To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

1915 Chicago mayoral election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1915 Chicago mayoral election
← 1911 April 6, 1915 1919 →
  William Hale Thompson head shot (a).tiff
Robert E. Sweitzer (1919).jpg
Nominee William H. Thompson Robert Sweitzer
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 398,538 251,061
Percentage 58.78% 37.03%

Mayor before election

Carter Harrison Jr.

Elected Mayor

William H. Thompson

In the Chicago mayoral election of 1915 Republican William H. Thompson defeated Democrat Robert Sweitzer.

Five-term incumbent Democrat Carter Harrison Jr. had been defeated in the Democratic primary by Sweitzer.

This was the first mayoral election to take place in Chicago after Illinois granted women's suffrage.[1]

The election was held on April 6.[2]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    2 162 440
    1 423
    1 423
  • ✪ The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27
  • ✪ Frank and Al: FDR, Al Smith and the Unlikely Alliance that Created the Modern Democratic Party
  • ✪ Lonnie G. Bunch III talks about the Smithsonian’s 19th museum and the importance of history.
  • ✪ FDR: The Fighting President (Part lll) (1933)
  • ✪ WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST - WikiVidi Documentary


Episode 27: Progressive Era Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history, and today we’re gonna talk about Progressives. No Stan Progressives. Yes. You know, like these guys who used to want to bomb the means of production, but also less radical Progressives. Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Are we talking about, like, tumblr progressive where it’s half discussions of misogyny and half high-contrast images of pizza? Because if so, I can get behind that. Me from the past, your anachronism is showing. Your Internet was green letters on a black screen. But no, The Progressive Era was not like tumblr, however I will argue that it did indirectly make tumblr and therefore JLaw gifsets possible, so that’s something. So some of the solutions that progressives came up with to deal with issues of inequality and injustice don’t seem terribly progressive today, and also it kinda overlapped with the gilded age, and progressive implies, like, progress, presumably progress toward freedom and justice, which is hard to argue about an era that involved one of the great restrictions on freedom in American history, prohibition. So maybe we shouldn’t call it the Progressive Era at all. I g--Stan, whatever, roll the intro. Intro So, if the Gilded Age was the period when American industrial capitalism came into its own, and people like Mark Twain began to criticize its associated problems, then the Progressive era was the age in which people actually tried to solve those problems through individual and group action. As the economy changed, Progressives also had to respond to a rapidly changing political system. The population of the U.S. was growing and its economic power was becoming ever more concentrated. And sometimes, Progressives responded to this by opening up political participation and sometimes by trying to restrict the vote. The thing is, broad participatory democracy doesn’t always result in effective government--he said, sounding like the Chinese national Communist Party. And that tension between wanting to have government for, of, and by the people and wanting to have government that’s, like, good at governing kind of defined the Progressive era. And also our era. But progressives were most concerned with the social problems that revolved around industrial capitalist society. And most of these problems weren’t new by 1900, but some of the responses were. Companies and, later, corporations had a problem that had been around at least since the 1880s: they needed to keep costs down and profits high in a competitive market. And one of the best ways to do this was to keep wages low, hours long, and conditions appalling: your basic house-elf situation. Just kidding, house elves didn’t get wages. Also, by the end of the 19th century, people started to feel like these large, monopolistic industrial combinations, the so-called trusts, were exerting too much power over people’s lives. The 1890s saw federal attempts to deal with these trusts, such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but overall, the Federal Government wasn’t where most progressive changes were made. For instance, there was muckraking, a form of journalism in which reporters would find some muck and rake it. Mass circulation magazines realized they could make money by publishing exposés of industrial and political abuse, so they did. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? I bet it involves muck. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either correct or I get shocked. “Let a man so much as scrape his finger pushing a truck in the pickle-rooms, and all the joints in his fingers might be eaten by the acid, one by one. Of the butchers and floormen, the beef-boners and trimmers, and all those who used knives, you could scarcely find a person who had the use of his thumb; time and time again the base of it had been slashed, till it was a mere lump of flesh against which the man pressed the knife to hold it. ... They would have no nails – they had worn them off pulling hides.” Wow. Well now I am hyper-aware of and grateful for my thumbs. They are just in excellent shape. I am so glad, Stan, that I am not a beef-boner at one of the meat-packing factories written about in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. No shock for me! Oh Stan, I can only imagine how long and hard you’ve worked to get the phrase “beef-boner” into this show. And you finally did it. Congratulations. By the way, just a little bit of trivia: The Jungle was the first book I ever read that made me vomit. So that’s a review. I don’t know if it’s positive, but there you go. Anyway, at the time, readers of The Jungle were more outraged by descriptions of rotten meat than by the treatment of meatpacking workers: The Jungle led to