1928 United States presidential election in Arkansas

The 1928 United States presidential election in Arkansas was held on November 6, 1928. Arkansas voters chose nine electors, or representatives to the United States Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice-President.

1928 United States presidential election in Arkansas

November 6, 1928
 
Nominee Al Smith Herbert Hoover
Party Democratic Republican
Home state New York California
Running mate Joseph T. Robinson Charles Curtis
Electoral vote 9 0
Popular vote 123,140 77,789
Percentage 61.06% 38.57%

County Results

President before election

Calvin Coolidge
Republican

Elected President

Herbert Hoover
Republican

Background

Except for the Unionist Ozark counties of Newton and Searcy where Republicans controlled local government, Arkansas since the end of Reconstruction had been a classic one-party Democratic “Solid South” state.[1] Disfranchisement of effectively all African Americans and most poor whites had meant that outside those two aberrant counties, the Republican Party was completely moribund and Democratic primaries the only competitive elections. As in other areas in and around the Ozarks, a strong Socialist Party movement did develop in the 1900s, but it nowhere was threatening to Democratic hegemony and intimidation largely eliminated its influence from the mid-1910s.[2]

The 1920s did see a minor change in this, as increased voting by poor Ozark whites as a protest against Woodrow Wilson's internationalist foreign policy meant that Warren G. Harding was able to win almost forty percent of the statewide vote;[3] however despite his national landslide Calvin Coolidge in 1924 could not do any more than win the two traditional Unionist GOP counties.

Native Son Vice-Presidential Candidate

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. Arkansas lies in the core of the OzarkBible Belt” and would have been expected to stand extremely vulnerable to anti-Catholic and pro-Prohibition voting – its public support for prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools showed the Natural State in the vanguard of fundamentalist Protestantism.[5] Elsewhere in the White South, extreme fear ensued because the region had no experience of the Southern and Eastern European Catholic immigrants who were Smith's local constituency. Southern fundamentalist Protestants believed that Smith would allow papal and priestly leadership in the United States, which Protestantism was a reaction against.[6] The Southern Baptist Convention said that

We enter into a sacred covenant and solemn pledge that we will support for the office of President, or any other office, only such men as stand for our present order of prohibition.[7]

In other Outer South states and in Alabama, powerful local Democrats refused to support Smith. However, in Arkansas, the two leading politicians in the state, Charles Hillman Brough and Joseph Taylor Robinson, had supported the New York Governor for more than a year before his nomination had become official.[8] Robinson was the first major party Vice-Presidential nominee from a former Confederate state since Andrew Johnson in 1864, and was a moderate who had refrained from supporting either Smith or his rival William Gibbs McAdoo during the disastrous 1924 Democratic National Convention.[9] The fact that Robinson denounced Thomas Heflin’s claim that some American Senators (including Heflin himself) were being paid or bribed by the (anti-Catholic) Mexican Government and quarrelled with the Alabama Senator violently over whether religion could be a qualification for office further linked him to Smith even before becoming his running mate.[9]

During July, the flagging Ku Klux Klan opposed Smith because of his stance against Prohibition, a reform Robinson supported without being dogmatic.

every native-born Protestant in Arkansas should oppose the election of any man who subscribes and is loyal to, or is a member of the Roman Catholic Church.[9]

However, Robinson’s support of religious liberty was able to ameliorate opposition from Protestant ministers – whom Robinson felt was working for the Republican Party[10] – to a greater extent than other Southern states except for wholly Deep South Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, especially as Brough warned many people that Republican inroads would threaten white supremacy because white girls had worked with Negroes in Hoover’s Department of Commerce.[8]

In counties along the Arkansas River, Smith may have also been helped by the perception that Hoover was ineffective at relieving the disastrous flooding of the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers a year and a half beforehand.[11]

These uniquely successful appeals ensured that overwhelmingly white counties in Arkansas remained at least relatively loyal to Smith, although Hoover did win eight counties that went for John W. Davis in 1924. On the whole, Arkansas’ voting was erratic outside of the black-belt counties where the white minority that did vote remained overwhelmingly loyal to Smith.[12] Hoover was the first ever Republican victor in Carroll County, Hot Spring County and Polk County, whilst he was the first Republican since Ulysses S. Grant to carry Sebastian County and Washington County.[13]

Results

Electoral results
Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
vote
Running mate
Count Percentage Vice-presidential candidate Home state Electoral vote
Alfred E. Smith Democrat New York 123,140 61.06% 9 Joseph Taylor Robinson Arkansas 9
Herbert Hoover Republican California 77,789 38.57% 0 Charles Curtis Kansas 0
Norman Thomas Socialist New York 435 0.22% 0 James H. Maurer Pennsylvania 0
William Z. Foster Independent Illinois 322 0.16% 0 Benjamin Gitlow New York 0
Total 219,269 100% 9 9
Needed to win 266 266

