History of Chicago from Trading Post to Metropolis
External Studies Program | University College

Module 2 Chapter 3
Chicago in the Progressive Era, 1894 to 1911

The Populist Party in Illinois

The combination of a severe depression and blame for the violent strike at Pullman led to a disaster for the Democratic party in 1894 and 1895, and aided the formation of a new political party in Illinois, the People's party. Following the example of the Populist party which organized in the southern and western parts of the United States, the People's party attempted to unite farmers and laborers in a fight against corrupt government and big business. The party ran a full slate of candidates in the 1894 election. Many Americans blamed the Democratic party for their economic troubles, especially accusing Grover Cleveland and his low tariff policy. Many Democrats, however, just could not support the Republicans, so strong was their party tie and, instead, thousands voted for People's party candidates in the state elections. In a complete turnaround from 1892, when the Democrats had won a landslide victory, voters rejected every important Democratic office seeker in the state: of 22 Illinois Congressmen elected, only one was a Democrat. The Republican party was the major beneficiary of voter anger. The People's party received only 10% of the votes cast statewide; it did not get as many votes in the city as it did downstate, reflecting, perhaps, a lack of unity of interest between farmers and workingmen.

The People's party attempted to find a prominent candidate for the mayoral election of 1895, but no leading political figure was willing to risk his reputation as the head of a third party ticket. The Republicans nominated George Swift, a businessman and an advocate of a tough Civil Service Law. Mayor Hopkins recognized he had little chance for re-election. Thus, the Democrats nominated Frank Winter, a loyal party member of the Drainage Control Board.

Civil service reform became an important issue during this election. Civil service tests had long been advocated by reformers who felt that tests judged ability better than did political loyalty. On election day in a special referendum voters would be able to declare for or against a Civil Service law. Swift argued that tests would destroy the patronage system which rewarded loyal party followers and created inefficiency and waste and he promised to establish a businesslike government based on ability and merit. Swift believed, as did other businessmen-reformers, that mayors had an obligation to run cities like good managers ran good businesses: efficiency and productivity would be the only standards. In 1895, at least, voters agreed with the reformers. Swift defeated Winter by a larger number of voters than any previous winning candidate had received in Chicago's history, 65 percent of the voters approving the proposed Civil Service law. The People's party did poorly, failing to capture 5% of the vote.

The Civil Service Act was supposed to go into effect within 90 days. During that time, Mayor Swift fired as many Democratic job-holders as he could and replaced them with Republicans. That action angered many reformers.

How could you defend the necessity of a patronage system? How could you answer the reformers charges that patronage led to inefficiency?

Gold Versus Silver

1896 was a presidential year and the Democrats chose Chicago as the site of their convention. In many ways, the election of 1896 signaled the end of one era and the beginning of a new one everywhere in the United States. Rural oriented Populists went down to a significant defeat and both parties began to pay more attention to American cities.

The main issue in the campaign was gold versus silver, cheap money versus hard. The Republicans nominated William McKinley, defender of high tariffs and the gold standard. In Chicago, the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan, a 36 year old Nebraskan and champion of free silver, and adopted a platform written by Governor John Peter Altgeld of Illinois. The Democratic platform called for unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 ounces of silver to 1 ounce of gold. More money, inflation in other words, would ease the depression, Democrats argued. Chicagoans agreed with McKinley giving him almost 60% of the vote. Gold, for many people, symbolized security and strength. They did not want wild-eyed radicals like Bryan and Altgeld fooling around with their money supply. Even the poorest wards in Chicago gave Bryan only 51% of their votes. It was clear that voters had had enough of Democratic low tariffs and promises that they wanted a man who said he would guide the country on the basis of good sound business principles and sound money. Chicago and Illinois also showed their distaste for Governor Altgeld who was beaten almost as badly as Bryan. The Republican party now controlled city, state, and nation.

