1928 United States presidential election in North Carolina

Main article: 1928 United States presidential election

1928 United States presidential election in North Carolina

←  1924 November 6, 1928 1932  →

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%

County Results Hoover   50-60%   60-70%   70-80%   80-90% Smith   50-60%   60-70%   70-80%   80-90%

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.

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] A rapid move following disenfranchisement to a completely “lily-white” state GOP also helped maintain Republican support amongst the state’s voters. ^[3] 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. ^[4]

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. ^[5] 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. ^[6] However, with late counting, it became apparent that Smith had lost the state alongside Virginia, Florida and Texas. ^[7]

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. ^[8] Although the state’s Black Belt remained extremely loyal to Smith, ^[9] 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. The state would subsequently vote solidly Democratic until Richard Nixon won the state in 1968.

As of the 2020 presidential election ^[update] , this is the last election in which Orange County voted for a Republican presidential candidate. ^[10]

Results

1928 United States presidential election in North Carolina ^[11]

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

1928 United States presidential election in North Carolina by county ^[12]

County	Herbert Clark Hoover Republican		Alfred Emmanuel Smith 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

Analysis

With all other prominent Democrats sitting the election out, ^[13] 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, ^[14] 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” ^[15]

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. ^[15]

The loyalties of the state Democratic Party – less factionalized than other southern parties because of the consistent Republican opposition ^[16] – became further strained when long-serving Senator Furnifold McLendel 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. ^[17] With the aid of Frank R. McNich ^[18] 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. ^[17] 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.

References

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. Heersink, Boris; Jenkins, Jeffery A. Republican Party Politics and the American South, 1865–1968. pp. 48–50, 239–243. ISBN   9781316663950.
4. Klarman, Michael J. (2001). "The White Primary Rulings: A Case Study in the Consequences of Supreme Court Decision-Making". Florida State University Law Review. 29: 55–107.
5. Merrill, Charles (October 11, 1928). "Raleigh Will Give Smith Warm Welcome Today: North Carolina Seems Safe For Governor Unless Simmons Comes Out For Hoover, Says Merrill". Daily Boston Globe . p. 16.
6. "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.
7. "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.
8. Phillips; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 212-215
9. Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 303
10. Sullivan, Robert David; ‘How the Red and Blue Map Evolved Over the Past Century’; America Magazine in The National Catholic Review; June 29, 2016
11. "1928 Presidential General Election Results – North Carolina". Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas.
12. "NC US President Race, November 06, 1928". Our Campaigns.
13. Warren, Kenneth F. Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior: A-M, Volume 1. p. 620. ISBN   1412954894.
14. Kennedy, David M.; Cohen, Elizabeth. The American Pageant, Volume 2. p. 739. ISBN   1111831432.
15. 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
16. Grayson, A.G. (December 1975). "North Carolina and Harry Truman, 1944-1948". Journal of American Studies (3): 283–300.
17. Watson jr., Richard L. (October 1960). "A Political Leader Bolts: F.M. Simmons in the Presidential Election of 1928". North Carolina Historical Review. 37 (4): 516–543.
18. Oulahan, Richard V. (September 22, 1928). ""Tar Heel" Press Split Over Smith: Some Democratic Papers Follow Senator Simmons – Others Openly Laud Hoover". Special to The New York Times . p. 3.