the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. That’s pretty cool for Upton Sinclair, although my books have also led to some federal legislation, such as the HAOPT, which officially declared Hazel and Augustus the nation’s OTP. So, to be fair, writers had been describing the harshness of industrial capitalism for decades, so muckraking wasn’t really that new, but the use of photography for documentation was. Lewis Hine, for instance, photographed child laborers in factories and mines, bringing Americans face to face with the more than 2 million children under the age of 15 working for wages. And Hine’s photos helped bring about laws that limited child labor. But even more important than the writing and photographs and magazines when it came to improving conditions for workers was Twitter … what’s that? There was no twitter? Still? What is this 1812? Alright, so apparently still without Twitter, workers had to organize into unions to get corporations to reduce hours and raise their pay. Also some employers started to realize on their own that one way to mitigate some of the problems of industrialization was to pay workers better, like in 1914, Henry Ford paid his workers an average of $5 per day, unheard of at the time. . Whereas today I pay Stan and Danica 3x that and still they whine. Ford’s reasoning was that better-paid workers would be better able to afford the Model Ts that they were making. And indeed, Ford’s annual output rose from 34,000 cars to 730,000 between 1910 and 1916, and the price of a Model T dropped from $700 to $316. Still, Henry Ford definitely forgot to be awesome sometimes; he was anti-Semitic, he used spies in his factories, and he named his child Edsel. Also like most employers at the turn of the century, he was virulently anti-union. So, while the AFL was organizing the most privileged industrial workers, another union grew up to advocate for rights for a larger swath of the workforce, especially the immigrants who dominated unskilled labor: The International Workers of the World. They were also known as the Wobblies, and they were founded in 1905 to advocate for “every wage-worker, no matter what his religion, fatherland or trade,” and not, as the name Wobblies suggests, just those fans of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey. The Wobblies were radical socialists; ultimately they wanted to see capitalism and the state disappear in revolution. Now, most progressives didn’t go that far, but some, following the ideas of Henry George, worried that economic progress could produce a dangerous unequal distribution of wealth that could only be cured by … taxes. But, more Progressives were influenced by Simon W. Patten who prophesied that industrialization would bring about a new civilization where everyone would benefit from the abundance and all the leisure time that all these new labor-saving devices could bring. This optimism was partly spurred by the birth of a mass consumption society. I mean, Americans by 1915 could purchase all kinds of new-fangled devices, like washing machines, or vacuum cleaners, automobiles, record players. It’s worth underscoring that all this happened in a couple generations: I mean, in 1850, almost everyone listened to music and washed their clothes in nearly the same way that people did 10,000 years ago. And then BOOM. And for many progressives, this consumer culture, to quote our old friend Eric Foner, “became the foundation for a new understanding of freedom as access to the cornucopia of goods made available by modern capitalism.” And this idea was encouraged by new advertising that connected goods with freedom, using “liberty” as a brand name or affixing the Statue of Liberty to a product. By the way, Crash Course is made exclusively in the United States of America, the greatest nation on earth ever. (Libertage.) That’s a lie, of course, but you’re allowed to lie in advertising. But in spite of this optimism, most progressives were concerned that industrial capitalism, with its exploitation of labor and concentration of wealth, was limiting, rather than increasing freedom, but depending on how you defined “freedom,” of course. Industrialization created what they referred to as “the labor problem” as mechanization diminished opportunities for skilled workers and the supervised routine of the factory floor destroyed autonomy. The scientific workplace management advocated by efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor required rigid rules and supervision in order to heighten worker productivity. So if you’ve ever had a job with a defined number of bathroom breaks, that’s why. Also “Taylorism” found its way into classrooms; and anyone who’s had to sit in rows for 45 minute periods punctuated by factory-style bells knows that this atmosphere is not particularly conducive to a sense of freedom. Now this is a little bit confusing because while responding to worker exploitation was part of the Progressive movement, so was Taylorism itself because it was an application of research, observation, and expertise in response to the vexing problem of how to increase productivity. And this use of scientific experts is another hallmark of the Progressive era, one that usually found its expression in politics. American Progressives, like their counterparts in the Green Sections of Not-America, sought government solutions to social problems. Germany, which is somewhere over here, pioneered “social legislation” with its minimum wage, unemployment insurance and old age pension laws, but the idea that government action could address the problems and insecurities that characterized the modern industrial world, also became prominent in the United States. And the notion that an activist government could enhance rather than threaten people’s freedom was something new in America. Now, Progressives pushing for social legislation tended to have more success at the state and local level, especially in cities, which established public control over gas and water and raised taxes to pay for transportation and public schools. Whereas federally the biggest success was, like, Prohibition, which, you know, not that successful. But