1896 United States presidential election in Tennessee

none June 2025 September 2023 1896 United States presidential election 1896 United States presidential election in Tennessee Tennessee presidential no 1892 United States presidential election in Tennessee 1892 1900 United States presidential election in Tennessee 1900 November 3, 1896 x200px Bryan, Hon. Wm. J 3x4.jpg William Jennings Bryan Democratic Party (United States) Populist Nebraska Arthur Sewall 12 167,168 52.09% William McKinley by Courtney Art Studio, 1896 Alt Trim Edit 3x4.jpg William McKinley Republican Party (United States) Ohio Garret Hobart 0 148,683 46.33% 350px County results Bryan #86b6f2 50–60% #4389e3 60–70% #1666cb 70–80% #0645b4 80–90% McKinley #f2b3be 40–50% #e27f90 50–60% #cc2f4a 60–70% #d40000 70–80% #aa0000 80–90% President Grover Cleveland Democratic Party (United States) William McKinley Republican Party (United States) File:Proposed flag of Tennessee (1861).svg The 1896 United States presidential election in Tennessee took place on November 3, 1896. All contemporary 45 states were part of the 1896 United States presidential election. Tennessee voters chose 12 electors to the Electoral College, which selected the president and vice president. For over a century after the Civil War, Tennessee’s white citizenry was divided according to partisan 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, vol. 22, no. 4 (October 1932), pp. 666-672 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. and Stair Billy; Government and Politics in Tennessee, pp. 183-184 1572331410 After the state's white landowning class re-established its rule in the early 1870s, black and Unionist white combined to forge adequate support for the GOP to produce a competitive political system for two decades,Kousser, J. Morgan; The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910, p. 104 0-300-01973-4 although during this era the Republicans could only capture statewide offices when the Democratic Party was divided on this issue of payment of state debt. White Democrats in West Tennessee were always aiming to eliminate black political influence, which they first attempted to do by election fraud in the middle 1880s and did so much more successfully at the end of that decade by instituting in counties with significant black populations a secret ballot that prevented illiterates voting,Kousser; The Shaping of Southern Politics, p. 110 and a poll tax throughout the state, which cut turnout by at least a third in the 1890s.Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics, p. 118 This poll tax was supposedly relaxed or paid by party officials in Unionist Republican areas, where whites were much poorer than in secessionist areas. The mid-1890s Populist movement did not affect Tennessee so much as other southern states, with the party never cracking 12 percent in any biennial gubernatorial election. Although the state's poll tax had already reduced the Republican black and poor white electorate, Democratic managers were unsure about carrying Tennessee in late October, because it was felt that urban businessmen would desert the party in sufficient numbers for McKinley to come close to carrying the state.