1928 United States presidential election in North Carolina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1928 United States presidential election in North Carolina

← 1924 November 6, 1928 1932 →
  Herbert Hoover - NARA - 532049.tif AlfredSmith.png
Nominee Herbert Hoover Al Smith
Party Republican Democratic
Home state California New York
Running mate Charles Curtis Joseph T. Robinson
Electoral vote 12 0
Popular vote 348,923 286,227
Percentage 54.94% 45.06%

North Carolina 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 North Carolina was held on November 6, 1928. North Carolina voters chose twelve electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.

Background[edit]

As a former Confederate state, North Carolina had a history of Jim Crow laws, disfranchisement of its African-American population and dominance of the Democratic Party in state politics. However, unlike the Deep South, the Republican Party had sufficient historic Unionist white support from the mountains and northwestern Piedmont to gain a stable one-third of the statewide vote total in most general elections,[1] where turnout was higher than elsewhere in the former Confederacy due substantially to the state’s early abolition of the poll tax in 1920.[2] Like Virginia, Tennessee and Oklahoma, the relative strength of Republican opposition meant that North Carolina did not have statewide white primaries, although certain counties did use the white primary.[3]

Anti-Catholic and Prohibitionist fear[edit]

With all other prominent Democrats sitting the election out,[4] the party nominated Alfred E. Smith, four-term Governor of New York as its nominee for 1928, with little opposition. The response in the South was one of anger, because Smith was a devout Catholic, opposed to Prohibition, linked with New York City's Tammany Hall political machine, and the son of Irish and Italian immigrants. Whilst it is generally thought that the South would have accepted a man possessing one of those characteristics,[5] the combination proved a bitter dose for many of North Carolina's loyal Democrats. Bishop James M. Cannon summoned a meeting of church leaders in Asheville on July 18 to

organize for the “defeat of the wet Tammany candidate for president”[6]

At this Asheville assembly Bishop Horace DuBose said that Smith’s candidacy posed

the greatest moral crisis in the nation's history and perhaps in the history of mankind.[6]

The loyalties of the state Democratic Party – less factionalized than other southern parties because of the consistent Republican opposition[7] – became further strained when long-serving Senator Furnifold M. Simmons refused to support the New York Governor. He argued firstly that Smith’s nomination would be extremely dangerous because it would produce a “vexatious” campaign unreasonably focused on religion and Prohibition, and secondly that Smith’s followers wanted to eliminate him.[8] With the aid of Frank R. McNich[9] and church leaders, Simmons created the “Anti-Smith Democrats”, who became opposed by other leading Democrats such as Josiah W. Bailey (who would unseat Simmons from his Senate seat) and Josephus Daniels.[8] The state’s press was equally split over Smith, with The Charlotte Observer and Charlotte News especially unwilling to endorse him against Republican nominee, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover.

Vote[edit]

At the beginning of October, polls were suggesting that despite the divide in the state’s Democrats, Smith would carry the state, and he visited Raleigh in mid-October.[10] This prediction of a Smith victory despite Protestant opposition to his Catholicism and his anti-Prohibition views seemed confirmed in the days before the poll.[11] However, with late counting, it became apparent that Smith had lost the state alongside Virginia, Florida and Texas.[12]

Hoover’s victory was due to a combination of anti-Catholicism – at its strongest in the fishing communities of the Outer Banks, where he carried several counties that had gone to John W. Davis in 1924 by four- or five-to-one margins – with increasing middle-class Republican voting in such cities as Charlotte, Durham and Greensboro.[13] Although the state’s Black Belt remained extremely loyal to Smith,[14] this was not enough to come close to holding the state against traditional Appalachian Republicanism alongside urban and Outer Banks trends against him. Overall, Hoover won North Carolina by 9.88 percent, which made it his second-best state in the former Confederacy after Florida, and the only occasion between 1876 and 1964 North Carolina would vote Republican.

As of the 2016 presidential election, this is the last election in which Orange County voted for a Republican presidential candidate.[15]

Results[edit]

1928 United States presidential election in North Carolina[16]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Herbert Hoover 348,923 54.94%
Democratic Al Smith 286,227 45.06%
Total votes 635,150 100%

Results by county[edit]