The Republican Party and Municipal Reform

By the mid-1890's, the Republican party in Chicago had two important factions. One wing, dominated by newspaper publishers and clergymen continued to press for moral and political reforms. Another wing, dominated by professional politicians like William Lorimer and Martin Madden, was far more interested in winning offices and controlling patronage than in reforming society. Lorimer had worked as a street car conductor in the 1880's, but by the mid 1890's had built a precinct organization on the west side that sent him to Congress in the Republican landslide of 1894. Lorimer built his Republican machine in the same manner Democratic ward bosses built their local organizations. He paid strict attention to the personal needs of his constituents; he kept his word to other politicians; he remained devoted to his family; and he refused to interfere with his constituents right to drink and gamble.

Reform Republicans despised political machines for the same reasons they despised monopolies and labor unions; concentrated power in any form was undemocratic and dangerous. Besides, machines had far too pedestrian a view of politics. Elections involved much more than the provision of a bucket of coal or a basket of food. For reformers, voting represented a sacred right and a holy commitment to human betterment, a principle that many men had died for. Thus, political machines, with their cheapening of the franchise and their control of thousands of votes, threatened the very goals of American society. If democracy was to mean anything, each individual would have to vote according to the best lights of his individual conscience rather than vote according to an appeal based on a few material rewards. A Republican machine upset reformers as much as a Democratic one. So, after 1895, constant conflict took place between the machine Republicans led by Congressman William Lorimer, and the reform Republicans.

The chief instrument of the reform Republicans was the Municipal Voters League. Organized in 1896, the League devoted itself to driving corrupt aldermen out of the city council. It formed a political action committee in every ward and gave its support on a non-partisan basis to what it considered the best candidate in each ward. Chicago in the 1890's had 34 wards and each ward had 2 aldermen.

Aldermen served two year terms and one alderman from each ward was elected each year. In 1896 the League declared 57 of the 68 sitting aldermen unsuitable to hold public office. In the aldermanic election, it opposed 26 of the 34 incumbents running for office. Twenty of those twenty-six were not returned to the council. Reform, the League found out, appealed to many voters. Within three years the League declared that the City Council contained an "honest majority." The League used a variety of tactics to accomplish its goal of driving out the "gray wolves," the term Chicagoans used to describe corrupt politicians. The Municipal Voters League made deals with several powerful ward politicians trading patronage for votes, and on many occasions it supported the lesser of two evils--it did not expect perfection from aldermanic candidates. It did not organize a third party but worked within the two party system. The League did not defeat all ward bosses and had difficulty in wards with large numbers of immigrant voters (wards like Johnny Powers's 19th and "Bathhouse John" Coughlin's and "Hinky Dink" McKenna's 1st ward). In the rest of the city however, voters responded well to the League attack on graft and corruption.

ANSWER QUESTION 10 IN THE REPLY BOOKLET. (Provided after registering for courses through the External Studies Program.)

The Population of Chicago, 1890-1910

One problem reformers had to face was the growing number of immigrants in the city. Listed below are the six major ethnic groups in the city according to the Federal Census:

	1890	1900	1910
Germans	325,662	428,201	501,832
Irish	176,358	225,900	204,821
Scandinavian	105,785	165,901	184,747
Bohemians	42,164	77,343	110,736
Polish	24,086	111,503	230,132
Italian	8,405	27,250	74,943
Total ethnic	682,460	1,036,098	1,307,211
Percent of city	62%	61%	60%
Total city	1,099,850	1,698,575	2,185,283
Only groups which comprised more than two percent of the population have been listed, otherwise the ethnic total would be much larger.

The totals included immigrants and their children. For various reasons, mainly as a result of culture shock and because of cultural traits brought over from Europe, immigrants opposed reform. Traditionally, reform appealed mostly to economically secure groups; immigrants did not have that security. Therefore, the rapid growth in the Polish, Bohemian, and Italian populations posed many problems for the reforming wing of the Republican party.

William Lorimer represented a largely immigrant population on the west side, but he accommodated his methods to the needs of that population. He did not try to "Americanize" ethnic voters in his congressional district; instead he followed the example of Democratic politicians. The Democratic party had adopted a policy of accommodation early in its history. Accommodation implied a respect for old world traditions and the Democrats made few attempts to force immigrant voters to drop their cultural baggage. A reformer, on the other hand, saw old world traditions as chains that kept immigrants enslaved, and insisted that they become Americanized because he believed that democracy and individualism served as the best guardians of liberty and the American tradition. Immigrants stood as a direct threat to the American system because of their clannishness and ignorance. If they refused to adapt they would remain victims of corrupt local bosses and grafters, much as they had been victimized in Europe. It was a cogent argument--for reformers.