‘Doubtful about Tennessee: Democratic Managers Uncertain about Carrying the State’; Evening Star, October 28, 1896, p. 1 Polls the day before the election suggested Tennessee would be exceedingly close,‘Pluralities for President: Major McKinley’s Secretary Compiles a Table’; The Wilkes-Barre Record, November 2, 1896, p. 2 but as it turned out Bryan would carry the state relatively easily by nearly six points, which was still a decline upon recent Democratic performances despite a quantitatively reduced Republican electorate. Tennessee would be won by the Democratic and Populist nominees, former Representative of Nebraska William Jennings Bryan and his running mate Arthur Sewall of Maine. They defeated the Republican nominees, former Ohio Governor William McKinley and his running mate Garret Hobart of New Jersey. Bryan won the state by a margin of 5.76%. Bryan would later win Tennessee against McKinley again four years later and would later win the state again in 1908 against William Howard Taft. Results 1896 United States presidential election in TennesseeDave Leip's U.S. Election Atlas; Presidential General Election Results – TennesseePartyCandidateVotesPercentageElectoral votes Democratic William Jennings Bryan 162,643 50.68% 12 Populist William Jennings Bryan 4,525 1.41% 0 Total William Jennings Bryan 167,168 52.09% 12 Republican William McKinley 148,683 46.33% 0 Prohibition Joshua Levering 3,099 0.97% 0 National Democratic John M. Palmer 1,953 0.61% 0 Totals 320,903 100.00% 12 Voter turnout — Results by county 1896 United States presidential election in Tennessee by countyGéoelections http://geoelections.free.fr/USA/elec_comtes/1896.htm Popular Vote at the Presidential Election for 1896 (.xlsx file for €30 including full minor party figures)CountyWilliam Jennings BryanDemocraticWilliam McKinleyRepublicanJoshua LeveringProhibitionJohn M. PalmerNational DemocraticMarginTotal votescast # % # % # % # % # % Anderson 745 24.87% 2,224 74.23% 5 0.17% 22 0.73% -1,479 -49.37% 2,996 Bedford 2,596 53.34% 2,151 44.20% 50 1.03% 70 1.44% 445 9.14% 4,867 Benton 1,465 65.20% 769 34.22% 12 0.53% 1 0.04% 696 30.97% 2,247 Bledsoe 478 37.49% 785 61.57% 0 0.00% 12 0.94% -307 -24.08% 1,275 Blount 970 26.41% 2,652 72.20% 48 1.31% 3 0.08% -1,682 -45.79% 3,673 Bradley 1,057 37.32% 1,725 60.91% 45 1.59% 5 0.18% -668 -23.59% 2,832 Campbell 571 19.14% 2,389 80.06% 13 0.44% 11 0.37% -1,818 -60.92% 2,984 Cannon 1,276 61.82% 778 37.69% 0 0.00% 10 0.48% 498 24.13% 2,064 Carroll 2,293 46.45% 2,577 52.20% 61 1.24% 6 0.12% -284 -5.75% 4,937 Carter 445 13.87% 2,700 84.14% 35 1.09% 29 0.90% -2,255 -70.27% 3,209 Cheatham 1,237 69.81% 496 27.99% 9 0.51% 30 1.69% 741 41.82% 1,772 Chester 1,078 63.37% 607 35.68% 14 0.82% 2 0.12% 471 27.69% 1,701 Claiborne 1,152 33.90% 2,230 65.63% 8 0.24% 