1916 United States presidential election in Tennessee

none June 2025 September 20231916 United States presidential election 1916 United States presidential election in Tennessee Tennessee presidential no All 12 Tennessee votes to the Electoral College 1912 United States presidential election in Tennessee 1912 1920 United States presidential election in Tennessee 1920 November 7, 1916 x200px Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919 (cropped 3x4).jpg Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party (United States) New Jersey Thomas R. Marshall 12 153,280 56.31% File:HUGHES, CHARLES E. HONORABLE LCCN2016857545 (restored) (3x4 crop).png Charles Evans Hughes Republican Party (United States) New York Charles W. Fairbanks 0 116,223 42.70% President Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party (United States) Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party (United States) 350px County results Wilson #86b6f2 50–60% #4389e3 60–70% #1666cb 70–80% #0645b4 80–90% #002b84 90–100% Hughes #f2b3be 40–50% #e27f90 50–60% #cc2f4a 60–70% #d40000 70–80% #aa0000 80–90% #800000 90–100% The 1916 United States presidential election in Tennessee was held on November 7, 1916. Tennessee voters chose twelve representatives, or electors, to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president. 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 WayneWright John K. Voting Habits in the United States: A Note on Two Maps Geographical Review 22 4 October 1932 666–672 10.2307/208821 208821 1932GeoRv..22..666W 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.Key (Jr.), Valdimer Orlando; Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York, 1949), pp. 282-283 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.Lyons William Scheb (II) John M. Stair Billy Government and Politics in Tennessee 2001 183–184 Univ. of Tennessee Press 1572331410 After the disfranchisement of the state's African-American population by a poll tax was largely complete in the 1890s,Phillips, Kevin P.; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 208, 210 9780691163246 the Democratic Party was certain of winning statewide elections if united,Grantham Dewey W. Tennessee and Twentieth-Century American Politics Tennessee Historical Quarterly 54 3 Fall 1995 210–229 although unlike the Deep South Republicans would almost always gain thirty to forty percent of the statewide vote from mountain and Highland Rim support. In the early 1910s, the state Democratic Party was divided over the issue of prohibition. One faction, known as the “Independent Democrats,” wanted the state's Four Mile Law (which banned the sale of liquor within four miles of any school) to apply statewide, while the other faction, known as the “Regular Democrats,” wanted the state's larger cities to be exempt from this law. In 1910, the Independent Democrats fled the party and formed a coalition, known as the “Fusionists,” with Republicans, helping to elect Governor Ben W. Hooper,Langsdon Phillip Tennessee: A Political History Franklin, Tennessee Hillsboro Press 2000 287–295 although the Republicans did not gain at other levels. With the divisions within the Democratic Party temporarily