anyway, if all that local collectivist investment sounds like Socialism, it kind of is. I mean, by 1912 the Socialist Party had 150,000 members and had elected scores of local officials like Milwaukee mayor Emil Seidel. Some urban progressives even pushed to get rid of traditional democratic forms altogether. A number of cities were run by commissions of experts or city managers, who would be chosen on the basis of some demonstrated expertise or credential rather than their ability to hand out turkeys at Christmas or find jobs for your nephew’s sister’s cousin. Progressive editor Walter Lippman argued for applying modern scientific expertise to solve social problems in his 1914 book Drift and Mastery, writing that scientifically trained experts “could be trusted more fully than ordinary citizens to solve America’s deep social problems.” This tension between government by experts and increased popular democratic participation is one of the major contradictions of the Progressive era. The 17th amendment allowed for senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by state legislatures, and many states adopted primaries to nominate candidates, again taking power away from political parties and putting it in the hands of voters. And some states, particularly western ones like California adopted aspects of even more direct democracy, the initiative, which allowed voters to put issues on the ballot, and the referendum, which allows them to vote on laws directly. And lest you think that more democracy is always good, I present you with California. But many Progressives wanted actual policy made by experts who knew what was best for the people, not the people themselves. And despite primaries in direct elections of senators it’s hard to argue that the Progressive Era was a good moment for democratic participation, since many Progressives were only in favor of voting insofar as it was done by white, middle class, Protestant voters. Alright. Let’s Go to the Thought Bubble. Progressives limited immigrants’ participation in the political process through literacy tests and laws requiring people to register to vote. Voter registration was supposedly intended to limit fraud and the power of political machines. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar, but it actually just suppressed voting generally. Voting gradually declined from 80% of male Americans voting in the 1890s to the point where today only about 50% of eligible Americans vote in presidential elections. But an even bigger blow to democracy during the Progressive era came with the Jim Crow laws passed by legislatures in southern states, which legally segregated the South. First, there was the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans. The 15th amendment made it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude but said nothing about the ability to read, so many Southern states instituted literacy requirements. Other states added poll taxes, requiring people to pay to vote, which effectively disenfranchised large numbers of African American people, who were disproportionately poor. The Supreme Court didn’t help: In 1896, it made one of its most famous bad decisions, Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregation in public accommodations, in Homer Plessy’s case a railroad car, did not violate the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection clause. As long as black railroad cars were equal to white ones, it was A-OK to have duplicate sets of everything. Now, creating two sets of equal quality of everything would get really expensive, so Southern states didn’t actually do it. Black schools, public restrooms, public transportation opportunities--the list goes on and on--would definitely be separate, and definitely not equal. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Now, of course, as we’ve seen Progressive ideas inspired a variety of responses, both for Taylorism and against it, both for government by experts and for direct democracy. Similarly, in the Progressive era, just as the Jim Crow laws were being passed, there were many attempts to improve the lives of African Americans. The towering figure in this movement to “uplift” black southerners was Booker T. Washington, a former slave who became the head of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, a center for vocational education. And Washington urged southern black people to emphasize skills that could make them successful in the contemporary economy. The idea was that they would earn the respect of white people by demonstrating their usefulness and everyone would come to respect each other through the recognition of mutual dependence while continuing to live in separate social spheres. But Washington’s accommodationist stance was not shared by all African Americans. WEB DuBois advocated for full civil and political rights for black people and helped to found the NAACP, which urged African Americans to fight for their rights through “persistent, manly agitation.” So I wanted to talk about the Progressive Era today not only because it shows up on a lot of tests, but because Progressives tried to tackle many of the issues that we face today, particularly concerning immigration and economic justice, and they used some of the same methods that we use today: organization, journalistic exposure, and political activism. Now, we may use tumblr or tea party forums, but the same concerns motivate us to work together. And just as today, many of their efforts were not successful because of the inherent difficulty in trying to mobilize very different interests in a pluralistic nation. In some ways their platforms would have been better suited to an America that was less diverse and complex. But it was that very diversity and complexity that gave rise and still gives rise to the urge toward progress in the first place. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. If you like it, and if you’re watching the credits you probably do, make sure you’re subscribed. And as we say in my hometown don’t forget to be awesome...That was more dramatic than it sounded. Progressive Era -