Among Democratic politicians, the Irish played a major role in the process of accommodation because they enjoyed one advantage over other immigrant groups--they spoke the language of the dominant society. Only the Scandinavians (Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes), and German Lutherans, who formed perhaps 25% of the German population, supported reform measures.

Reformers in the city adopted a long list of projects suggested by the Progressive movement in the United States. What did they want? The first thing they wanted to do was clean up the graft and corruption that afflicted every major American city. As has been mentioned, the Municipal Voters League had had a good deal of success in eliminating some of the worst offenders in the city council. Progressives also pressed for the initiative, the referendum, the direct primary, home rule for cities, and regulation of the giant corporations rising out of the American economy. All these measures had one purpose: increasing power for individuals in a society increasingly dominated by big business, corrupt politicians and their machines, and the machines of technology. Through more democracy, progressives believed, citizens would have more control over their own lives.

Other movements, labor unions, socialists, and populists criticized industrial society, but they placed far too much importance on violence and conflict, whereas Progressives stressed cooperation. In their view, everybody, properly educated, would know what society needed--the problem lay in how to educate people properly. Government would have to play a major role because it represented the collective will of the people and was the only force strong enough to counteract the demands of the huge new institutions that were challenging the traditional checks and controls of American society. Their arrogance played a major role in the development of the Progressive movement.

Certain Progressive reforms endangered the existence of boss politics in Chicago and were opposed bitterly by Democrats and the Lorimer Republicans. The direct primary appeared especially dangerous because it threatened to dilute the strength of ethnic blocs and ethnic bosses. Primaries were held but they were non-binding on party conventions. Wards in Chicago controlled by bosses exerted a far greater influence in political nominating conventions simply because they always turned out more party loyalists on election day. Since the numbers of votes cast in conventions depended on the number of voters a ward produced in the last election, bosses had a great influence in selecting party candidates. A direct primary would eliminate the convention system and destroy some of the boss's power.

Home rule for cities seemed to be non-controversial matter. Reformers argued that home rule would free cities from domination by a state legislature controlled by rural legislators. Why should Chicago, the reformers asked, have to go to Springfield every time it wanted to raise a new tax? Still, the issue got caught up in a debate over prohibition and lost the support of many Democratic politicians from Chicago, who opposed a home rule bill because it did not contain a provision that guaranteed free saloon licenses and control of saloon closing hours.

Prohibition, neglected as an issue by the Republicans during the Depression, had become important again with the development of the Progressive movement. Progressives followed the line developed by earlier anti-liquor crusaders and argued that alcohol destroyed lives, families, and health. The Illinois state legislature passed a local option law which gave every precinct, county, and legislative district the power to ban liquor and saloons from its boundaries. That law caused much distress among ethnic voters.

One of the major issues that concerned mayoral candidates in the Progressive era was municipal ownership of public transportation. Progressive reformers faced a dilemma because public ownership in Chicago, while it would destroy the power of Charles Yerkes's monopoly, would then turn the transportation system over to the control of a graft-ridden city administration. The reformers could not give wholehearted support to municipal ownership until civil service laws were strictly enforced and the grafters were thrown out. Also, many reformers held a principled belief in the sanctity of private property. Municipal ownership appeared to be government confiscation. Republican reformers preferred a solution based on well regulated short-term leases and a strictly enforced civil service law to government confiscation.

ANSWER QUESTION 11 IN REPLY BOOKLET. (Provided after registering for courses through the External Studies Program.)

Civil service reform was the main issue of the election of 1897. The Republican machine nominated Judge Nathaniel Sears, a friend of Lorimer, and upset the reform Republicans who then nominated Alderman John Maynard Harlan, son of a Supreme Court Justice, as Independent Republican candidate for mayor. Harlan ran specifically because he opposed all political machines. Both Republican candidates campaigned for strict enforcement of the civil service law. The Democrats, out of power for two years, turned to a familiar name to lead them to victory, Carter Harrison II, whose chief qualification seemed to be that he was the son of "Our Carter." Harrison followed in his father's image by promising voters a wide open city and personal liberty. To complicate matters more, a fourth candidate, Washington Hesing, entered the race as a gold Democrat because he felt Harrison was dangerous on the money question. Harrison had supported Bryan in 1896. Bryan returned the favor by speaking for Harrison during the campaign; he assured Harrison's supporters that a victory would help resurrect the "free silver" movement. Hesing brought in outside support in the person of General Jacob Coxey who had led a poor people's march on Washington in 1893. Coxey spoke in favor of Hesing's call for government control of monopolies and trusts.

