The 1924 United States presidential election in North Carolina took place on November 4, 1924, as part of the 1924 United States presidential election, which was held throughout all contemporary forty-eight states. Voters chose twelve representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 County Results
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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] A rapid move following disenfranchisement to a completely “lily-white” state GOP also helped maintain Republican support amongst the state’s voters.[2] 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.[3]
In 1920, with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, North Carolina became the first former Confederate state to abolish its poll tax, which when in force was less severe than other former Confederate states with the result that more whites participated.[4] In that election North Carolina would, alongside Kentucky, see the largest mobilisation of female voters in the entire country.[5] Despite some thought that Republican nominee Harding might threaten to carry the state,[6] in fact North Carolina showed the smallest swing against the Democrats of any state in the Union.[7]
During the prolonged Democratic Party primaries, North Carolina shifted its delegates between William Gibbs McAdoo, Virginian Carter Glass, and Alabamian Oscar W. Underwood, except for a few votes for favorite son George Gordon Battle. Ultimately neither McAdoo nor New York Governor Al Smith – who represented the immigrant, anti-Prohibition wing of the party – could prove acceptable to all Democratic delegates and the nomination went to a compromise candidate in Wall Street lawyer John W. Davis of West Virginia. Although West Virginia was a border state whose limited African-American population had not been disenfranchised,[8] Davis did share the extreme social conservatism of Southern Democrats of his era; he supported poll taxes and opposed women's suffrage.[9] In addition, Davis, like Coolidge, favored strictly limited government.[9][10] At the same time a progressive third-party run was predicted as early as winter 1923–24, and ultimately Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette Sr. would be nominated by the “Committee for Progressive Political Action”.[11]
None of the three candidates did any campaigning in a state which had voted Democratic at every election since 1876. All media polls from September onwards suggested that North Carolina would always go to Davis.[12] A Digest poll at the end of October, which included votes for some candidates not on the ballot, had Davis winning by 21.5 percentage points,[13] and that proved a good guide to the final margin, which saw Davis carry North Carolina by 19.16 points, an increase of 5.68 points upon James M. Cox’s margin in 1920 and in fact 2.77 points greater than Woodrow Wilson’s margin in the state in 1916. Although Progressive Party candidate La Follette would relegate Davis to third in twelve states and carry his home state of Wisconsin, he had almost no appeal in pro-League of Nations North Carolina. With only 1.38 percent of the vote, North Carolina would be La Follette’s second-weakest state after neighbouring South Carolina.
Results edit