Democratic primary

Sweitzer poses outside of his house with his family on the day of the primary
Sweitzer poses outside of his house with his family on the day of the primary

Cook County Clerk Robert Sweitzer challenged incumbent mayor Carter Harrison Jr. in the Democratic primary.

Harrison's preceding fifth term had been hampered by an inner-party power struggle between Harrison and Democratic boss Roger Sullivan.[3][4] Sweitzer was considered to be a Sullivan loyalist.[3][4]

Harrison ran a poor campaign.[4]

Sweitzer was able to build a coalition of ethnic groups, which were put off by Harrison's war on crime.[5]


Sweitzer handily won, defeating Harrison by a broad margin.

Sweitzer's victory effectively cost Harrison the opportunity to further pursue a, then-unprecedented, sixth term as mayor. It would not be until 1975 that a mayor (Richard J. Daley) would win election to a sixth term.

Democratic primary (February 23, 1915)[6]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Robert Sweitzer 182,534 63.02
Democratic Carter Harrison Jr. (incumbent) 104,983 36.24
Democratic Frank J. Wilson 1,343 0.46
Democratic John J. Geraghty 318 0.11
Democratic Thomas O'Dwyer 205 0.07
Democratic Peter J. O'Reilly 112 0.04
Democratic James Traynor 88 0.03
Democratic R. P. Butler 84 0.03
Turnout 289,667

Republican primary

At the time of the primary, the Illinois Republican Party had been divided into two groups, one led by former governor Charles S. Deneen and another which was jointly led by William Lorimer and Frederick Lundin.[7] Illinois' Republican Party had been thrown into chaos along with the national party in the aftermath of the 1912 United States presidential election, in which former president Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate and split the Republican vote.[4][8] The power balance in Illinois' Republican Party had also been altered by Lorimer's removal from the United States Senate and Deneen's 1913 loss in his bid to seek reelection as governor.[8]

William Hale Thompson and Lundin had formed a political alliance, along with George F. Harding (political boss of the second ward), and James A. Pugh.[7] Lundin orchestrated a "draft" effort in December 1914 to demonstrate popular support for Thompson's candidacy.[7] He managed to get 15,000 individuals to sign a petition urging Thompson to run in the Republican mayoral primary,[7][8] which was presented to him at a grand ceremony Lundin orchestrated at the Auditorium Theatre.[8] In actuality, Lundin and Thompson had actually been planning for his mayoral run since 1912.[8][9]

Thompson's chief opponent for the nomination was Harry Olson, Chief Justice of the Municipal Court. Olson was backed by Charles S. Deneen.[7] He was also challenged by Alderman Jacob A. Hey.[7]

Thompson benefited from his political alliance, as George F. Harding managed to secure Thompson strong support in the second ward, which proved to be critical in securing him his narrow margin of victory.[7]


Harry Olson
Bill Thompson


Thompson won the Republican primary on February 23 by a narrow margin.[2] The Republican primary received less attention from both the public and the media than the Democratic primary.[7]

Republican primary (February 23, 1915)[11]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican William H. Thompson 87,060 49.47
Republican Harry Olson 84,735 48.14
Republican Jacob A. Hey 4,207 2.39
Turnout 176,002

Prohibition nomination

John H. Hill received the Prohibition Party nomination.

