Wikipedia
1908 United States presidential election in Tennessee
The 1908 United States presidential election in Tennessee took place on November 3, 1908. All contemporary 46 states were part of the 1908 United States presidential election. Tennessee voters chose 12 electors to the Electoral College, which selected the president and vice president.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
County Results
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Tennessee was won by the Democratic nominees, former Representative William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska and his running mate John W. Kern of Indiana. They defeated the Republican Party nominees, William Howard Taft and his running mate James S. Sherman of New York. Bryan won the state by a margin of 6.86%.
In October of 1908, Taft would in October become the first Republican candidate to tour the South, visiting Tennessee and North Carolina[6] Aided by opposition by developing manufacturers to Bryan’s populism,[6] and by his willingness to accept black disfranchisement[7] Taft gained noticeably given the extremely deep-rooted partisan loyalties established by the Civil War. Whereas Theodore Roosevelt had lost Tennessee by 10.83 percent in 1904, Taft, although doing worse nationally, lost only by 6.86 percentage points.
Bryan had previously won Tennessee against William McKinley in both 1896 and 1900.
Results edit
| 1908 United States presidential election in Tennessee[8] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Votes | Percentage | Electoral votes | |
| Democratic | William Jennings Bryan | 135,608 | 52.73% | 12 | |
| Republican | William Howard Taft | 117,977 | 45.87% | 0 | |
| Social Democratic | Eugene V. Debs | 1,870 | 0.73% | 0 | |
| Populist | Thomas E. Watson | 1,092 | 0.42% | 0 | |
| Independence | Thomas L. Hisgen | 332 | 0.13% | 0 | |
| Prohibition | Eugene W. Chafin | 301 | 0.12% | 0 | |
| Totals | 257,180 | 100.00% | 12 | ||
| Voter turnout | — | ||||
Results by county edit
| 1908 United States presidential election in Tennessee by county[9] | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| County | William Jennings Bryan Democratic | William Howard Taft Republican | Eugene Victor Debs Socialist | Thomas Edward Watson Populist | Various candidates Other parties | Margin | Total votes cast | ||||||
| # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | ||
| Anderson | 632 | 23.64% | 2,022 | 75.65% | 15 | 0.56% | 2 | 0.07% | 2 | 0.07% | -1,390 | -52.00% | 2,673 |
| Bedford | 1,996 | 57.91% | 1,446 | 41.95% | 3 | 0.09% | 2 | 0.06% | 0 | 0.00% | 550 | 15.96% | 3,447 |
| Benton | 1,221 | 57.06% | 860 | 40.19% | 6 | 0.28% | 53 | 2.48% | 0 | 0.00% | 361 | 16.87% | 2,140 |
| Bledsoe | 295 | 40.75% | 425 | 58.70% | 1 | 0.14% | 3 | 0.41% | 0 | 0.00% | -130 | -17.96% | 724 |
| Blount | 847 | 24.67% | 2,568 | 74.80% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 18 | 0.52% | -1,721 | -50.13% | 3,433 |