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | John W. Davis | 284,270 | 58.89% | |
| Republican | Calvin Coolidge (incumbent) | 191,753 | 39.73% | |
| Progressive | Robert M. La Follette | 6,651 | 1.38% | |
| Prohibition | Herman P. Faris | 13[a] | 0.00% | |
| Total votes | 482,674 | 100% | ||
Results by county edit
| County | John William Davis Democratic |
John Calvin Coolidge Republican |
Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Progressive |
Margin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | # | % | # | % | # | % | # | |
| Robeson | 92.53% | 4,064 | 7.15% | 314 | 0.32% | 14 | 85.38% | 3,750 |
| Currituck | 91.16% | 670 | 7.07% | 52 | 1.77% | 13 | 84.08% | 618 |
| Bertie | 91.59% | 1,785 | 8.16% | 159 | 0.26% | 5 | 83.43% | 1,626 |
| Northampton | 91.17% | 1,662 | 7.90% | 144 | 0.93% | 17 | 83.27% | 1,518 |
| Halifax | 90.20% | 3,232 | 7.48% | 268 | 2.32% | 83 | 82.72% | 2,964 |
| Edgecombe | 89.04% | 2,274 | 6.70% | 171 | 4.27% | 109 | 82.34% | 2,103 |
| Anson | 90.47% | 2,372 | 8.58% | 225 | 0.95% | 25 | 81.88% | 2,147 |
| Martin | 89.88% | 1,999 | 9.71% | 216 | 0.40% | 9 | 80.17% | 1,783 |
| Warren | 88.43% | 1,742 | 8.43% | 166 | 3.15% | 62 | 80.00% | 1,576 |
| Craven | 88.86% | 2,942 | 9.82% | 325 | 1.33% | 44 | 79.04% | 2,617 |
| Hoke | 88.77% | 1,146 | 10.92% | 141 | 0.31% | 4 | 77.85% | 1,005 |
| Chowan | 87.39% | 714 | 12.00% | 98 | 0.61% | 5 | 75.40% | 616 |
| Scotland | 87.18% | 1,469 | 12.17% | 205 | 0.65% | 11 | 75.01% | 1,264 |
| Franklin | 86.34% | 1,991 | 13.10% | 302 | 0.56% | 13 | 73.24% | 1,689 |
| Greene | 85.55% | 1,119 | 13.91% | 182 | 0.54% | 7 | 71.64% | 937 |
| Pitt | 84.91% | 3,197 | 13.60% | 512 | 1.49% | 56 | 71.31% | 2,685 |
| Hertford | 84.80% | 932 | 14.92% | 164 | 0.27% | 3 | 69.88% | 768 |
| Granville | 82.37% | 2,220 | 17.11% | 461 | 0.52% | 14 | 65.27% | 1,759 |
| Pender | 81.31% | 1,175 | 17.51% | 253 | 1.18% | 17 | 63.81% | 922 |
| Wilson | 79.99% | 2,619 | 17.53% | 574 | 2.47% | 81 | 62.46% | 2,045 |
| Vance | 80.39% | 2,013 | 18.77% | 470 | 0.84% | 21 | 61.62% | 1,543 |
| Lenoir | 80.26% | 2,191 | 18.83% | 514 | 0.92% | 25 | 61.43% | 1,677 |
| Pasquotank | 79.59% | 1,236 | 19.64% | 305 | 0.77% | 12 | 59.95% | 931 |
| Union | 79.45% | 2,721 | 19.62% | 672 | 0.93% | 32 | 59.82% | 2,049 |
| Jones | 79.27% | 692 | 20.50% | 179 | 0.23% | 2 | 58.76% | 513 |
| Richmond | 76.46% | 2,475 | 18.50% | 599 | 5.04% | 163 | 57.95% | 1,876 |
| Nash | 76.63% | 3,129 | 20.16% | 823 | 3.21% | 131 | 56.48% | 2,306 |
| New Hanover | 74.80% | 4,735 | 18.80% | 1,190 | 6.40% | 405 | 56.00% | 3,545 |
| Camden | 75.56% | 436 | 22.88% | 132 | 1.56% | 9 | 52.69% | 304 |
| Gates | 75.87% | 679 | 24.02% | 215 | 0.11% | 1 | 51.84% | 464 |
| Mecklenburg | 73.73% | 8,443 | 22.46% | 2,572 | 3.82% | 437 | 51.27% | 5,871 |
| Wake | 70.77% | 8,376 | 25.14% | 2,975 | 4.10% | 485 | 45.63% | 5,401 |
| Onslow | 71.19% | 1,122 | 26.84% | 423 | 1.97% | 31 | 44.35% | 699 |
| Lee | 71.81% | 1,834 | 27.80% | 710 | 0.39% | 10 | 44.01% | 1,124 |
| Wayne | 70.32% | 3,366 | 28.81% | 1,379 | 0.88% | 42 | 41.51% | 1,987 |
| Caswell | 69.53% | 1,075 | 30.21% | 467 | 0.26% | 4 | 39.33% | 608 |
| Cleveland | 67.81% | 3,749 | 31.52% | 1,743 | 0.67% | 37 | 36.28% | 2,006 |
| Cumberland | 67.47% | 2,923 | 31.67% | 1,372 | 0.85% | 37 | 35.80% | 1,551 |