healed in 1914, the major state issue was the control of Memphis political boss E. H. Crump, who had been arrested and ousted from power for violating state prohibition laws.Gritter, Elizabeth; ‘Black politics in the age of Jim Crow: Memphis, Tennessee, 1865 to 1954’ (thesis number 3418536), p. 49. Published 2010 by The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Although Tennessee had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1868, Republican nominee Charles Evans Hughes did visit the state – becoming the first Republican nominee to ever visit Nashville – during the first week of September.Hughes Wins Audience of Wilson Democrats In Tennessee's Capital: Large Crowds Begin by Heckling Republican Leader and End by Giving Him Rounds of Applause for His Fearless Utterances of Opinion and Policy San Francisco Chronicle September 5, 1916 1 Democratic incumbent Woodrow Wilson did not visit the state. No polls were taken in Tennessee until the end of October, when President Wilson was given a clear lead, which led Hughes to concede the state.Wilson Retains Lead in Kentucky and Tennessee The Washington Post October 29, 1916 16 Later polls early in November confirmed this view,Still Uncertain in Many States: Presidential Contest Close to Very End of Straw Vote Boston Daily Globe November 5, 1916 58 giving Wilson a five-to-four lead over the whole state. As it turned out, Wilson won by more than the poll had suggested, and improved by six points upon the margins achieved by Alton B. Parker in 1904 and William Jennings Bryan in 1908. Results Presidential CandidateRunning MatePartyElectoral Vote (EV)Popular Vote (PV) Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey Thomas R. Marshall Democratic 12https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1916&fips=47&f=0&off=0&elect=0&minper=0 1916 Presidential General Election Results – Tennessee Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas 153,280 56.31% Charles Evans Hughes Charles W. Fairbanks Republican 0 116,223 42.70% Allan L. Benson George R. Kirkpatrick Socialist 0 2,542 0.93% Frank Hanly Ira Landrith Prohibition 0 145 0.05% Results by county 1916 United States presidential election in Tennessee by countyCountyWoodrow WilsonDemocraticCharles Evans HughesRepublicanAllan L. BensonSocialistFrank HanlyProhibitionMarginTotal votescast # % # % # % # % # % Anderson 537 23.49% 1,730 75.68% 19 0.83% 0 0.00% -1,193 -52.19% 2,286 Bedford 2,578 66.05% 1,324 33.92% 0 0.00% 1 0.03% 1,254 32.13% 3,903 Benton 1,313 61.30% 805 37.58% 24 1.12% 0 0.00% 508 23.72% 2,142 Bledsoe 423 38.32% 681 61.68% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -258 -23.37% 1,104 Blount 1,015 29.03% 2,462 70.42% 1 0.03% 18 0.51% -1,447 -41.39% 3,496 Bradley 784 34.24% 1,482 64.72% 18 0.79% 6 0.26% -698 -30.48% 2,290 Campbell 485 22.04% 1,670 75.87% 46 2.09% 0 0.00% -1,185 -53.84% 2,201 Cannon 936 67.24% 456 32.76% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 480 34.48% 1,392 Carroll 2,001 46.98% 2,217 52.05% 40 0.94% 1 0.02% -216 -5.07% 4,259 Carter 498 14.40% 2,961 85.60% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -2,463 -71.21% 3,459 Cheatham 1,117 71.51% 439 28.10% 6 0.38% 0 0.00% 