Results by county

County Alfred Emmanuel Smith
Democratic
Herbert Clark Hoover
Republican
Various candidates
Other parties
Margin Total votes cast[14]
# % # % # % # %
Arkansas 1,491 58.59% 1,046 41.10% 8 0.31% 445 17.49% 2,545
Ashley 1,393 63.84% 786 36.02% 3 0.14% 607 27.82% 2,182
Baxter 665 56.31% 504 42.68% 12 1.02% 161 13.63% 1,181
Benton 6,281 65.39% 3,252 33.85% 73 0.76% 3,029 31.53% 9,606
Boone 1,708 52.30% 1,545 47.31% 13 0.40% 163 4.99% 3,266
Bradley 1,487 76.89% 447 23.11% 0 0.00% 1,040 53.77% 1,934
Calhoun 765 74.06% 262 25.36% 6 0.58% 503 48.69% 1,033
Carroll 1,540 46.50% 1,757 53.05% 15 0.45% -217 -6.55% 3,312
Chicot 1,021 69.55% 445 30.31% 2 0.14% 576 39.24% 1,468
Clark 1,817 66.41% 913 33.37% 6 0.22% 904 33.04% 2,736
Clay 1,435 52.99% 1,254 46.31% 19 0.70% 181 6.68% 2,708
Cleburne 856 59.36% 574 39.81% 12 0.83% 282 19.56% 1,442
Cleveland 692 59.15% 477 40.77% 1 0.09% 215 18.38% 1,170
Columbia 1,753 73.90% 617 26.01% 2 0.08% 1,136 47.89% 2,372
Conway 1,514 69.48% 665 30.52% 0 0.00% 849 38.96% 2,179
Craighead 2,132 51.77% 1,958 47.55% 28 0.68% 174 4.23% 4,118
Crawford 1,743 52.79% 1,559 47.21% 0 0.00% 184 5.57% 3,302
Crittenden 1,635 84.32% 304 15.68% 0 0.00% 1,331 68.64% 1,939
Cross 1,282 79.63% 324 20.12% 4 0.25% 958 59.50% 1,610
Dallas 1,030 67.01% 503 32.73% 4 0.26% 527 34.29% 1,537
Desha 1,082 76.47% 331 23.39% 2 0.14% 751 53.07% 1,415
Drew 1,452 74.20% 500 25.55% 5 0.26% 952 48.65% 1,957
Faulkner 2,659 72.57% 992 27.07% 13 0.35% 1,667 45.50% 3,664
Franklin 1,329 62.72% 774 36.53% 16 0.76% 555 26.19% 2,119
Fulton 934 57.58% 686 42.29% 2 0.12% 248 15.29% 1,622
Garland 2,823 50.79% 2,720 48.94% 15 0.27% 103 1.85% 5,558
Grant 1,045 70.28% 439 29.52% 3 0.20% 606 40.75% 1,487
Greene 1,426 58.20% 1,011 41.27% 13 0.53% 415 16.94% 2,450
Hempstead 2,038 69.58% 886 30.25% 5 0.17% 1,152 39.33% 2,929
Hot Spring 999 46.90% 1,126 52.86% 5 0.23% -127 -5.96% 2,130
Howard 1,055 57.74% 763 41.76% 9 0.49% 292 15.98% 1,827
Independence 1,511 56.63% 1,150 43.10% 7 0.26% 361 13.53% 2,668
Izard 902 56.30% 696 43.45% 4 0.25% 206 12.86% 1,602
Jackson 1,527 68.35% 698 31.24% 9 0.40% 829 37.11% 2,234
Jefferson 2,611 58.67% 1,830 41.12% 9 0.20% 781 17.55% 4,450
Johnson 1,292 62.30% 766 36.93% 16 0.77% 526 25.36% 2,074
Lafayette 991 69.45% 435 30.48% 1 0.07% 556 38.96% 1,427
Lawrence 1,204 60.72% 774 39.03% 5 0.25% 430 21.68% 1,983
Lee 1,046 87.53% 149 12.47% 0 0.00% 897 75.06% 1,195
Lincoln 869 85.11% 151 14.79% 1 0.10% 718 70.32% 1,021
Little River 916 66.62% 457 33.24% 2 0.15% 459 33.38% 1,375
Logan 1,967 57.31% 1,455 42.40% 10 0.29% 512 14.92% 3,432
Lonoke 1,857 73.23% 676 26.66% 3 0.12% 1,181 46.57% 2,536
Madison 1,717 38.16% 2,760 61.33% 23 0.51% -1,043 -23.18% 4,500
Marion 731 62.27% 436 37.14% 7 0.60% 295 25.13% 1,174
Miller 1,752 60.16% 1,150 39.49% 10 0.34% 602 20.67% 2,912
Mississippi 4,451 76.75% 1,324 22.83% 24 0.41% 3,127 53.92% 5,799
Monroe 851 67.38% 411 32.54% 1 0.08% 440 34.84% 1,263
Montgomery 726 42.33% 976 56.91% 13 0.76% -250 -14.58% 1,715
Nevada 1,242 56.66% 946 43.16% 4 0.18% 296 13.50% 2,192
Newton 533 28.63% 1,316 70.68% 13 0.70% -783 -42.05% 1,862
Ouachita 1,582 60.08% 1,051 39.92% 0 0.00% 531 20.17% 2,633
Perry 636 57.25% 472 42.48% 3 0.27% 164 14.76% 1,111
Phillips 2,061 80.76% 487 19.08% 4 0.16% 1,574 61.68% 2,552
Pike 779 52.56% 697 47.03% 6 0.40% 82 5.53% 1,482
Poinsett 2,324 66.06% 1,182 33.60% 12 0.34% 1,142 32.46% 3,518
Polk 870 45.41% 1,022 53.34% 24 1.25% -152 -7.93% 1,916
Pope 2,735 63.38% 1,557 36.08% 23 0.53% 1,178 27.30% 4,315
Prairie 1,000 61.69% 613 37.82% 8 0.49% 387 23.87% 1,621
Pulaski 9,215 65.24% 4,881 34.56% 29 0.21% 4,334 30.68% 14,125
Randolph 1,527 66.08% 776 33.58% 8 0.35% 751 32.50% 2,311
St. Francis 1,376 68.73% 617 30.82% 9 0.45% 759 37.91% 2,002
Saline 1,268 70.72% 520 29.00% 5 0.28% 748 41.72% 1,793
Scott 891 60.41% 573 38.85% 11 0.75% 318 21.56% 1,475
Searcy 606 29.62% 1,425 69.65% 15 0.73% -819 -40.03% 2,046
Sebastian 3,187 47.65% 3,467 51.84% 34 0.51% -280 -4.19% 6,688
Sevier 1,259 70.61% 524 29.39% 0 0.00% 735 41.22% 1,783
Sharp 808 61.68% 501 38.24% 1 0.08% 307 23.44% 1,310
Stone 628 54.90% 499 43.62% 17 1.49% 129 11.28% 1,144
Union 3,128 65.88% 1,612 33.95% 8 0.17% 1,516 31.93% 4,748
Van Buren 1,539 60.66% 994 39.18% 4 0.16% 545 21.48% 2,537
Washington 2,395 43.02% 3,132 56.26% 40 0.72% -737 -13.24% 5,567
White 2,299 53.73% 1,957 45.73% 23 0.54% 342 7.99% 4,279
Woodruff 1,163 71.92% 452 27.95% 2 0.12% 711 43.97% 1,617
Yell 2,086 71.91% 802 27.65% 13 0.45% 1,284 44.26% 2,901
Totals123,14061.06%77,78938.57%7570.38%45,35122.49%201,686
gollark: Yes.
gollark: No it doesn't. Macron is purely functional. It goes with that.
gollark: Yes, it is officially purely functional.
gollark: Okay, informed.
gollark: Macron is purely functional. I will inform the Specification Committee.