County Herbert Clark Hoover[17]
Republican
Alfred Emmanuel Smith[17]
Democratic
Margin
% # % # % #
Avery 89.35% 3,273 10.65% 390 78.71% 2,883
Yadkin 83.60% 3,878 16.40% 761 67.19% 3,117
Madison 81.38% 4,776 18.62% 1,093 62.75% 3,683
Mitchell 80.60% 3,436 19.40% 827 61.20% 2,609
Wilkes 73.59% 7,808 26.41% 2,802 47.18% 5,006
Davie 73.17% 2,959 26.83% 1,085 46.34% 1,874
Sampson 70.94% 5,579 29.06% 2,285 41.89% 3,294
Forsyth 66.63% 13,258 33.37% 6,639 33.27% 6,619
Durham 66.06% 8,723 33.94% 4,482 32.12% 4,241
Surry 65.79% 7,015 34.21% 3,647 31.59% 3,368
Stokes 65.61% 3,759 34.39% 1,970 31.23% 1,789
Brunswick 65.48% 1,931 34.52% 1,018 30.96% 913
Caldwell 64.74% 4,207 35.26% 2,291 29.49% 1,916
Burke 63.94% 5,108 36.06% 2,881 27.88% 2,227
Randolph 63.90% 7,414 36.10% 4,188 27.81% 3,226
Davidson 63.19% 8,960 36.81% 5,220 26.38% 3,740
Cherokee 62.89% 3,239 37.11% 1,911 25.79% 1,328
Guilford 62.62% 16,541 37.38% 9,872 25.25% 6,669
Rowan 62.46% 7,957 37.54% 4,783 24.91% 3,174
Henderson 62.33% 5,210 37.67% 3,149 24.66% 2,061
Rockingham 62.08% 5,585 37.92% 3,411 24.17% 2,174
Alamance 61.52% 6,810 38.48% 4,260 23.04% 2,550
New Hanover 60.62% 4,248 39.38% 2,760 21.23% 1,488
Catawba 60.58% 7,556 39.42% 4,916 21.17% 2,640
Stanly 60.51% 4,597 39.49% 3,000 21.02% 1,597
Carteret 60.51% 3,133 39.49% 2,045 21.01% 1,088
Johnston 60.42% 7,696 39.58% 5,041 20.84% 2,655
Alexander 60.20% 2,605 39.80% 1,722 20.41% 883
Gaston 59.14% 9,702 40.86% 6,702 18.29% 3,000
Swain 59.04% 2,484 40.96% 1,723 18.09% 761
Orange 58.77% 2,564 41.23% 1,799 17.53% 765
Rutherford 58.16% 5,762 41.84% 4,146 16.31% 1,616
Iredell 58.12% 6,712 41.88% 4,836 16.25% 1,876
Jones 57.52% 658 42.48% 486 15.03% 172
Lincoln 57.43% 3,930 42.57% 2,913 14.86% 1,017
Cabarrus 57.35% 6,548 42.65% 4,869 14.71% 1,679
Buncombe 57.22% 16,590 42.78% 12,405 14.43% 4,185
Harnett 57.15% 4,740 42.85% 3,554 14.30% 1,186
Macon 56.99% 2,903 43.01% 2,191 13.98% 712
Washington 56.85% 1,183 43.15% 898 13.70% 285
Montgomery 56.82% 2,653 43.18% 2,016 13.64% 637
Graham 56.68% 1,260 43.32% 963 13.36% 297
Pender 56.57% 1,300 43.43% 998 13.14% 302
Transylvania 55.70% 2,165 44.30% 1,722 11.40% 443
Ashe 55.64% 4,337 44.36% 3,458 11.28% 879
Pamlico 55.59% 1,099 44.41% 878 11.18% 221
Moore 55.49% 3,290 44.51% 2,639 10.98% 651
Mecklenburg 55.41% 12,041 44.59% 9,690 10.82% 2,351
Chatham 55.32% 3,318 44.68% 2,680 10.64% 638
Columbus 55.32% 3,533 44.68% 2,854 10.63% 679
Bladen 55.18% 1,911 44.82% 1,552 10.37% 359
Clay 55.05% 1,106 44.95% 903 10.10% 203
Watauga 54.94% 3,159 45.06% 2,591 9.88% 568
Onslow 53.89% 1,253 46.11% 1,072 7.78% 181
Wayne 53.85% 4,340 46.15% 3,720 7.69% 620
Polk 53.68% 1,873 46.32% 1,616 7.37% 257
Hyde 53.62% 682 46.38% 590 7.23% 92
Jackson 52.55% 3,512 47.45% 3,171 5.10% 341
Duplin 52.37% 2,911 47.63% 2,647 4.75% 264
Yancey 52.27% 2,712 47.73% 2,476 4.55% 236
Cumberland 51.73% 3,534 48.27% 3,297 3.47% 237
Haywood 51.73% 4,472 48.27% 4,173 3.46% 299
Tyrrell 51.53% 505 48.47% 475 3.06% 30
McDowell 49.95% 3,423 50.05% 3,430 -0.10% -7
Perquimans 49.63% 600 50.37% 609 -0.74% -9
Gates 49.38% 558 50.62% 572 -1.24% -14
Cleveland 49.24% 4,766 50.76% 4,914 -1.53% -148
Alleghany 49.17% 1,368 50.83% 1,414 -1.65% -46
Dare 47.97% 814 52.03% 883 -4.07% -69
Person 47.63% 1,123 52.37% 1,235 -4.75% -112
Craven 47.28% 2,237 52.72% 2,494 -5.43% -257
Union 46.29% 2,448 53.71% 2,840 -7.41% -392
Lee 45.23% 1,416 54.77% 1,715 -9.55% -299
Caswell 44.45% 749 55.55% 936 -11.10% -187
Wake 41.84% 6,720 58.16% 9,341 -16.32% -2,621
Beaufort 41.64% 2,521 58.36% 3,533 -16.72% -1,012
Richmond 40.74% 2,045 59.26% 2,975 -18.53% -930
Vance 37.70% 1,449 62.30% 2,395 -24.61% -946
Robeson 36.91% 2,767 63.09% 4,730 -26.18% -1,963
Lenoir 35.68% 1,311 64.32% 2,363 -28.63% -1,052
Wilson 35.35% 1,933 64.65% 3,535 -29.30% -1,602
Nash 32.72% 2,066 67.28% 4,249 -34.57% -2,183
Greene 31.46% 542 68.54% 1,181 -37.09% -639
Pasquotank 29.52% 814 70.48% 1,943 -40.95% -1,129
Camden 28.19% 245 71.81% 624 -43.61% -379
Hertford 27.62% 393 72.38% 1,030 -44.76% -637
Chowan 27.33% 352 72.67% 936 -45.34% -584
Scotland 25.03% 588 74.97% 1,761 -49.94% -1,173
Pitt 23.09% 1,395 76.91% 4,646 -53.82% -3,251
Granville 22.46% 858 77.54% 2,962 -55.08% -2,104
Hoke 21.23% 311 78.77% 1,154 -57.54% -843
Northampton 20.93% 456 79.07% 1,723 -58.15% -1,267
Franklin 20.48% 729 79.52% 2,831 -59.04% -2,102
Anson 19.77% 726 80.23% 2,947 -60.47% -2,221
Edgecombe 18.93% 977 81.07% 4,184 -62.14% -3,207
Bertie 15.75% 374 84.25% 2,000 -68.49% -1,626
Warren 15.69% 379 84.31% 2,037 -68.63% -1,658
Halifax 15.42% 890 84.58% 4,882 -69.16% -3,992
Martin 12.73% 411 87.27% 2,818 -74.54% -2,407
Currituck 11.70% 166 88.30% 1,253 -76.60% -1,087