Socialist nomination

Seymour Stedman received the Socialist Party nomination.

Steadman had originally been planning to instead run for City Treasurer.[12]

General election


Thompson during his campaign
Thompson during his campaign

A major blow to Sweitzer's campaign occurred when, bitter over his loss in the primary, Carter Harrison Jr. endorsed Thompson.[7] Harrison's endorsement bolstered Thompson's support from business elites, a group which was already inclined to support him over Sweitzer.[7]

In contrast to the disunity of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party's Lundin wing brokered a peace with its Denen wing.[4]

Thompson campaigned energetically.[8] He managed to draw large to his rallies, employing techniques such as putting on parades and circuses to lure spectators to his political events.[8]

Democrats played up the fact that Sweitzer was of Irish and German descent in hopes that it might drum-up enthusiasm amongst voters in Chicago's immigrant community.[7] They particularly targeted German-Americans and Catholics.[8] Republicans charged that the Democratic Party had been attempting to mislead voters into thinking that Sweitzer was catholic, in an alleged effort to pander to voters in a city with a nearly 50% catholic population.[7] Whether or not these charges were true, many protestant ministers were persuaded by these allegations to publicly support Thompson over Sweitzer.[7]

Democrats also aimed to cast Sweitzer as a capable individual with a strong business record.[7]

Sweitzer was a "wet", meaning that he was against prohibition, which many around the country had been advocating for at the time.[9] Prohibitionists were skeptical of Thompson, who had ties to Lorimer (a "wet").[9]

Both the Chicago Daily News and the Chicago Tribune opposed, while the Chicago Journal strongly supported Thompson.[7] In response to the opposition he received from newspapers, Thompson demonized what he dubbed the "trust press". He made an issue of the low property taxes Daily News publisher Victor Lawson reportedly paid on his Lake Shore Drive mansion.[7] Thompson alleged that, in his tenure as Cook County Clerk Schweitzer had been responsible for this and other alleged calculation errors regarding taxes.[7]

The election was also shaped the backdrop of the World War in Europe. Democrats had become concerned that German voters regarded Sweitzer as having "abandoned his heritage" (in the past he had emphasized his Irish heritage far more than his German heritage).[13] They undertook misguided efforts to drum up German support for his candidacy, which ultimately proved to be at the peril of his overall appeal to non-German/Austrian voters.[13] Materials supporting Sweitzer had been distributed in the German and Austrian neighborhoods of Chicago baring images of Kaiser Wilhelm and Emperor Franz Joseph and appealing for resident were distributed urging all citizens of central European origin to support Sweitzer and the "Fatherland".[7] This became significant when Sweitzer did not disavow these materials, thus lending credence to an informal association of him with the Central Powers war effort.[7] Thompsons campaign seized on this, and distributed identical materials to Chicago's Polish and Czechoslovakian neighborhoods.[7]

While Sweitzer was officially endorsed by the Teamsters, the trade union support he received was dampened by a rumor that he had been a strikebreaker during a 1905 Teamsters strike.[13]

Sweitzer was also burdened by organizational weakness of the Democratic Party. At the time of the election the Democratic Party lacked a strong political machine in Chicago.[7]

Thompson was a vigorous campaigner.[4]

Besides Thompson and Sweitzer, the two additional candidates running in the election were Socialist candidate Seymour Steadman and Prohibition Party candidate John H. Hill.