8 0.24% -1,078 -31.72% 3,398 Clay 836 59.42% 548 38.95% 22 1.56% 1 0.07% 288 20.47% 1,407 Cocke 980 27.47% 2,582 72.39% 0 0.00% 5 0.14% -1,602 -44.91% 3,567 Coffee 1,891 72.42% 639 24.47% 52 1.99% 29 1.11% 1,252 47.95% 2,611 Crockett 1,665 58.12% 1,166 40.70% 34 1.19% 0 0.00% 499 17.42% 2,865 Cumberland 418 34.12% 800 65.31% 1 0.08% 6 0.49% -382 -31.18% 1,225 Davidson 7,511 54.99% 5,720 41.88% 159 1.16% 269 1.97% 1,791 13.11% 13,659 DeKalb 1,626 49.39% 1,633 49.61% 28 0.85% 5 0.15% -7 -0.21% 3,292 Decatur 997 52.78% 890 47.11% 2 0.11% 0 0.00% 107 5.66% 1,889 Dickson 1,976 68.92% 841 29.33% 36 1.26% 14 0.49% 1,135 39.59% 2,867 Dyer 2,589 73.63% 868 24.69% 44 1.25% 15 0.43% 1,721 48.95% 3,516 Fayette 2,373 63.79% 1,316 35.38% 9 0.24% 22 0.59% 1,057 28.41% 3,720 Fentress 301 27.17% 798 72.02% 0 0.00% 9 0.81% -497 -44.86% 1,108 Franklin 2,584 73.79% 834 23.81% 50 1.43% 34 0.97% 1,750 49.97% 3,502 Gibson 4,203 65.87% 1,955 30.64% 216 3.39% 7 0.11% 2,248 35.23% 6,381 Giles 3,992 62.32% 2,372 37.03% 21 0.33% 21 0.33% 1,620 25.29% 6,406 Grainger 1,002 34.91% 1,863 64.91% 5 0.17% 0 0.00% -861 -30.00% 2,870 Greene 2,726 42.83% 3,577 56.21% 53 0.83% 8 0.13% -851 -13.37% 6,364 Grundy 997 75.99% 286 21.80% 17 1.30% 12 0.91% 711 54.19% 1,312 Hamblen 1,033 40.18% 1,506 58.58% 27 1.05% 5 0.19% -473 -18.40% 2,571 Hamilton 3,729 44.32% 4,468 53.10% 121 1.44% 96 1.14% -739 -8.78% 8,414 Hancock 456 23.35% 1,490 76.29% 7 0.36% 0 0.00% -1,034 -52.94% 1,953 Hardeman 2,234 60.25% 1,427 38.48% 1 0.03% 46 1.24% 807 21.76% 3,708 Hardin 1,332 37.99% 2,165 61.75% 7 0.20% 2 0.06% -833 -23.76% 3,506 Hawkins 1,723 37.65% 2,824 61.71% 13 0.28% 16 0.35% -1,101 -24.06% 4,576 Haywood 2,392 78.79% 624 20.55% 2 0.07% 18 0.59% 1,768 58.23% 3,036 Henderson 1,316 39.11% 2,009 59.70% 40 1.19% 0 0.00% -693 -20.59% 3,365 Henry 3,077 67.17% 1,473 32.15% 14 0.31% 17 0.37% 1,604 35.01% 4,581 Hickman 1,553 60.52% 988 38.50% 13 0.51% 12 0.47% 565 22.02% 2,566 Houston 896 70.16% 343 26.86% 23 1.80% 15 1.17% 553 43.30% 1,277 Humphreys 1,604 76.93% 465 22.30% 10 0.48% 6 0.29% 1,139 54.63% 2,085 Jackson 1,752 69.88% 754 30.08% 0 0.00% 1 0.04% 998 39.81% 2,507 James 327 33.37% 647 66.02% 4 0.41% 2 0.20% -320 -32.65% 980 Jefferson 902 25.32% 2,638 74.06% 9 0.25% 13 0.36% -1,736 -48.74% 3,562 Johnson 224 11.72% 1,683 88.02% 5 0.26% 0 0.00% -1,459 -76.31% 1,912 Knox 4,020 38.52% 6,243 59.83% 117 1.12% 55 0.53% -2,223 -21.30% 10,435 Lake 811 85.01% 126 13.21% 11 1.15% 6 0.63% 685 71.80% 954 Lauderdale 2,244 74.97% 709 23.69% 7 0.23% 33 1.10% 1,535 51.29% 2,993 Lawrence 1,376 53.21% 1,203 46.52% 0 0.00% 7 0.27% 173 6.69% 2,586 Lewis 329 61.73% 204 38.