| Hyde | 67.04% | 653 | 31.31% | 305 | 1.64% | 16 | 35.73% | 348 |
| Beaufort | 65.65% | 3,048 | 32.35% | 1,502 | 2.00% | 93 | 33.30% | 1,546 |
| Bladen | 65.72% | 1,551 | 33.31% | 786 | 0.97% | 23 | 32.42% | 765 |
| Duplin | 64.93% | 2,924 | 34.24% | 1,542 | 0.82% | 37 | 30.69% | 1,382 |
| Haywood | 65.18% | 4,582 | 34.71% | 2,440 | 0.11% | 8 | 30.47% | 2,142 |
| Perquimans | 64.48% | 550 | 34.58% | 295 | 0.94% | 8 | 29.89% | 255 |
| Gaston | 64.24% | 6,554 | 34.95% | 3,566 | 0.80% | 82 | 29.29% | 2,988 |
| Iredell | 63.54% | 6,449 | 35.12% | 3,565 | 1.34% | 136 | 28.41% | 2,884 |
| Orange | 62.43% | 1,879 | 35.38% | 1,065 | 2.19% | 66 | 27.04% | 814 |
| Pamlico | 63.48% | 798 | 36.52% | 459 | 0.00% | 0 | 26.97% | 339 |
| Rockingham | 62.72% | 4,467 | 36.03% | 2,566 | 1.25% | 89 | 26.69% | 1,901 |
| Columbus | 62.49% | 2,757 | 36.92% | 1,629 | 0.59% | 26 | 25.57% | 1,128 |
| Buncombe | 59.93% | 10,098 | 37.30% | 6,285 | 2.77% | 467 | 22.63% | 3,813 |
| Durham | 59.34% | 4,837 | 37.95% | 3,093 | 2.71% | 221 | 21.40% | 1,744 |
| Person | 60.52% | 1,576 | 39.36% | 1,025 | 0.12% | 3 | 21.16% | 551 |
| Alamance | 59.48% | 4,859 | 39.38% | 3,217 | 1.14% | 93 | 20.10% | 1,642 |
| Tyrrell | 59.02% | 638 | 40.89% | 442 | 0.09% | 1 | 18.13% | 196 |
| Moore | 57.93% | 2,771 | 41.27% | 1,974 | 0.79% | 38 | 16.66% | 797 |
| Forsyth | 56.18% | 7,404 | 40.33% | 5,315 | 3.48% | 459 | 15.85% | 2,089 |
| Caldwell | 56.97% | 3,348 | 42.59% | 2,503 | 0.44% | 26 | 14.38% | 845 |
| Alleghany | 56.99% | 1,643 | 42.80% | 1,234 | 0.21% | 6 | 14.19% | 409 |
| Rowan | 52.84% | 4,816 | 39.06% | 3,560 | 8.10% | 738 | 13.78% | 1,256 |
| Dare | 56.69% | 826 | 43.17% | 629 | 0.14% | 2 | 13.52% | 197 |
| Rutherford | 56.51% | 5,101 | 43.17% | 3,897 | 0.32% | 29 | 13.34% | 1,204 |
| Burke | 56.46% | 4,137 | 43.54% | 3,190 | 0.00% | 0 | 12.92% | 947 |
| Guilford | 55.22% | 8,804 | 42.79% | 6,822 | 1.99% | 317 | 12.43% | 1,982 |
| Cabarrus | 54.60% | 4,449 | 43.08% | 3,510 | 2.32% | 189 | 11.52% | 939 |
| Chatham | 55.44% | 3,446 | 44.32% | 2,755 | 0.24% | 15 | 11.12% | 691 |
| Carteret | 54.75% | 2,261 | 44.89% | 1,854 | 0.36% | 15 | 9.85% | 407 |
| Yancey | 54.35% | 2,592 | 45.21% | 2,156 | 0.44% | 21 | 9.14% | 436 |
| Montgomery | 54.39% | 2,483 | 45.50% | 2,077 | 0.11% | 5 | 8.89% | 406 |
| McDowell | 53.62% | 3,023 | 45.94% | 2,590 | 0.44% | 25 | 7.68% | 433 |
| Harnett | 53.14% | 3,296 | 46.68% | 2,895 | 0.18% | 11 | 6.47% | 401 |
| Polk | 52.52% | 1,613 | 47.05% | 1,445 | 0.42% | 13 | 5.47% | 168 |
| Jackson | 52.50% | 3,100 | 47.21% | 2,788 | 0.29% | 17 | 5.28% | 312 |
| Ashe | 52.28% | 4,333 | 47.68% | 3,952 | 0.04% | 3 | 4.60% | 381 |
| Lincoln | 51.86% | 2,909 | 47.39% | 2,658 | 0.75% | 42 | 4.47% | 251 |
| Macon | 51.72% | 2,178 | 47.85% | 2,015 | 0.43% | 18 | 3.87% | 163 |
| Stanly | 51.26% | 3,832 | 48.07% | 3,594 | 0.67% | 50 | 3.18% | 238 |
| Washington | 51.25% | 883 | 48.40% | 834 | 0.35% | 6 | 2.84% | 49 |
| Davidson | 50.88% | 6,507 | 48.69% | 6,227 | 0.44% | 56 | 2.19% | 280 |
| Transylvania | 49.17% | 1,776 | 50.22% | 1,814 | 0.61% | 22 | -1.05% | -38 |
| Catawba | 48.28% | 5,754 | 50.32% | 5,998 | 1.40% | 167 | -2.05% | -244 |
| Johnston | 48.56% | 4,656 | 51.20% | 4,910 | 0.24% | 23 | -2.65% | -254 |
| Alexander | 48.25% | 2,291 | 51.33% | 2,437 | 0.42% | 20 | -3.07% | -146 |