Robert Sweitzer (Democratic)
Bill Thompson (Republican)
  • Chicago Journal[7]


Thompson defeated Sweitzer by greater than an 11% margin.[14] In terms of the number of votes, Thompson's margin of victory was greater than any prior Chicago municipal election.[7][15] Thompson won 25 of the city's 35 wards.[7] Thompson's victory had coattail effect on coinciding municipal races.[15]

The 1915 Chicago municipal elections saw more voters than any municipal election up to that point in United States history.[16] More than 240,000 women voted.[16]

In a poll of professors at the University of Chicago conducted by the Chicago Tribune, Thompson had received overwhelming support, with 81 professors surveyed having voted for Thompson and only 17 having voted for Sweitzer.[7]

Following the election, conversations arose attempting to identify a reason for the failure of Sweitzer's campaign.[7] Comedian Will Rogers quipped that Sweitzer's key mistake had been making appeals to higher elements saying, "They was [sic] trying to beat Bill with the better element vote. The trouble with Chicago is that there ain't much better element."[7] The Literary Digest proposed that the women's vote was the culprit for Thompson's victory. However, this was an insufficient thesis. While Thompson received 63% of the women's vote, he also had received 60% of the men's vote.[7] Carter Harrison Jr. argued that the critical mistakes Democrats had made was bringing religion into the election and the allowing the circulation of materials containing the likeness of Kaiser Wilhelm and Franz Joseph.[7] Analysis, however, has shown that Harrison's own endorsement of Thompson was likely a decisive factor in determining the outcome of the election.[7][15]


1915 Chicago mayoral election (general election)[14]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican William H. Thompson 398,538 58.78
Democratic Robert Sweitzer 251,061 37.03
Socialist Seymour Stedman 24,452 3.61
Prohibition John H. Hill 3,974 0.59
Turnout 678,025

Thompson received 45.90% of the Polish-American vote, while Sweitzer received 51.53% and Stedman received 2.53%.[17]


  1. ^
  2. ^ a b Mayor William Hale Thompson Biography (Chicago Public Library
  3. ^ a b Chicago Portraits: New Edition by June Skinner Sawyers
  4. ^ a b c d e f Schmidt, John R. (1989). "The Mayor Who Cleaned Up Chicago" A Political Biography of William E. Dever. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.
  5. ^ Bachin, Robin F. (March 15, 2004). Building the South Side: Urban Space and Civic Culture in Chicago, 1890-1919. University of Chicago Press. p. 303.
  6. ^ "RaceID=690353". Our Campaigns. Retrieved December 6, 2018.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao Schottenhamel, George. “How Big Bill Thompson Won Control of Chicago.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, vol. 45, no. 1, 1952, pp. 30–49. JSTOR
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h Luthin, Reinhard H. (1954). "Big Bill Thompson". American Demagogues: Twentieth Century. Beacon Press. ASIN B0007DN37C. OCLC 1098334.
  9. ^ a b c Bright, John (1930). Hizzoner Big Bill Thompson, an idyll of Chicago.
  10. ^ a b c The Mayors: The Chicago Political Tradition, fourth edition by Paul M. Green, Melvin G. Holli SIU Press, Jan 10, 2013
  11. ^ "RaceID=71861". Our Campaigns. Retrieved December 6, 2018.
  12. ^
  13. ^ a b c Bukowski, Douglas (1998). Big Bill Thompson, Chicago, and the Politics of Image. University of Illinois Press.
  14. ^ a b "RaceID=71864". Our Campaigns. Retrieved December 6, 2018.
  15. ^ a b c REPUBLICANS WIN CHICAGO BY 139,000; Thompson's Plurality Greatest in City's History -- Carries Rest of Ticket with Him. BIG VOTE BY THE WOMEN But Campaign Managers Say Result Would Have Been Same if They Had Stayed Away. RACIAL ISSUES INVOLVED German-Austrian Appeal for Sweitzer Rouses Violent Feeling -- Harrison Men Cut Ticket. REPUBLICANS WIN CHICAGO BY 139,000 (New York Times; April 7, 1915)
  16. ^ a b Thompson Wins Office Over Sweitzer Ludington Daily News - Apr 7, 1915
  17. ^ 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
This page was last edited on 19 August 2019, at 17:14
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.