References[edit]

  1. ^ Phillips, Kevin P.; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 210, 242 ISBN 978-0-691-16324-6
  2. ^ Key, Valdimer Orlando; Southern Politics in State and Nation, p. 502, Alfred A. Knopf (1949)
  3. ^ Klarman, Michael J.; ‘The White Primary Rulings: A Case Study in the Consequences of Supreme Court Decision-Making’; Florida State University Law Review, volume 29 (2001), pp. 55-107
  4. ^ Warren, Kenneth F.; Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior: A-M, Volume 1, p. 620 ISBN 1412954894
  5. ^ Kennedy; David M. and Cohen, Lizabeth; The American Pageant, Volume 2, p. 739 ISBN 1111831432
  6. ^ a b Bauman, Mark K.; ‘Prohibition and Politics: Warren Candler and Al Smith’s 1928 Campaign’; The Mississippi Quarterly, volume 31, no. 1 (Winter 1977–78), pp. 109-117
  7. ^ Grayson, A.G.; ‘North Carolina and Harry Truman, 1944-1948’, Journal of American Studies, volume 9, no. 3 (December 1975), pp. 283-300
  8. ^ a b Watson, Richard L. jr.; ‘A Political Leader Bolts: F.M. Simmons in the Presidential Election of 1928’; North Carolina Historical Review, volume 37, no. 4 (October 1960), pp. 516-543
  9. ^ Oulahan, Richard V.; ‘“Tar Heel” Press Split Over Smith: Some Democratic Papers Follow Senator Simmons – Others Openly Laud Hoover’; Special to The New York Times', September 22, 1928, p. 3
  10. ^ Merrill, Charles; ‘Raleigh Will Give Smith Warm Welcome Today: North Carolina Seems Safe For Governor Unless Simmons Comes Out For Hoover, Says Merrill’; Daily Boston Globe, October 11, 1928, p. 16
  11. ^ ‘State Forecasts Lean to Hoover: Reports From Close States Take View That He Is Stronger Than Smith’; The New York Times, November 4, 1928, p. 33
  12. ^ ‘Hoover’s Plurality 5,000,000, Congress Safely Republican: Late Returns Add to Republican Nominee's Hold On 40 States and Electoral Vote of 444’; Daily Boston Globe, November 8, 1928, p. 1
  13. ^ Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 212-215
  14. ^ Philips, The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 303
  15. ^ Sullivan, Robert David; ‘How the Red and Blue Map Evolved Over the Past Century’; America Magazine in The National Catholic Review; June 29, 2016
  16. ^ "1928 Presidential General Election Results – North Carolina". Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas.
  17. ^ a b Our Campaigns; NC US President Race, November 06, 1928