Dyer		2,682		36.21%		4,524		61.08%		201		2.71%		0		0.00%		-1,842		-24.87%		7,407
	Fayette		358		18.19%		639		32.47%		971		49.34%		0		0.00%		-332		-16.87%		1,968
	Fentress		2,233		69.52%		934		29.08%		30		0.93%		15		0.47%		1,299		40.44%		3,212
	Franklin		1,727		26.19%		4,791		72.65%		77		1.17%		0		0.00%		-3,064		-46.46%		6,595
	Gibson		3,481		29.72%		7,884		67.31%		348		2.97%		0		0.00%		-4,403		-37.59%		11,713
	Giles		1,401		22.65%		4,750		76.79%		35		0.57%		0		0.00%		-3,349		-54.14%		6,186
	Grainger		2,497		72.40%		913		26.47%		39		1.13%		0		0.00%		1,584		45.93%		3,449
	Greene		7,396		64.87%		3,949		34.63%		57		0.50%		0		0.00%		3,447		30.24%		11,402
	Grundy		918		30.36%		2,076		68.65%		23		0.76%		7		0.23%		-1,158		-38.29%		3,024
	Hamblen		5,608		67.77%		2,592		31.32%		75		0.91%		0		0.00%		3,016		36.45%		8,275
	Hamilton		34,429		53.11%		28,287		43.63%		2,114		3.26%		0		0.00%		6,142		9.48%		64,830
	Hancock		1,939		83.29%		350		15.03%		26		1.12%		13		0.56%		1,589		68.26%		2,328
	Hardeman		818		24.40%		1,754		52.31%		781		23.29%		0		0.00%		-936		-27.91%		3,353
	Hardin		2,898		61.92%		1,734		37.05%		48		1.03%		0		0.00%		1,164		24.87%		4,680
	Hawkins		6,916		68.04%		3,180		31.29%		37		0.36%		31		0.30%		3,736		36.75%		10,164
	Haywood		516		17.04%		2,217		73.22%		295		9.74%		0		0.00%		-1,701		-56.18%		3,028
	Henderson		3,294		66.91%		1,613		32.76%		16		0.33%		0		0.00%		1,681		34.15%		4,923
	Henry		2,337		28.97%		5,625		69.72%		106		1.31%		0		0.00%		-3,288		-40.75%		8,068
	Hickman		1,040		29.75%		2,439		69.77%		11		0.31%		6		0.17%		-1,399		-40.02%		3,496
	Houston		340		24.55%		1,033		74.58%		8		0.58%		4		0.29%		-693		-50.03%		1,385
	Humphreys		713		19.99%		2,841		79.67%		12		0.34%		0		0.00%		-2,128		-59.68%		3,566
	Jackson		881		33.13%		1,743		65.55%		35		1.32%		0		0.00%		-862		-32.42%		2,659
	Jefferson		4,870		77.63%		1,338		21.33%		65		1.04%		0		0.00%		3,532		56.30%		6,273
	Johnson		3,690		87.44%		503		11.92%		27		0.64%		0		0.00%		3,187		75.52%		4,220
	Knox		46,167		60.09%		29,768		38.74%		800		1.04%		96		0.12%		16,399		21.35%		76,831
	Lake		512		22.80%		1,673		74.49%		61		2.72%		0		0.00%		-1,161		-51.69%		2,246
	Lauderdale		1,049		18.94%		4,383		79.12%		108		1.95%		0		0.00%		-3,334		-60.18%		5,540
	Lawrence		4,588		51.67%		4,227		47.60%		44		0.50%		21		0.24%		361		4.07%		8,880
	Lewis		522		28.16%		1,321		71.25%		11		0.59%		0		0.00%		-799		-43.09%		1,854
	Lincoln		1,207		21.21%		4,434		77.90%		51		0.90%		0		0.00%		-3,227		-56.69%		5,692
	Loudon		4,583		60.91%		2,844		37.80%		75		1.00%		22		0.29%		1,739		23.11%		7,524
	Macon		2,207		66.96%		1,069		32.43%		20		0.61%		0		0.00%		1,138		34.53%		3,296
	Madison		6,642		41.42%		8,540		53.25%		810		5.05%		45		0.28%		-1,898		-11.83%		16,037
	Marion		2,925		50.45%		2,781		47.96%		92		1.59%		0		0.00%		144		2.49%		5,798
	Marshall		1,527		26.58%		4,100		71.37%		94		1.64%		24		0.42%		-2,573		-44.79%		5,745
	Maury		2,853		29.39%		6,662		68.64%		191		1.97%		0		0.00%		-3,809		-39.25%		9,706