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 125 23.45% 533 Lincoln 3,269 73.94% 992 22.44% 120 2.71% 40 0.90% 2,277 51.50% 4,421 Loudon 594 28.91% 1,447 70.41% 11 0.54% 3 0.15% -853 -41.51% 2,055 Macon 869 39.63% 1,324 60.37% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -455 -20.75% 2,193 Madison 3,701 77.80% 1,024 21.53% 17 0.36% 15 0.32% 2,677 56.27% 4,757 Marion 1,320 41.85% 1,801 57.10% 5 0.16% 28 0.89% -481 -15.25% 3,154 Marshall 2,835 75.50% 849 22.61% 57 1.52% 14 0.37% 1,986 52.89% 3,755 Maury 4,021 60.47% 2,537 38.15% 59 0.89% 33 0.50% 1,484 22.32% 6,650 McMinn 1,388 37.83% 2,235 60.92% 34 0.93% 12 0.33% -847 -23.09% 3,669 McNairy 1,516 50.89% 1,463 49.11% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 53 1.78% 2,979 Meigs 721 52.70% 641 46.86% 2 0.15% 4 0.29% 80 5.85% 1,368 Monroe 1,578 48.29% 1,634 50.00% 47 1.44% 9 0.28% -56 -1.71% 3,268 Montgomery 2,804 46.04% 2,934 48.17% 252 4.14% 101 1.66% -130 -2.13% 6,091 Moore 942 89.71% 78 7.43% 28 2.67% 2 0.19% 864 82.29% 1,050 Morgan 452 27.80% 1,140 70.11% 19 1.17% 15 0.92% -688 -42.31% 1,626 Obion 3,775 74.59% 1,147 22.66% 98 1.94% 41 0.81% 2,628 51.93% 5,061 Overton 1,495 66.24% 761 33.72% 0 0.00% 1 0.04% 734 32.52% 2,257 Perry 1,000 63.57% 572 36.36% 0 0.00% 1 0.06% 428 27.21% 1,573 Pickett 394 42.00% 544 58.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -150 -15.99% 938 Polk 749 44.01% 947 55.64% 3 0.18% 3 0.18% -198 -11.63% 1,702 Putnam 1,750 61.08% 1,097 38.29% 14 0.49% 4 0.14% 653 22.79% 2,865 Rhea 1,124 44.75% 1,324 52.71% 46 1.83% 18 0.72% -200 -7.96% 2,512 Roane 821 20.51% 3,026 75.59% 142 3.55% 14 0.35% -2,205 -55.08% 4,003 Robertson 2,943 65.02% 1,386 30.62% 182 4.02% 15 0.33% 1,557 34.40% 4,526 Rutherford 3,352 59.46% 2,203 39.08% 23 0.41% 59 1.05% 1,149 20.38% 5,637 Scott 209 10.96% 1,691 88.67% 7 0.37% 0 0.00% -1,482 -77.71% 1,907 Sequatchie 386 61.27% 241 38.25% 3 0.48% 0 0.00% 145 23.02% 630 Sevier 428 11.20% 3,376 88.35% 13 0.34% 4 0.10% -2,948 -77.15% 3,821 Shelby 5,830 52.01% 5,122 45.70% 42 0.37% 215 1.92% 708 6.32% 11,209 Smith 2,414 68.89% 1,064 30.37% 20 0.57% 6 0.17% 1,350 38.53% 3,504 Stewart 1,642 71.42% 648 28.19% 9 0.39% 0 0.00% 994 43.24% 2,299 Sullivan 2,512 56.05% 1,914 42.70% 53 1.18% 3 0.07% 598 13.34% 4,482 Sumner 3,171 71.34% 1,215 27.33% 11 0.25% 48 1.08% 1,956 44.00% 4,445 Tipton 2,119 51.07% 1,894 45.65% 13 0.31% 123 2.96% 225 5.42% 4,149 Trousdale 769 70.81% 313 28.82% 0 0.00% 4 0.37% 456 41.99% 1,086 Unicoi 89 9.86% 804 89.04% 7 0.78% 3 0.33% -715 -79.18% 903 Union 599 24.30% 1,862 75.54% 2 0.08% 2 0.08% -1,263 -51.24% 2,465 Van Buren 419 73.12% 140 24.43% 5 0.87% 9 1.57% 279 48.69% 573 Warren 2,101 69.96% 842 28.04% 39 1.30% 21 0.70% 1,259 41.92% 3,003 Washington 1,661 36.67% 2,807 61.98% 43 0.95% 18 0.40% -1,146 -25.30% 4,529 Wayne 748 33.04% 1,505 66.48% 10 0.44% 1 0.04% -757 -33.44% 2,264 Weakley 3,934 65.14% 2,003 33.17% 99 1.64% 3 0.05% 1,931 31.98% 6,039 White 1,839 74.12% 617 24.87% 16 0.64% 9 0.36% 1,222 49.25% 2,481 Williamson 3,097 69.66% 1,281 28.81% 51 1.15% 17 0.38% 1,816 40.85% 4,446 Wilson 3,436 68.17% 1,568 31.11% 17 0.34% 19 0.38% 1,868 37.06% 5,040Totals168,17652.23%148,77346.20%3,0990.96%1,9530.61%19,4036.03%322,001 See also 1896 Tennessee gubernatorial election United States presidential elections in Tennessee Notes References 2 Tennessee 1896 Category:1896 Tennessee elections