| Stokes | 47.76% | 2,309 | 51.33% | 2,482 | 0.91% | 44 | -3.58% | -173 |
| Graham | 47.81% | 841 | 51.56% | 907 | 0.63% | 11 | -3.75% | -66 |
| Watauga | 46.94% | 2,365 | 52.90% | 2,665 | 0.16% | 8 | -5.95% | -300 |
| Surry | 46.63% | 4,418 | 52.67% | 4,990 | 0.70% | 66 | -6.04% | -572 |
| Clay | 46.24% | 953 | 52.89% | 1,090 | 0.87% | 18 | -6.65% | -137 |
| Brunswick | 45.54% | 1,118 | 52.79% | 1,296 | 1.67% | 41 | -7.25% | -178 |
| Randolph | 45.90% | 5,397 | 53.89% | 6,336 | 0.20% | 24 | -7.99% | -939 |
| Henderson | 45.54% | 3,007 | 53.73% | 3,548 | 0.73% | 48 | -8.19% | -541 |
| Swain | 44.55% | 1,769 | 54.85% | 2,178 | 0.60% | 24 | -10.30% | -409 |
| Cherokee | 42.71% | 1,742 | 56.73% | 2,314 | 0.56% | 23 | -14.02% | -572 |
| Davie | 40.07% | 1,795 | 59.64% | 2,672 | 0.29% | 13 | -19.58% | -877 |
| Sampson | 38.54% | 2,021 | 60.79% | 3,188 | 0.67% | 35 | -22.25% | -1,167 |
| Wilkes | 36.86% | 3,586 | 63.02% | 6,131 | 0.11% | 11 | -26.16% | -2,545 |
| Yadkin | 32.26% | 1,381 | 67.48% | 2,889 | 0.26% | 11 | -35.23% | -1,508 |
| Madison | 30.66% | 1,471 | 67.79% | 3,252 | 1.54% | 74 | -37.13% | -1,781 |
| Mitchell | 30.80% | 689 | 68.84% | 1,540 | 0.36% | 8 | -38.04% | -851 |
| Avery | 13.95% | 357 | 85.51% | 2,189 | 0.55% | 14 | -71.56% | -1,832 |
Notes edit
References edit
- ^ Phillips, Kevin P.; The Emerging Republican Majority, pp. 210, 242 ISBN 978-0-691-16324-6
- ^ Heersink, Boris; Jenkins, Jeffery A. Republican Party Politics and the American South, 1865–1968. pp. 48–50, 239–243. ISBN 9781316663950.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Rusk, J.J; Stucker, J.J. "The Effect of Southern Election Laws on Turnout Rates". In Silbey, Joel H.; Bogue, Allan G. (eds.). The History of American Electoral Behavior. p. 246. ISBN 0691606625.
- ^ Schuyler, Lorraine Gates. The Weight of Their Votes: Southern Women and Political Leverage in the 1920s. p. 190. ISBN 9780807857762.
- ^ "Victory is Claimed by Rival Chairmen: Hays Sees 368 Electoral Votes for Harding". The Washington Post. October 31, 1920. p. 1.
- ^ Menendez, Albert J. (2005). The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868-2004. p. 52. ISBN 0786422173.
- ^ Ranney, Joseph A.; In the Wake of Slavery: Civil War, Civil Rights, and the Reconstruction of Southern Law; p. 141 ISBN 0275989720
- ^ a b Newman, Roger K.; The Yale Biographical Dictionary of American Law, p. 153 ISBN 0300113005
- ^ "The humility of 1924 presidential nominees offers path to more optimistic future". Carolina Journal. Retrieved February 1, 2022.
- ^ Richardson, Danny G.; Others: "Fighting Bob" La Follette and the Progressive Movement: Third-Party Politics in the 1920s, pp. 180-183 ISBN 0595481264
- ^ Henning, Arthur Sears (October 5, 1924). "Coolidge Probably, Deadlock Possibly, Survey Indicates: La Follette and Davis Both Weaker Than Believed, National Trip Shows". The Washington Post. p. 9.
- ^ "Total on Digest Poll Gives Coolidge Victory: Concession of All States Where Straw Vote Was Close Still Leaves Him 327 Electors". Boston Daily Globe. October 31, 1924. p. 13.
- ^ "1924 Presidential General Election Results – North Carolina". Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas.
- ^ a b "Vote for President by Counties, 1916-1924". North Carolina Manual 1925 (Report). North Carolina Historical Commission.