678 43.41% 1,562 Chester 862 55.65% 645 41.64% 42 2.71% 0 0.00% 217 14.01% 1,549 Claiborne 1,053 42.63% 1,398 56.60% 19 0.77% 0 0.00% -345 -13.97% 2,470 Clay 689 53.62% 578 44.98% 17 1.32% 1 0.08% 111 8.64% 1,285 Cocke 595 28.52% 1,478 70.85% 13 0.62% 0 0.00% -883 -42.33% 2,086 Coffee 1,837 78.30% 489 20.84% 20 0.85% 0 0.00% 1,348 57.46% 2,346 Crockett 1,608 58.43% 1,144 41.57% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 464 16.86% 2,752 Cumberland 428 31.59% 924 68.19% 3 0.22% 0 0.00% -496 -36.61% 1,355 Davidson 8,958 72.71% 3,168 25.71% 194 1.57% 0 0.00% 5,790 47.00% 12,320 Decatur 887 49.36% 893 49.69% 17 0.95% 0 0.00% -6 -0.33% 1,797 DeKalb 1,407 50.98% 1,343 48.66% 10 0.36% 0 0.00% 64 2.32% 2,760 Dickson 2,105 66.74% 1,008 31.96% 40 1.27% 1 0.03% 1,097 34.78% 3,154 Dyer 1,997 80.14% 459 18.42% 36 1.44% 0 0.00% 1,538 61.72% 2,492 Fayette 1,812 93.89% 116 6.01% 2 0.10% 0 0.00% 1,696 87.88% 1,930 Fentress 348 26.36% 925 70.08% 44 3.33% 3 0.23% -577 -43.71% 1,320 Franklin 2,469 76.32% 711 21.98% 55 1.70% 0 0.00% 1,758 54.34% 3,235 Gibson 3,609 71.13% 1,443 28.44% 22 0.43% 0 0.00% 2,166 42.69% 5,074 Giles 3,207 68.22% 1,488 31.65% 5 0.11% 1 0.02% 1,719 36.57% 4,701 Grainger 843 35.49% 1,529 64.38% 0 0.00% 3 0.13% -686 -28.88% 2,375 Greene 2,254 42.46% 3,055 57.54% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -801 -15.09% 5,309 Grundy 736 63.56% 319 27.55% 103 8.89% 0 0.00% 417 36.01% 1,158 Hamblen 741 47.29% 795 50.73% 31 1.98% 0 0.00% -54 -3.45% 1,567 Hamilton 5,828 54.17% 4,697 43.66% 156 1.45% 78 0.72% 1,131 10.51% 10,759 Hancock 386 23.90% 1,229 76.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -843 -52.20% 1,615 Hardeman 1,724 77.80% 485 21.89% 7 0.32% 0 0.00% 1,239 55.91% 2,216 Hardin 979 34.96% 1,811 64.68% 10 0.36% 0 0.00% -832 -29.71% 2,800 Hawkins 1,142 39.42% 1,739 60.03% 16 0.55% 0 0.00% -597 -20.61% 2,897 Haywood 1,677 95.88% 61 3.49% 11 0.63% 0 0.00% 1,616 92.40% 1,749 Henderson 979 40.74% 1,387 57.72% 37 1.54% 0 0.00% -408 -16.98% 2,403 Henry 2,988 67.19% 1,393 31.32% 60 1.35% 6 0.13% 1,595 35.87% 4,447 Hickman 1,479 58.46% 1,026 40.55% 25 0.99% 0 0.00% 453 17.91% 2,530 Houston 627 71.49% 207 23.60% 42 4.79% 1 0.11% 420 47.89% 877 Humphreys 1,148 71.00% 452 27.95% 17 1.05% 0 0.00% 696 43.04% 1,617 Jackson 1,506 67.05% 740 32.95% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 766 34.11% 2,246 James 230 27.51% 606 72.49% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -376 -44.98% 836 Jefferson 520 23.93% 1,648 75.84% 5 0.23% 0 0.00% -1,128 -51.91% 2,173 Johnson 263 12.67% 1,812 87.33% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -1,549 -74.65% 2,075 Knox 4,214 41.68% 5,791 57.27% 106 1.05% 0 0.00% -1,577 -15.60% 10,111 Lake 727 83.66% 130 14.96% 12 1.38% 0 0.00% 597 68.70% 869 Lauderdale 1,572 74.64% 532 25.26% 2 0.09% 0 0.00% 1,040 49.38% 2,106 Lawrence 1,787 49.17% 1,837 50.55% 10 0.28% 0 0.00% -50 -1.38% 3,634 Lewis 387 47.96% 414 51.30% 6 0.74% 0 0.00% -27 -3.35% 807 Lincoln 2,791 83.14% 552 16.44% 10 0.30% 4 0.12% 2,239 66.70% 3,357 Loudon 423 37.63% 698 62.10% 3 0.27% 0 0.00% -275 -24.47% 1,124 Macon 980 37.98% 1,600 62.02% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -620 -24.03% 2,580 