| Bradley | 620 | 36.17% | 1,063 | 62.02% | 18 | 1.05% | 9 | 0.53% | 4 | 0.23% | -443 | -25.85% | 1,714 |
| Campbell | 530 | 21.99% | 1,806 | 74.94% | 30 | 1.24% | 6 | 0.25% | 38 | 1.58% | -1,276 | -52.95% | 2,410 |
| Cannon | 904 | 57.18% | 672 | 42.50% | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 0.25% | 1 | 0.06% | 232 | 14.67% | 1,581 |
| Carroll | 1,802 | 43.10% | 2,290 | 54.77% | 18 | 0.43% | 71 | 1.70% | 0 | 0.00% | -488 | -11.67% | 4,181 |
| Carter | 459 | 12.70% | 3,152 | 87.19% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 0.11% | -2,693 | -74.50% | 3,615 |
| Cheatham | 1,206 | 69.55% | 526 | 30.33% | 2 | 0.12% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 680 | 39.22% | 1,734 |
| Chester | 703 | 50.79% | 577 | 41.69% | 10 | 0.72% | 94 | 6.79% | 0 | 0.00% | 126 | 9.10% | 1,384 |
| Claiborne | 971 | 36.96% | 1,637 | 62.31% | 0 | 0.00% | 14 | 0.53% | 5 | 0.19% | -666 | -25.35% | 2,627 |
| Clay | 764 | 54.07% | 634 | 44.87% | 4 | 0.28% | 10 | 0.71% | 1 | 0.07% | 130 | 9.20% | 1,413 |
| Cocke | 688 | 27.93% | 1,749 | 71.01% | 6 | 0.24% | 11 | 0.45% | 9 | 0.37% | -1,061 | -43.08% | 2,463 |
| Coffee | 1,654 | 70.50% | 656 | 27.96% | 30 | 1.28% | 1 | 0.04% | 5 | 0.21% | 998 | 42.54% | 2,346 |
| Crockett | 1,226 | 50.43% | 1,205 | 49.57% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 21 | 0.86% | 2,431 |
| Cumberland | 479 | 32.17% | 1,010 | 67.83% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -531 | -35.66% | 1,489 |
| Davidson | 8,309 | 73.98% | 2,721 | 24.23% | 157 | 1.40% | 18 | 0.16% | 27 | 0.24% | 5,588 | 49.75% | 11,232 |
| DeKalb | 1,284 | 46.66% | 1,464 | 53.20% | 2 | 0.07% | 1 | 0.04% | 1 | 0.04% | -180 | -6.54% | 2,752 |
| Decatur | 845 | 46.87% | 958 | 53.13% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -113 | -6.27% | 1,803 |
| Dickson | 1,499 | 60.76% | 899 | 36.44% | 56 | 2.27% | 11 | 0.45% | 2 | 0.08% | 600 | 24.32% | 2,467 |
| Dyer | 1,786 | 71.87% | 672 | 27.04% | 20 | 0.80% | 7 | 0.28% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,114 | 44.83% | 2,485 |
| Fayette | 1,849 | 98.88% | 4 | 0.21% | 3 | 0.16% | 14 | 0.75% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,835[a] | 98.13% | 1,870 |
| Fentress | 332 | 26.95% | 894 | 72.56% | 6 | 0.49% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -562 | -45.62% | 1,232 |
| Franklin | 2,168 | 74.71% | 716 | 24.67% | 15 | 0.52% | 1 | 0.03% | 2 | 0.07% | 1,452 | 50.03% | 2,902 |
| Gibson | 3,173 | 69.39% | 1,369 | 29.94% | 3 | 0.07% | 26 | 0.57% | 2 | 0.04% | 1,804 | 39.45% | 4,573 |
| Giles | 3,042 | 65.87% | 1,571 | 34.02% | 0 | 0.00% | 5 | 0.11% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,471 | 31.85% | 4,618 |
| Grainger | 673 | 33.77% | 1,309 | 65.68% | 0 | 0.00% | 5 | 0.25% | 6 | 0.30% | -636 | -31.91% | 1,993 |
| Greene | 1,886 | 48.08% | 2,027 | 51.67% | 1 | 0.03% | 2 | 0.05% | 7 | 0.18% | -141 | -3.59% | 3,923 |
| Grundy | 576 | 58.72% | 261 | 26.61% | 134 | 13.66% | 10 | 1.02% | 0 | 0.00% | 315 | 32.11% | 981 |