The Republican candidates spent much time denouncing each other. Still, Harrison II managed only a slight majority (50.2%) of the votes. Harlan, the Independent, beat the regular Republican by several thousand votes, while Hesing received about 6% of the votes, most of them from German Republicans. The divided Republican party assured a Democratic victory.

Harrison began his term by appointing thousands of supporters to "temporary" positions with the city government. Temporary employees did not have to pass a civil service test. Most temporary appointees kept getting temporarily reappointed for years.

Municipal ownership of public utilities became the major issue in the city during Harrison's first term. Expiration of franchises granted to gas, electric, and street car companies was to take place in 1903. In 1898 the Illinois legislature passed the Allen Act which would extend existing franchises for 50 years. Reformers charged the Act had been "conceived, brought forth, and cradled in corruption." Rumors spread that Charles Yerkes had spent thousands of dollars in the legislature to ensure passage of the Allen law. The Allen Act was clearly a Republican measure, however. It had been signed by a Republican governor and passed by a Republican controlled assembly. The Lorimer faction had not opposed it and did not press for its repeal. The Act became a major issue in the 1898 state campaign. The voters expressed their opinion of the Act by defeating over 80% of the legislators who had supported the 50-year franchise extension. The new legislature repealed the Allen Law in March, 1899. Twenty year franchises again became the rule.

Bossism and the Election of 1899

William Lorimer hand picked the Republican mayoral candidate in 1899, Zina Carter. Carter lived in the same neighborhood as Lorimer, and had been a long time friend of the Congressman. Carter, an alderman and Sanitary District trustee, was deemed "perfectly reliable" by the Municipal Voters League. But many Republicans just could not get enthusiastic about a candidate picked by a political boss. Carter campaigned against what he considered "the most corrupt administration in the city's history," and blasted Harrison for nullifying the Civil Service Law. He also attempted to link his campaign to the McKinley administration victory in the Spanish-American War, claiming that a vote for a Republican would show Chicago's support for the war policy. Carter then blasted Harrison for running an open city and having too many ties with gamblers. Harrison raised the issue of anti-imperialism in his speeches and called on Chicago voters to demonstrate opposition to the acquisition of Cuba and the Philippines by voting for a Democratic mayor. Harrison and the Democrats differed little from the Republicans on the municipal ownership question as both sides supported the concept of a 20-year franchise. Harrison, however, reminded voters that Republicans had passed the Allen Act.

John Peter Altgeld, entered the race as a third party candidate because Harrison, in his view, had appointed too many gold supporters to office. The former governor also demanded immediate ownership of public utilities. Altgeld ran under the Municipal Ownership and Chicago Platform party label. (The "Chicago Platform" referred to the 1896 Democratic platform, written by Altgeld, which called for unlimited coinage of silver.) Altgeld attacked the Republicans for "bossism" and for their support of monopolies and trusts.

Altgeld actually hurt Zina Carter more than he hurt Carter Harrison. Much of the 15% of the votes he received came from German Republicans. Harrison won with 48.5% of the votes to Carter's 35%. The regular Republican party had been hurt by its support of the Allen Law. And, as the Tribune pointed out, Carter's attacks on the open-city premise of Mayor Harrison also cost the party many votes. It would be better to ignore that issue, the newspaper warned, and concentrate on honesty in government. Voting returns from 1897 and 1899 showed that only about half the city supported the Democrats. The problem for the Republican party was how to get its two factions together when neither faction controlled enough votes to swing the city to the Republican side. If the Republicans were going to win, reforming Republicans and machine Republicans would have to find some way of collaborating or one of the two factions would have to find some way of attracting the German Republican vote which, in 1897 and 1899, had gone to a third party candidate. The German Republican vote was the key to the party's fortunes.

