1891 Chicago mayoral election

The Chicago mayoral election of 1891 saw "Reform" candidate Hempstead Washburne narrowly win a four-way race against incumbent Democrat DeWitt Clinton Cregier, former mayor Carter Harrison Sr., and Citizens Party candidate Elmer Washburn. Also running was Socialist Labor candidate Thomas J. Morgan. Due to the four-way split in popular support, Washburne won with merely a 28.83% vote share and less than a quarter-of-a-percent margin of victory over second-place finisher Creiger.

1891 Chicago mayoral election
April 7, 1891[1]
 
Nominee Hempstead Washburne DeWitt Clinton Cregier
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 46,957 46,558
Percentage 28.83% 28.59%
 
Nominee Carter Harrison Sr. Elmer Washburn
Party Independent Democratic Citizens
Popular vote 42,931 24,027
Percentage 26.36% 14.75%
Mayor before election

DeWitt Clinton Cregier
Democratic

 Elected Mayor

Hempstead Washburne
Republican

Elections in Illinois

Nominations

Democratic nomination

Incumbent Dewitt Clinton Cregier sought reelection.

Crieger's term as mayor had been regarded as decent.[2] However, many Democrats were displeased with Cregier's favoritism of the city's Irish population over other groups.[3] Additionally, followers of former mayor Carter Harrison Sr. felt that Cregier had been disregarding them when making political appointments.[2] A number of scandals had also tainted his administration.[4]

Cregier was challenged by former mayor Carter Harrison Sr. Harrison sensed voter dissatisfaction with Cregier. Harrison also desired to oversee the city's hosting of the World's Columbian Exposition[3] (which the city had hosted the right to host by the United States government in 1890, after a successful bid effort in which Cregier had been involved[5][6]). Wishing to stage a political comeback, Harrison had come out of his retirement to run again for mayor.[7]

Both Cregier and Harrison were populist Democrats.[7]

The race for the Democratic nomination was contentious and rancorous.[3] Each candidate ran fierce campaigns.[2]

Harrison's campaign was managed by Adolf Kraus.[2] The most influential backer of Harrison's candidacy was considered to be Frank Lawler.[2] Lawler and Harrison each made speeches before large and excited crowds across the city in support of Harrison's candidacy.[2]

Local Democratic establishment leadership largely stood behind Cregier.[2] The city's Democratic executive committee formally supported his candidacy.[2] Cregier received the backing of political organizations such as the Wah-na-ton Club and the Iroquois Club.[2] Creiger also had the backing of individuals such as John M. Palmer and Clarence S. Darrow.[2]

The primary to elect delegates to the city nominating convention was held on March 20, and showed a clear victory for Cregier. However Harrison's supporters alleged that electoral fraud had taken place.[2]

At the convention, an effort successfully prevented Harrison from being allowed to enter the convention hall.[2] In protest of this, 47 of Harrison's 99 pledged delegates withdrew their places.[2] In the end, Cregier was renominated at the convention by a vote of 331 to 52.[2]

Republican nomination

The Republican Party nominated Hempstead Washburne.[2]

Carter Harrison Sr.'s independent candidacy

While Cregier had managed to fend-off Harrison's challenge for the Democratic nomination, Harrison opted to challenge him in the general election as an independent.[7]

Citizen's Party nomination

The Citizen's Party, which was operated through the Union League Club of Chicago and organized by notable businessmen such as Potter Palmer, Marshall Field, and Philip Danforth Armour, nominated Elmer Washburn.[2]

The Citizen's Party and Washburn's candidacy was a well-funded attempt by the old elite of the city to retake control of local politics, for the claimed purposes of bringing cleaner and more efficient governance, and lower taxes.[2]

Franklin MacVeagh, the original candidate sought by the (largely Republican) reformers behind the party declined to run.[8] It was after this that Washburn would enter the race.[8]

Socialist Labor nomination

The Socialist Labor Party nominated Thomas J. Morgan.[2]

General election

In their platform Democrats, who nominated Crieger, supported an eight hour work day, affirmed that the streets were the property of the citizens, supported legislation for the masses, demanded that the city undertake its own construction work rather than relying on contractors, urged the enforcement of factory and tenement laws, urged a fixed salary to be paid to the city treasurer, and for the interest on deposits to belong to the city treasury.[9]

The Democratic electorate was split between Cregier and Harrison.[4][10][11] Union support was also split between the two candidates.[11]

Harrison received the backing of congressman Frank Lawler.[12]

Reform candidate Hempstead Washburne and Citizens candidate Elmer Washburn (former Director of the United States Secret Service and former Chicago Police Chief) were both members of the Washburn family. Elmer Washburn was cousins with Hempstead Washburne's father Elihu B. Washburne.[13]