| Hamblen | 795 | 44.34% | 991 | 55.27% | 1 | 0.06% | 3 | 0.17% | 3 | 0.17% | -196 | -10.93% | 1,793 |
| Hamilton | 4,564 | 50.08% | 4,250 | 46.64% | 208 | 2.28% | 12 | 0.13% | 79 | 0.87% | 314 | 3.45% | 9,113 |
| Hancock | 370 | 20.95% | 1,396 | 79.05% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -1,026 | -58.10% | 1,766 |
| Hardeman | 1,568 | 72.32% | 553 | 25.51% | 14 | 0.65% | 33 | 1.52% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,015 | 46.82% | 2,168 |
| Hardin | 720 | 37.72% | 1,132 | 59.30% | 9 | 0.47% | 42 | 2.20% | 6 | 0.31% | -412 | -21.58% | 1,909 |
| Hawkins | 1,152 | 40.49% | 1,693 | 59.51% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -541 | -19.02% | 2,845 |
| Haywood | 1,215 | 84.91% | 189 | 13.21% | 27 | 1.89% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,026 | 71.70% | 1,431 |
| Henderson | 900 | 43.48% | 1,148 | 55.46% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 22 | 1.06% | -248 | -11.98% | 2,070 |
| Henry | 2,369 | 68.15% | 1,069 | 30.75% | 18 | 0.52% | 10 | 0.29% | 10 | 0.29% | 1,300 | 37.40% | 3,476 |
| Hickman | 1,285 | 54.15% | 1,065 | 44.88% | 18 | 0.76% | 4 | 0.17% | 1 | 0.04% | 220 | 9.27% | 2,373 |
| Houston | 665 | 68.00% | 288 | 29.45% | 25 | 2.56% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 377 | 38.55% | 978 |
| Humphreys | 1,301 | 65.25% | 679 | 34.05% | 14 | 0.70% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 622 | 31.19% | 1,994 |
| Jackson | 1,404 | 59.14% | 966 | 40.69% | 2 | 0.08% | 2 | 0.08% | 0 | 0.00% | 438 | 18.45% | 2,374 |
| James | 217 | 26.27% | 608 | 73.61% | 1 | 0.12% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -391 | -47.34% | 826 |
| Jefferson | 662 | 25.00% | 1,962 | 74.09% | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 0.15% | 20 | 0.76% | -1,300 | -49.09% | 2,648 |
| Johnson | 232 | 9.74% | 2,148 | 90.21% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 0.04% | -1,916 | -80.47% | 2,381 |
| Knox | 4,090 | 39.77% | 5,817 | 56.56% | 159 | 1.55% | 39 | 0.38% | 180 | 1.75% | -1,727 | -16.79% | 10,285 |
| Lake | 464 | 71.27% | 178 | 27.34% | 9 | 1.38% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 286 | 43.93% | 651 |
| Lauderdale | 1,315 | 70.85% | 519 | 27.96% | 22 | 1.19% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 796 | 42.89% | 1,856 |
| Lawrence | 1,591 | 47.78% | 1,725 | 51.80% | 12 | 0.36% | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 0.06% | -134 | -4.02% | 3,330 |
| Lewis | 465 | 56.64% | 354 | 43.12% | 2 | 0.24% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 111 | 13.52% | 821 |
| Lincoln | 2,311 | 75.03% | 692 | 22.47% | 4 | 0.13% | 64 | 2.08% | 9 | 0.29% | 1,619 | 52.56% | 3,080 |
| Loudon | 444 | 30.62% | 986 | 68.00% | 5 | 0.34% | 5 | 0.34% | 10 | 0.69% | -542 | -37.38% | 1,450 |
| Macon | 684 | 29.67% | 1,594 | 69.15% | 3 | 0.13% | 24 | 1.04% | 0 | 0.00% | -910 | -39.48% | 2,305 |
| Madison | 2,409 | 61.98% | 1,357 | 34.91% | 45 | 1.16% | 75 | 1.93% | 1 | 0.03% | 1,052 | 27.06% | 3,887 |