Madison 2,659 67.78% 1,194 30.44% 70 1.78% 0 0.00% 1,465 37.34% 3,923 Marion 1,155 43.73% 1,432 54.22% 54 2.04% 0 0.00% -277 -10.49% 2,641 Marshall 1,652 77.41% 461 21.60% 21 0.98% 0 0.00% 1,191 55.81% 2,134 Maury 2,169 74.13% 720 24.61% 37 1.26% 0 0.00% 1,449 49.52% 2,926 McMinn 1,088 38.66% 1,726 61.34% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -638 -22.67% 2,814 McNairy 1,461 47.47% 1,616 52.50% 1 0.03% 0 0.00% -155 -5.04% 3,078 Meigs 541 47.04% 608 52.87% 1 0.09% 0 0.00% -67 -5.83% 1,150 Monroe 1,263 46.08% 1,459 53.23% 19 0.69% 0 0.00% -196 -7.15% 2,741 Montgomery 1,976 65.45% 991 32.83% 52 1.72% 0 0.00% 985 32.63% 3,019 Moore 722 91.05% 71 8.95% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 651 82.09% 793 Morgan 563 30.14% 1,265 67.72% 40 2.14% 0 0.00% -702 -37.58% 1,868 Obion 3,170 83.64% 591 15.59% 29 0.77% 0 0.00% 2,579 68.05% 3,790 Overton 1,512 58.40% 1,030 39.78% 47 1.82% 0 0.00% 482 18.62% 2,589 Perry 663 57.60% 483 41.96% 5 0.43% 0 0.00% 180 15.64% 1,151 Pickett 418 45.48% 501 54.52% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -83 -9.03% 919 Polk 767 45.90% 887 53.08% 17 1.02% 0 0.00% -120 -7.18% 1,671 Putnam 2,300 62.38% 1,383 37.51% 2 0.05% 2 0.05% 917 24.87% 3,687 Rhea 661 45.27% 768 52.60% 31 2.12% 0 0.00% -107 -7.33% 1,460 Roane 667 32.16% 1,341 64.66% 66 3.18% 0 0.00% -674 -32.50% 2,074 Robertson 2,106 72.05% 733 25.08% 82 2.81% 2 0.07% 1,373 46.97% 2,923 Rutherford 2,941 72.49% 1,116 27.51% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1,825 44.98% 4,057 Scott 206 11.40% 1,486 82.24% 101 5.59% 14 0.77% -1,280 -70.84% 1,807 Sequatchie 335 57.86% 238 41.11% 6 1.04% 0 0.00% 97 16.75% 579 Sevier 301 9.59% 2,837 90.38% 1 0.03% 0 0.00% -2,536 -80.79% 3,139 Shelby 10,967 69.92% 4,515 28.79% 202 1.29% 0 0.00% 6,452 41.14% 15,684 Smith 2,196 69.96% 941 29.98% 0 0.00% 2 0.06% 1,255 39.98% 3,139 Stewart 1,711 73.12% 591 25.26% 38 1.62% 0 0.00% 1,120 47.86% 2,340 Sullivan 2,601 59.33% 1,776 40.51% 7 0.16% 0 0.00% 825 18.82% 4,384 Sumner 2,487 78.33% 612 19.28% 76 2.39% 0 0.00% 1,875 59.06% 3,175 Tipton 2,035 85.47% 281 11.80% 65 2.73% 0 0.00% 1,754 73.67% 2,381 Trousdale 688 76.02% 217 23.98% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 471 52.04% 905 Unicoi 226 19.04% 961 80.96% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -735 -61.92% 1,187 Union 389 20.65% 1,490 79.09% 4 0.21% 1 0.05% -1,101 -58.44% 1,884 Van Buren 405 71.30% 151 26.58% 12 2.11% 0 0.00% 254 44.72% 568 Warren 1,855 74.26% 624 24.98% 19 0.76% 0 0.00% 1,231 49.28% 2,498 Washington 1,831 40.14% 2,723 59.69% 8 0.18% 0 0.00% -892 -19.55% 4,562 Wayne 517 23.94% 1,626 75.28% 17 0.79% 0 0.00% -1,109 -51.34% 2,160 Weakley 3,609 67.04% 1,768 32.84% 6 0.11% 0 0.00% 1,841 34.20% 5,383 White 1,407 69.38% 587 28.94% 34 1.68% 0 0.00% 820 40.43% 2,028 Williamson 2,036 76.95% 600 22.68% 10 0.38% 0 0.00% 1,436 54.27% 2,646 Wilson 2,535 75.09% 841 24.91% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1,694 50.18% 3,376Totals153,28056.31%116,22342.70%2,5420.93%1450.05%37,05713.61%272,190 See also 1916 United States Senate election in Tennessee 1916 Tennessee gubernatorial election References 30em Category:1916 Tennessee elections Tennessee 1916