Herber Hoover Vs. Al Smith

The 1928 Presidential elections was a contest between Republican nominee Herbert Hoover and Democratic nominee Al Smith. It marked the first time that a Roman Catholic, Al Smith, became a major party's nomination for US President. Despite a rather landslide victory by Herbert Hoover, 60% of the popular vote and over 80% of the electoral returns, this was a heated election pitting wets verses drys, immigrants versus natives, city vs. country, blacks verses whites, and most notably Catholics verses Protestants.

According to many, religion was the most sensitive emotional issue of the 1928 election. Differences between Catholics and Protestants were the biggest factor in determining the outcome of this election. It created more interest, excitement, and tension than any other issue of this campaign. The nomination of a Catholic by one of the nation's two major party's rekindled religious strife in the United States (Lichtman 40). Most Protestants did not want a Catholic as president and were willing to do what they could to make sure that Al Smith was defeated. Protestants who were against the election of a Catholic to public office felt that the church was an organized political force seeking to dominate America both spiritually and politically. Both Protestant clergy and laymen thought Catholics were unfit for the presidency. Protestants sent out much propaganda during the campaign. The Fellowship Forum, the New Menace, the Railsplitter, the Protestant, the Lash, the Crusader of Florida, and others, were all sent out warning that Smith's nomination threatened the survival of Protestantism in America. These journals asked their readers for contributions to defeat Smith.

Herbert Hoover did not actively campaign for pro-Protestant votes. Public statements by Hoover and other Republican politicians seem to reflect a strategic decision to risk only mild repudiations of religious bigotry, while shifting the onus of intolerance to the Democratic Party (Lichtman 62). In his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, Hoover endorsed religious tolerance. However, evidence suggests that Hoover and other Republican leaders probably took part in efforts to gain anti-Catholic votes. Further evidence suggests that the Republican leadership deliberately set out to exploit Protestant opposition to the election of a Catholic president.

To combat Hoover and the Republican leadership, Democrats charged Republicans with at best ignoring and at worst encouraging the anti-Catholic offensive against Smith. In Smith's speeches across the country he stressed religious tolerance, while accusing the Republicans of anti-Catholic bigotry. Smith sought to ensure Protestants that he believed in the absolute separation of church and state and he wouldn't allow policy decisions to be determined by his loyalty to the Catholic Church. The Democrats sought to equate a vote for Smith with a vote for toleration of religions. The Democrats also used the issue of religious toleration as a way of obtaining contributions from wealthy donors.

Another issue in the 1928 presidential election was wets versus drys. In addition to being the first Catholic presidential candidate nominated by a major party, Al Smith was also the first major party candidate to challenge constitutional and statutory restrictions on the manufacture and sale of intoxicants. Although there were no differences in the party platforms over the issue of prohibition, the two candidates seemed to have taken different approaches. Smith said that he wanted fundamental changes in the present provisions for national prohibition, while Hoover said that he favored the 18th Amendment and strict enforcement of the Volstead Act.

During his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, Smith said he would fulfill the party's mandate to enforce the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act but he recommended an amendment to the Volstead Act giving a scientific definition of the alcoholic content of an intoxicating beverage. He also advocated an amendment in the 18th Amendment which would give to each individual state manufacture or cause to be manufactured and sell alcoholic beverages, the sale to be made only by the State itself and not for consumption in any public place.

Hoover's position never changed much beyond his statement he made in his acceptance speech, opposing the repeal of the 18th Amendment and modification of the amendment or the enforcement laws that amounted to nullification. He termed prohibition an experiment "noble in motive." Despite his opposition to repeal the 18th Amendment, Hoover won almost every state in the nation, including the several that had rejected prohibition in state-level referenda.

Immigrant's verses natives was another issue in this presidential election. In 1928 approximately one-third of the American people were foreign-born or had a foreign born parent. Foreign-stock Americans included members of the near immigrant groups from southern and eastern Europe and the old immigrant groups from Great Britain, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia.

There is some evidence that shows that foreign-stock Americans were only slightly more likely to opt for the Democratic nominee than were native-stock Americans with similar social and economic characteristics. In the presidential elections of 1920 and 1924, immigrants and their children had been far less likely to vote for a Democratic candidate than their counterparts of the second generation and beyond. Only with the nomination of Smith did presidential candidates of the Democratic Party become more appealing to foreign-stock than to native-stock voters. Smith became the first Democratic candidate in four presidential elections to perform better among immigrants and first-generation Americans than among their counterparts of the second and later generations. Many believed that the controversy over prohibition was a big reason for Smith's success with ethnic Americans. Immigrant groups were more likely than their counterparts of native-stock to oppose restrictions on the sale and manufacture of intoxicants. Despite immigrants and their children being slightly more likely to vote for Smith than their native-stock Americans from the same social and economic background, the gap between native and foreign-stock voters was modest in 1928.

Another issue in this election was city versus country. In 1920 and 1924, Republicans held a majority in the nation's largest cities. However, despite losing heavily in small towns and farms, Al Smith retained a small majority in the nation's largest cities. However, city people were less likely to vote in 1928 than were country people. Historians have traditionally portrayed the 1920s as a period of abnormal tension between city and country. During