	McMinn		6,075		59.83%		3,950		38.90%		93		0.92%		35		0.34%		2,125		20.93%		10,153
	McNairy		3,349		57.37%		2,403		41.16%		86		1.47%		0		0.00%		946		16.21%		5,838
	Meigs		847		51.93%		759		46.54%		21		1.29%		4		0.25%		88		5.39%		1,631
	Monroe		4,998		58.28%		3,511		40.94%		55		0.64%		12		0.14%		1,487		17.34%		8,576
	Montgomery		2,778		25.41%		8,034		73.48%		122		1.12%		0		0.00%		-5,256		-48.07%		10,934
	Moore		270		23.14%		893		76.52%		4		0.34%		0		0.00%		-623		-53.38%		1,167
	Morgan		2,402		62.83%		1,379		36.07%		42		1.10%		0		0.00%		1,023		26.76%		3,823
	Obion		2,349		30.76%		5,185		67.89%		103		1.35%		0		0.00%		-2,836		-37.13%		7,637
	Overton		1,508		38.44%		2,385		60.80%		15		0.38%		15		0.38%		-877		-22.36%		3,923
	Perry		694		39.43%		1,052		59.77%		14		0.80%		0		0.00%		-358		-20.34%		1,760
	Pickett		985		63.30%		560		35.99%		11		0.71%		0		0.00%		425		27.31%		1,556
	Polk		2,136		58.22%		1,533		41.78%		0		0.00%		0		0.00%		603		16.44%		3,669
	Putnam		3,492		43.63%		4,481		55.98%		31		0.39%		0		0.00%		-989		-12.35%		8,004
	Rhea		2,516		55.70%		1,930		42.73%		71		1.57%		0		0.00%		586		12.97%		4,517
	Roane		6,147		56.82%		4,531		41.88%		131		1.21%		9		0.08%		1,616		14.94%		10,818
	Robertson		1,517		23.25%		4,961		76.02%		34		0.52%		14		0.21%		-3,444		-52.77%		6,526
	Rutherford		2,713		29.15%		6,494		69.78%		99		1.06%		0		0.00%		-3,781		-40.63%		9,306
	Scott		3,282		79.10%		842		20.29%		25		0.60%		0		0.00%		2,440		58.81%		4,149
	Sequatchie		683		43.89%		859		55.21%		14		0.90%		0		0.00%		-176		-11.32%		1,556
	Sevier		6,950		86.46%		1,043		12.98%		40		0.50%		5		0.06%		5,907		73.48%		8,038
	Shelby		65,690		48.65%		62,051		45.96%		7,284		5.39%		0		0.00%		3,639		2.69%		135,025
	Smith		1,267		29.96%		2,949		69.73%		8		0.19%		5		0.12%		-1,682		-39.77%		4,229
	Stewart		560		20.77%		2,120		78.64%		16		0.59%		0		0.00%		-1,560		-57.87%		2,696
	Sullivan		18,903		56.42%		14,106		42.10%		206		0.61%		291		0.87%		4,797		14.32%		33,506
	Sumner		2,123		22.28%		7,368		77.34%		36		0.38%		0		0.00%		-5,245		-55.06%		9,527
	Tipton		983		16.26%		4,828		79.87%		234		3.87%		0		0.00%		-3,845		-63.61%		6,045
	Trousdale		209		16.76%		1,032		82.76%		6		0.48%		0		0.00%		-823		-66.00%		1,247
	Unicoi		3,978		77.71%		1,111		21.70%		30		0.59%		0		0.00%		2,867		56.01%		5,119
	Union		2,154		79.69%		535		19.79%		14		0.52%		0		0.00%		1,619		59.90%		2,703
	Van Buren		381		38.45%		602		60.75%		8		0.81%		0		0.00%		-221		-22.30%		991
	Warren		1,954		32.58%		4,014		66.92%		30		0.50%		0		0.00%		-2,060		-34.34%		5,998
	Washington		13,471		71.23%		5,314		28.10%		127		0.67%		0		0.00%		8,157		43.13%		18,912
	Wayne		2,557		70.67%		1,045		28.88%		16		0.44%		0		0.00%		1,512		41.79%		3,618
	Weakley		2,720		36.22%		4,717		62.81%		61		0.81%		12		0.16%		-1,997		-26.59%		7,510
	White		1,346		35.81%		2,378		63.26%		35		0.93%		0		0.00%		-1,032		-27.45%		3,759
	Williamson		1,979		31.86%		4,174		67.20%		58		0.93%		0		0.00%		-2,195		-35.34%		6,211