In addition to being nominated by the Citizens committee, Elmer Washburn was also backed/nominated by the Prohibition Party.[9] Elmer Washburn was criticized by some as "puritanical".[14] Advancing a Sabbatarian agenda, the Citizens ticket he headed supported the closing of saloons, parks, and streetcar service on the Sabbath.[9] His campaign was well-funded and well-publicized.[2]

The race was intense, with all candidates engaging in vitriol, including slander.[2] Harrison focused most of his attacks at Cregier.[2] Cregier focused most of his attacks towards Harrison.[2] Washburn focused his attacks on both Cregier and Harrison.[2] Washburn divided his attacks among all three of the other main candidates.[2]

Harrison's forces tried to paint Cregier as incompetent and as having unscrupulous connections.[2] Creiger's forces, in turn, tried to claim that, through Frank Lawler, Harrison was connecticted to widely unpopular streetcar magnate Charles Yerkes.[2]

On one occasion during the campaign, Harrison literally had mud slung at him.[2]

Results

The election had a very close result.

1893 Chicago mayoral election[15]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Hempstead Washburne 46,957 28.84
Democratic DeWitt Clinton Cregier (incumbent) 46,558 28.59
Independent Democratic Carter Harrison Sr. 42,931 26.36
Citizens Elmer Washburn 24,027 14.75
Socialist Labor Thomas J. Morgan 2,376 1.46
Turnout 162,849

Creiger received 77.92% of the Polish-American vote, while Harrison received 10.42% and Washburne received 7.83%.[16]

Allegations of irregularities misconduct

After the election, some factions of the Democratic party vocally issued allegations that there had been election irregularities and misconduct.[3] [3] It was alleged that strong-arm tactics being used by lieutenants of Creiger in seven wards.[3]

Aftermath

The divide between the Cregier's and Harrison's supporters would endure into the fall, when they held separate caucuses and sat separately at the Democratic Party convention. However, they ultimately united behind the party at this convention, supporting the Democratic ticket for the fall elections.[9]

Complaints of election irregularities and misconduct strengthened the push for the adoption of a secret ballot in Chicago.[3][8]

References
  1. Currey, Josiah Seymour (1912). Chicago: Its History and Its Builders, a Century of Marvelous Growth. S. J. Clarke publishing Company. p. 335.
  2. Morton, Richard Allen (29 June 2016). "Roger C. Sullivan and the Making of the Chicago Democratic Machine, 1881-1908". McFarland. pp. 39–42. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
  3. Wade, Louise Carroll (2002). Chicago's Pride: The Stockyards, Packingtown, and Environs in the Nineteenth Century. University of Illinois Press. pp. 355–356. ISBN 978-0-252-07132-4.
  4. Morn, Frank (2011). Forgotten Reformer: Robert McClaughry and Criminal Justice Reform in Nineteenth-century America. University Press of America. pp. 127–128. ISBN 978-0-7618-5300-8. Retrieved 2 June 2020.
  5. Lederer, F. (1972). Competition for the World's Columbian Exposition: The Chicago Campaign. Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 65(4), 382–394
  6. Wilson, Nancy (2013). "EHM HISTORICAL HIGHLIGHTS Thomas Barbour Bryan (1828 – 1906)". emhurst.org. Elmhurst History Museum. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
  7. Kantowicz, Edward. “The Emergence of the Polish-Democratic Vote in Chicago.” Polish American Studies, vol. 29, no. 1/2, 1972, pp. 67–80. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20147849.
  8. Pierce, Bessie Louise (2007). History of Chicago, Volume III: The Rise of a Modern City, 1871-1893. University of Chicago Press. pp. 369–371. ISBN 978-0-226-66842-0. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
  9. Goodspeed, Weston Arthur; Healy, Daniel David (1909). History of Cook County, Illinois--: Being a General Survey of Cook County History, Including a Condensed History of Chicago and Special Account of Districts Outside the City Limits; from the Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. Goodspeed historical association. p. 623.
  10. A Heavy Vote Cast and Some Blood Spilled at Chicago. Mayor Cregier Re-elected After a Bitter Fight Daily Alta California, Volume 84, Number 98, 8 April 1891
  11. Kersten, Andrew E. (2011). Clarence Darrow: American Iconoclast. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-8090-9486-8. Retrieved 2 June 2020.
  12. https://newspapers.library.in.gov/cgi-bin/indiana?a=d&d=IJ18910313.1.2&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------
  13. Biography of Elihu Benjamin Washburne Congressman, Secretary of State, Envoy Extraordinary: Volume Six: Remaining Years in France as American Minister by Mark Washburne Xlibris Corporation, Oct 14, 2016
  14. The Literary Digest April 18, 1891
  15. The Chicago Daily News Almanac and Year Book for 1912. Chicago Daily News, Incorporated. 1911. p. 464. Retrieved 12 May 2020.
  16. Kantowicz, Edward. “The Emergence of the Polish-Democratic Vote in Chicago.” Polish American Studies, vol. 29, no. 1/2, 1972, pp. 67–80. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20147849.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.