| Marion | 842 | 43.18% | 1,074 | 55.08% | 29 | 1.49% | 3 | 0.15% | 2 | 0.10% | -232 | -11.90% | 1,950 |
| Marshall | 1,544 | 74.77% | 440 | 21.31% | 4 | 0.19% | 71 | 3.44% | 6 | 0.29% | 1,104 | 53.46% | 2,065 |
| Maury | 2,324 | 77.91% | 620 | 20.78% | 11 | 0.37% | 22 | 0.74% | 6 | 0.20% | 1,704 | 57.12% | 2,983 |
| McMinn | 926 | 40.90% | 1,320 | 58.30% | 0 | 0.00% | 13 | 0.57% | 5 | 0.22% | -394 | -17.40% | 2,264 |
| McNairy | 1,057 | 44.10% | 1,300 | 54.23% | 0 | 0.00% | 37 | 1.54% | 3 | 0.13% | -243 | -10.14% | 2,397 |
| Meigs | 464 | 50.16% | 457 | 49.41% | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 0.43% | 0 | 0.00% | 7 | 0.76% | 925 |
| Monroe | 1,406 | 43.38% | 1,827 | 56.37% | 8 | 0.25% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -421 | -12.99% | 3,241 |
| Montgomery | 2,961 | 60.17% | 1,903 | 38.67% | 17 | 0.35% | 28 | 0.57% | 12 | 0.24% | 1,058 | 21.50% | 4,921 |
| Moore | 677 | 86.35% | 103 | 13.14% | 0 | 0.00% | 3 | 0.38% | 1 | 0.13% | 574 | 73.21% | 784 |
| Morgan | 496 | 28.54% | 1,236 | 71.12% | 1 | 0.06% | 0 | 0.00% | 5 | 0.29% | -740 | -42.58% | 1,738 |
| Obion | 2,258 | 75.52% | 711 | 23.78% | 10 | 0.33% | 0 | 0.00% | 11 | 0.37% | 1,547 | 51.74% | 2,990 |
| Overton | 1,401 | 56.63% | 1,008 | 40.74% | 65 | 2.63% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 393 | 15.89% | 2,474 |
| Perry | 756 | 52.28% | 678 | 46.89% | 12 | 0.83% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 78 | 5.39% | 1,446 |
| Pickett | 391 | 43.06% | 517 | 56.94% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -126 | -13.88% | 908 |
| Polk | 747 | 38.87% | 1,175 | 61.13% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -428 | -22.27% | 1,922 |
| Putnam | 1,632 | 53.35% | 1,419 | 46.39% | 5 | 0.16% | 0 | 0.00% | 3 | 0.10% | 213 | 6.96% | 3,059 |
| Rhea | 883 | 46.74% | 995 | 52.67% | 4 | 0.21% | 2 | 0.11% | 5 | 0.26% | -112 | -5.93% | 1,889 |
| Roane | 595 | 26.23% | 1,524 | 67.20% | 113 | 4.98% | 18 | 0.79% | 18 | 0.79% | -929 | -40.96% | 2,268 |
| Robertson | 2,418 | 75.85% | 755 | 23.68% | 6 | 0.19% | 7 | 0.22% | 2 | 0.06% | 1,663 | 52.16% | 3,188 |
| Rutherford | 2,764 | 69.27% | 1,226 | 30.73% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,538 | 38.55% | 3,990 |
| Scott | 190 | 8.85% | 1,932 | 89.99% | 25 | 1.16% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -1,742 | -81.14% | 2,147 |
| Sequatchie | 394 | 61.28% | 249 | 38.72% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 145 | 22.55% | 643 |
| Sevier | 291 | 8.50% | 3,130 | 91.44% | 2 | 0.06% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -2,839 | -82.94% | 3,423 |
| Shelby | 7,411 | 68.90% | 3,069 | 28.53% | 239 | 2.22% | 14 | 0.13% | 23 | 0.21% | 4,342 | 40.37% | 10,756 |
| Smith | 1,638 | 59.13% | 1,056 | 38.12% | 0 | 0.00% | 69 | 2.49% | 7 | 0.25% | 582 | 21.01% | 2,770 |
| Stewart | 1,475 | 64.49% | 715 | 31.26% | 97 | 4.24% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 760 | 33.23% | 2,287 |
| Sullivan | 2,393 | 56.16% | 1,836 | 43.09% | 2 | 0.05% | 11 | 0.26% | 19 | 0.45% | 557 | 13.07% | 4,261 |