1901: The Lorimer Machine Tries Again

"What is the present government?" a Methodist minister asked in 1901; "it is the worst of moral rot. In the name of social reform, in the name of decent city government, in the name of the over-throw of anarchy, in the name of full, ripe Americanism, . . . in the name of home, and the prattling children at your knee, vote for the protection of all these cherished things, that the tomorrow may be all golden for Chicago." The candidate the minister supported was Judge Eldridge Hanecy, friend and confidant of William Lorimer, despite his having lost to John Harlan in the Republican primary election. Lorimer's machine made sure the Judge did not lose in the nominating convention.

But he had other problems besides his association with the Republican boss. In the eyes of many voters, he had been far too friendly with the street railway interests. (Yerkes had left Chicago in 1899, after the repeal of the Allen Law, reportedly taking millions of dollars with him.) Hanecy campaigned hard against corruption and charged that Harrison's "boiler inspectors" had been lax in their duties and had been taking bribes. Many voters saw the Lorimer machine as one just as corrupt, however. Hanecy, in a remarkable about face for a Republican candidate, announced he opposed liquor laws and supported labor unions. Harrison's main charge was that Hanecy had changed his name from Hennessy, and had changed his religion from Catholicism to Methodism. Harrison scored the largest victory of his career in this election, receiving 52.7% of the vote. The Lorimer machine had now lost three mayoral elections in a row.

The Republicans attempted to reach a compromise in 1903. Lorimer again refused to support the nomination of his arch-enemy, Harlan. The candidate chosen by the party convention, however, Graeme Stewart, received support from both factions in the party. Stewart, a businessman, had a reputation for honesty and had little visible connection with the Republican machine. Behind the scenes, Stewart acquired Lorimer's support by promising him a large share of the patronage.

Carter Harrison and the Democrats ran, for the first time, on a platform that called for outright municipal ownership of transportation facilities. Stewart argued that Harrison had already had six years to do something about the street-car question but had done nothing. The Republican platform promised to solve the problem quickly by granting a 20-year franchise to the existing companies. Harrison made an issue of "Lorimerism," which represented "a secret menacing power subversive of public rights and exercised for private ends." With the support of Lorimer and the reform factions, Stewart received 44.7% of the vote, losing by only 8,000 votes. Harrison received 47.3% of the votes. Two minor parties, a Socialist party which accused Harrison of "demagoguery," and an Independent Labor party, split the remaining 6% of the vote. Immediately after his victory, Harrison announced that he would not seek a fifth term.

ANSWER QUESTION 12 IN THE REPLY BOOKLET. (Provided after registering for courses through the External Studies Program.)

Immediate Municipal Ownership

In 1904 the Illinois legislature passed a bill which allowed communities to purchase their utility companies. In a referendum that year, Chicago voters approved municipal ownership of street-car companies by a 5 to 1 majority. With that show of public support, advocates of public ownership could talk not only about the desirability of their idea, they could actually begin talking about how and when the city should take over its street railway system. The Democrats called for Immediate Municipal Ownership (I.M.O.) and their candidate in 1905, Judge Edward Dunne, made I.M.O. the central issue of his campaign.

The Republicans finally nominated John Harlan. Harold Ickes, future member of F.D.R.'s cabinet, served as campaign manager. Harlan announced that he would not allow any Lorimer men on his ticket. The Republicans argued against I.M.O. In the view of many reformers, the Democrats wanted to buy the street-car system immediately at a highly inflated price. Harlan promised he would not enact any purchase plan until it had been approved by the voters. Democrats spread rumors that Harlan supported temperance laws and the local option. But Harlan assured ethnic voters that he favored "personal liberty." He told one audience that he would refrain from closing saloons on Sundays. A Socialist candidate entered the race and promised immediate municipal ownership not only of street-car companies, but of all utilities. The Socialist platform also pledged an 8-hour day and free medical services for all.

In an election which saw 79% of the voters turn out, Judge Dunne won by 24,000 votes, though he received only a bare majority--50.6%. Harlan received 43% of the vote, a percentage typical for Republican candidates as shown below.