References

  1. See Urwin, Cathy Kunzinger; Agenda for Reform: Winthrop Rockefeller as Governor of Arkansas, 1967-71, p. 32 ISBN 1557282005
  2. Green, James R.; Apocalypse and the Millennium in the American Civil War Era: Radical Movements in the Southwest, 1895-1943, p. 316 ISBN 0807107735
  3. Phillips, Kevin P.; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 211, 287 ISBN 978-0-691-16324-6
  4. Warren, Kenneth F.; Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior: A-M, Volume 1, p. 620 ISBN 1412954894
  5. Gage, Justin Randolph; ‘Vote as You Pray: The 1928 Election in Washington County, Arkansas’; The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 4 (Winter, 2009), pp. 388-417
  6. Whisenhunt, Donald W.; President Herbert Hoover, p. 69 ISBN 1600214762
  7. Maxwell, Angie and Shields, Todd G. (editors); Unlocking V.O. Key Jr.: “Southern Politics” for the Twenty-First Century, pp. 17-18 ISBN 1557289611
  8. Lisenby, William Foy; ‘Brough, Baptists, and Bombast: The Election of 1928’; The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 2 (Summer, 1973), pp. 120-131
  9. Ledbetter, Cal (junior); ‘Joe T. Robinson and the Presidential Campaign of 1928’, The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 2 (Summer, 1986), pp. 95-125
  10. Neal, Nevin E.; ‘The Smith-Robinson Arkansas Campaign of 1928’; The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 1 (Spring, 1960), pp. 3-11
  11. Heersink, Boris; Peterson, Brenton D. and Jenkins, Jeffery A .; ‘Disasters and Elections: Estimating the Net Effect of Damage and Relief in Historical Perspective’; Political Analysis; volume 25, issue 2 (April 2017), pp. 260-268.
  12. Key, V.O. junior; Southern Politics in State and Nation; pp. 318, 329 ISBN 087049435X
  13. Menendez, Albert J.; The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868-2004, pp. 149-153 ISBN 0786422173
  14. Robinson, Edgar Eugene; The Presidential Vote 1896-1932, pp. 139-145 ISBN 9780804716963
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.