| Sumner | 2,343 | 76.97% | 673 | 22.11% | 11 | 0.36% | 12 | 0.39% | 5 | 0.16% | 1,670 | 54.86% | 3,044 |
| Tipton | 1,662 | 60.99% | 1,041 | 38.20% | 3 | 0.11% | 18 | 0.66% | 1 | 0.04% | 621 | 22.79% | 2,725 |
| Trousdale | 476 | 70.00% | 198 | 29.12% | 0 | 0.00% | 6 | 0.88% | 0 | 0.00% | 278 | 40.88% | 680 |
| Unicoi | 67 | 7.23% | 860 | 92.77% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -793 | -85.54% | 927 |
| Union | 496 | 22.72% | 1,684 | 77.14% | 3 | 0.14% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | -1,188 | -54.42% | 2,183 |
| Van Buren | 329 | 64.64% | 176 | 34.58% | 4 | 0.79% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 153 | 30.06% | 509 |
| Warren | 1,573 | 67.51% | 729 | 31.29% | 19 | 0.82% | 2 | 0.09% | 7 | 0.30% | 844 | 36.22% | 2,330 |
| Washington | 1,574 | 41.04% | 2,254 | 58.77% | 4 | 0.10% | 1 | 0.03% | 2 | 0.05% | -680 | -17.73% | 3,835 |
| Wayne | 451 | 24.21% | 1,411 | 75.74% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 0.05% | -960 | -51.53% | 1,863 |
| Weakley | 2,976 | 61.42% | 1,812 | 37.40% | 17 | 0.35% | 29 | 0.60% | 11 | 0.23% | 1,164 | 24.02% | 4,845 |
| White | 1,572 | 64.88% | 835 | 34.46% | 16 | 0.66% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 737 | 30.42% | 2,423 |
| Williamson | 1,928 | 75.28% | 605 | 23.62% | 5 | 0.20% | 23 | 0.90% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,323 | 51.66% | 2,561 |
| Wilson | 2,212 | 70.99% | 902 | 28.95% | 0 | 0.00% | 2 | 0.06% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,310 | 42.04% | 3,116 |
| Totals | 135,604 | 52.73% | 117,977 | 45.87% | 1,870 | 0.73% | 1,092 | 0.42% | 633 | 0.25% | 17,627 | 6.85% | 257,176 |
See also edit
Notes edit
- ^ In this county where Watson ran second ahead of Taft, margin given is Bryan vote minus Watson vote and percentage margin Bryan percentage minus Watson percentage.
References edit
- ^ 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
- ^ Key (Jr.), Valdimer Orlando; Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York, 1949), pp. 282-283
- ^ Lyons, William; Scheb (II), John M. and Stair Billy; Government and Politics in Tennessee, pp. 183-184 ISBN 1572331410
- ^ Phillips, Kevin P.; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 208, 210 ISBN 9780691163246
- ^ Grantham, Dewey W.; ‘Tennessee and Twentieth-Century American Politics’; Tennessee Historical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Fall 1995), pp. 210-229
- ^ a b Tindall, George B.; ‘Southern Strategy: A Historical Perspective’; North Carolina Historical Review; vol. 48, no. 2 (April 1971), pp. 126-141
- ^ de Santis, Vincent P.; ‘Republican Efforts to “Crack” the Democratic South’; The Review of Politics, vol. 14, no. 2 (April 1952), pp. 244-264
- ^ Dave Leip's U.S. Election Atlas; Presidential General Election Results – Tennessee
- ^ "Popular Vote at the Presidential Election for 1908". Géoelections. (.xlsx file for €30 including full minor party figures)