	Republicans	Democrats
1897	43.6%	50.2%
1899	35.5%	48.5%
1901	43.1%	52.7%
1903	44.7%	47.3%
1905	42.9%	50.6%

Only Altgeld's candidacy in 1899 had cut sharply into Republican totals. It did not seem to matter which Republican faction led the ticket. Harlan received 43% of the vote despite the fact that Lorimer sat on his hands during the entire campaign. Dunne carried the wards controlled by the Lorimer machine. Obviously, Lorimer preferred a Democrat to a reforming Republican. Democratic percentages for the five elections between 1897 and 1905 fluctuated by less than 5 points. The Democratic party could remain sure of winning percentage as long as it continued its appeal to ethnic votes. Ethnic voters simply outnumbered non-ethnic. Still the party's base of support was not large enough to allow it complete control of the city; only once between 1897 and 1907 did the party control both the mayor's office and the city council.

Mayor Dunne and the City

As one of his first acts, Mayor Dunne named the famous lawyer, and some-time socialist, Clarence Darrow as his advisor on municipal ownership. That question became less significant in 1905, however, because of a long and bitter strike which ended in Chicago's first major race riot.

The strike began in the garment industry, where workers protested against the increasing numbers of items being sent out of the factory to "sweators." Under the "sweating system," women sewed clothes in their own homes for extremely low wages, usually employing their own children to help them. Perhaps 8 to 10,000 "sweators" worked in Chicago.

After the strike had been in progress for several weeks, the garment workers asked the Teamsters Union for support: would the teamsters refuse to carry clothes sewn at the companies being struck? The Teamsters agreed to strike only one of the companies, Montgomery Wards. Wards had been employing non-union drivers, and the Teamsters wanted to stop that practice. After only a few days, the Teamsters called off their strike but the garment workers' strike continued.

At this time, Marshall Field stepped into the picture when he fired three drivers who had refused to carry goods to Wards. In retaliation, the Teamsters union called a city wide strike. In response to this, which seriously hurt manufacturing in the city, businessmen sent agents south to St. Louis and other places to hire strike-breakers. Hundreds of blacks were recruited and arrived in Chicago ready to drive wagons. For a few days in the summer of 1905, violence and bloodshed swept the city as Teamsters pulled the strike breaking blacks from their wagons and beat them mercilessly. Eighteen men were killed, 400 injured, and 900 arrested before order was restored late in July. It was the bloodiest outbreak of violence since the Pullman Strike of 1894.

Mayor Dunne and the Liquor Question

Along with labor and racial problems in 1905, Chicago entered a new round in the battle for prohibition. The Republican state's attorney threatened to bring impeachment proceedings against Dunne unless he enforced the law which ordered all saloons to close by 1 A.M. Dunne came under fire from the other side when he signed an ordinance passed by the city council which raised saloon license fees from $100 to $1,000. In response to the renewed attack against liquor, several ethnic groups got together at the suggestion of a German editor and formed the United Societies for Local Self-Government. Representatives of the Germans, Bohemians, Italians, Poles, Belgians, French, and Hungarians met early in 1906 and drew up a charter that created a multi-ethnic, anti-prohibition organization in the city. An Irish lawyer served as president of the United Societies and Anton J. Cermak, a Bohemian politician and state representative, was elected secretary, despite the fact that a majority of the membership was German. (The Germans formed a majority of the board of directors.) The United Societies called for a massive demonstration against the local option law, the 1 A.M. closing requirement, and the increased license fees. Tens of thousands of anti-prohibition supporters marched through downtown Chicago in 1906. In response to the demonstration, the city council passed an ordinance which overrode the 1 A.M. closing ordinance. From this beginning, the United Societies went on to become a powerful voice for ethnic rights, and A.J. Cermak used his position as Society secretary to become an important influence in Democratic politics, and eventually mayor. Money for the United Societies came from Chicago's brewers.