	Wilson		2,266		30.04%		5,221		69.21%		57		0.76%		0		0.00%		-2,955		-39.17%		7,544
Totals	462,288	49.21%	456,507	48.60%	19,820	2.11%	789	0.08%	5,781	0.61%	939,404

Analysis

In 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower, aided by acquisition of 1948 Dixiecrat votes in West Tennessee cotton counties,^[18] would carry the state for the Republicans by an 0.28 percent margin. Unlike in 1952, neither Eisenhower nor Stevenson visited the state.^[19] For the 1956 presidential election, Senator Kefauver would seek the presidential nomination but was ultimately chosen by second-time Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson II as his running mate. Despite some campaigners writing the state off for the GOP,^[20] Tennessee was won by Eisenhower with 49.21 percent of the popular vote, against Stevenson’s 48.60 percent. This was a slight increase upon Eisenhower’s 1952 margin, due entirely to large gains from 1952 amongst the substantial black electorate of Memphis.

Notes and References

1. Web site: United States Presidential election of 1956 — Encyclopædia Britannica. July 5, 2017.
2. Web site: 1956 Election for the Forty-Fourth Term (1957-61). July 5, 2017.
3. Wright. John K.. Voting Habits in the United States: A Note on Two Maps. Geographical Review. 22. 4. October 1932. 666–672.
4. [Valdimer Orlando Key|Key (Jr.), Valdimer Orlando]
5. Book: Lyons. William. Scheb (II). John M.. Stair. Billy. Government and Politics in Tennessee. 183–184. 1572331410.
6. [Kevin Phillips (political commentator)|Phillips, Kevin P.]
7. Grantham. Dewey W.. Tennessee and Twentieth-Century American Politics. Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 54. 3. Fall 1995. 210–229.
8. 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.
9. Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 287
10. Book: Majors, William R.. Change and continuity: Tennessee politics since the Civil War. 72. 9780865542099. 1986.
11. Book: Vile. John R.. Byrnes. Mark Eaton. Tennessee government and politics: democracy in the volunteer state. 1998. 2–3. 0826513093.
12. Guthrie. Paul Daniel. The Dixiecrat Movement of 1948. 181-182. Bowling Green State University. 144207. 1955.
13. Book: Langsdon, Phillip Royal. Tennessee: A Political History. Franklin, Tennessee. Hillsboro Press. 2000. 336–343. 9781577361251.
14. Book: Ogden, Frederic D.. The poll tax in the South. 193. 1958. University of Alabama Press.
15. Ogden, The poll tax in the South, pp. 97-99
16. News: Edson. Arthur. Eisenhower Popularity in Tennessee Seems to Be Waning. Spokane Chronicle. October 16, 1956. 18.
17. Web site: Our Campaigns. TN US President, November 06, 1956.
18. 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.
19. News: Bartlett. Charles. No Tennessee Visit Planned by Eisenhower, Stevenson. Chattanooga Daily Times. September 19, 1956. 1.
20. News: Dewey Sees Ike Gaining in State. The Knoxville Journal. October 30, 1956. 10.