A change in the city charter in 1905 extended a mayor's term to four years beginning in 1907. In the election of that year, the Democrats renominated Dunne. The Republicans turned to a German-American for the first time and nominated Fred Busse, Chicago postmaster and a friend of the Lorimer faction. Busse promised a business-like settlement of the street-car question and did not endorse municipal ownership. Dunne promised immediate municipal ownership. In this election, the Republican party, in an unusual circumstance, stood as the defender of "personal liberty." Many voters blamed Dunne for the liquor ordinances--especially for the high license fees act. Ethnics still saw any attack on liquor as an attack on their cultures. Busse won the election with 48.6% of the votes which put an end to the municipal ownership question, as an important political issue. The Republicans had proved that they could win a Chicago election if they could capitalize on anti-prohibition feeling: the German vote, unified for the first time in support of the ethnic brother, made the major difference in the Republican total. It was clear that a united German vote could make the difference in mayoral elections.

Busse was not a reformer and his administration was as scandal-ridden as any Democratic one: his major change in city administration was to give all city coal contracts to his brother. Busse's main contribution to the city was his establishment of the Chicago Plan Commission in conjunction with the presentation of the Burnham Plan in 1909, which is discussed in Mayer & Wade on pages 272 to 280. Read those pages and answer the following questions.

ANSWER QUESTIONS 13 AND 14 IN THE REPLY BOOKLET. (Provided after registering for courses through the External Studies Program.)

Some Other Reformers

Progressive reformers attempted to use the power of the ballot to change society. Other reformers used different methods to challenge the corruption they found in industrial Chicago. One of the most important critics of Chicago in the early 20th century was Thorstein Veblen, an economist who taught at the University of Chicago. The university itself had been established in 1892 in an attempt to reform society through better education. Veblen developed his famous theory, conspicuous consumption, while watching upper-class Chicago women shop in Marshall Field's: rich people bought expensive items not because they were necessary for their way of life but because they wanted to show other people that they had money to buy needless items. "Conspicuous consumption" became the guiding principle of the upper-class buying habits,--the ability to throw money away was one of the few ways rich people could differentiate themselves from commoners. But the values of the rich, including pure waste, affected more than their own class, because everyone followed their example. Thus, waste afflicted all of society. Veblen published his theories in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899).

Another University of Chicago professor, John Dewey, developed his theories of child-centered education in Chicago, stressing the idea of freedom in the classroom in the experimental school he founded. Progressives found much to favor in Dewey's philosophy because he believed in the educational value of democracy. The only way youths could be taught the responsibilities of democracy, he believed, was to give them some responsibilities and his central contribution to educational theory was this emphasis on learning by doing.

The University of Chicago made Chicago one of the educational centers of the United States. Early in the 20th century Chicago also became one of the major literary centers in America. Many of the Chicago writers were also reformers who seemed to think reform would come about by informing people of the conditions around them. Upton Sinclair adopted this attitude in The Jungle (1906), an indictment of conditions in the stockyards. Sinclair spent only seven weeks in Chicago before he wrote his expose--based on incidents described in a diary kept by a young Lithuanian who had worked in the stockyards--with the hope that it would influence Americans to work for the betterment of immigrant living conditions. The attempt failed and he expressed his view of his failure: "I aimed for America's heart, and hit its stomach, instead." The Jungle led to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act but it did little to improve immigrant living conditions.

ANSWER QUESTIONS 15 AND 16 IN THE REPLY BOOKLET. (Provided after registering for courses through the External Studies Program.)

Conclusion

In this chapter we have looked at the aims of the Progressive movement and its influence on Chicago politics. The issue of civil service reform and municipal ownership have been discussed and their connection with Chicago's political parties has been described. The division in the Republican party between reformers and followers of the Lorimer machine made it possible for Carter Harrison to win four consecutive elections. Harrison maintained his appeal to ethnic voters through his support of ethnic issues like "personal liberty," and an open city. After a Democratic mayor, Edward Dunne, appeared to weaken Democratic support for "personal liberty," many ethnic voters turned to the Republican party for support. The battle for ethnic voters, rather than the battle for progressive reforms, seemed to characterize Chicago politics in the period. Whichever party appeared as the best defender of ethnic rights won the city elections. Violent strikes, such as the Pullman affair, could upset the Democratic majority as it did in 1895. Other than violence, however, only a weakening in its defense of "personal liberty" could turn a plurality of voters against the Democratic party. The 1907 election proved that the battle for Chicago had not yet been won, by either immigrants or their Americanized neighbor.