Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:26:04.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Political Insult to Political Theory: The Boss, the Machine, and the Pluralist City

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2013

Alan Lessoff  and
James J. Connolly
Alan Lessoff
Affiliation:
Illinois State University
James J. Connolly
Affiliation:
Ball State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 139 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Donald Critchlow and Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Rufus Shapley, Solid for Mulhooly: A Political Satire, new edition with illustrations by Thomas Nast (Philadelphia: Gebbie, 1889). Nast’s sketch is the frontispiece.

2. Portions of this section and the next appeared in different form in Connolly and Lessoff, “Urban Political Bossism in the United States, 1870–1920: The Spread of an Idea and the Defense of a Practice,” in Integration, Legitimation, Korruption, Politische Patronage in Früher Neuzeit und Moderne, ed. Ronald G. Asch et al. (Frankfurt, 2011), 195–208. On the liberals and their influence, see McGerr, Michael E., The Decline of Popular Politics in the American North, 1865–1928 (New York, 1986)Google Scholar; Schudson, Michael, The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life (New York, 1998), 144–87Google Scholar; Butler, Leslie, Critical Americans: Victorian Intellectuals and Transatlantic Liberal Reform (Chapel Hill, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, Nancy, The Reconstruction of American Liberalism, 1865–1914 (Chapel Hill, 2002)Google Scholar; James, Scott C., Presidents, Parties, and the State: A Party System Perspective on Democratic Regulatory Choice, 1884–1936 (New York, 2000), 36–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McFarland, Gerald W., Mugwumps, Morals, and Politics, 1884–1920 (Amherst, 1975).Google Scholar

3. Callow, Alexander B., The Tweed Ring (New York, 1966)Google Scholar; Ackerman, Kenneth D., Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York (New York, 2000).Google Scholar

4. Connolly, James J., An Elusive Unity: Urban Democracy and Machine Politics in Industrializing America (Ithaca, 2010), 28–53.Google Scholar

5. Bryce, James, The American Commonwealth, 3rd ed. (London, 1899), 2: 75.Google Scholar

6. Shefter, Martin, “The Emergence of the Machine: An Alternative View,” in Theoretical Perspectives on Urban Politics, ed. Hawley, Willis D. et al. . (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976), 14–44Google Scholar; Erie, Steven P., Rainbow’s End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840–1985 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988), 20Google Scholar; Teaford, Jon C., The Unheralded Triumph: City Government in America, 1870–1920 (Baltimore, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. New York Times, 8 July 1876, 7; 10 July 1876, 4.

8. Chicago Tribune, 30 October 1877; Harper’s Weekly, 21 August 1880, 531; 27 November 1880, 754; “Bossism,” Scribner’s Monthly, August 1881, 625; Independent, 17 November 1881, 17; “Boss Government,” Nation, 4 November 1875, 288; “The Boss’s Dominions,” Nation, 12 October 1871, 236–37. On Shepherd as another Tweed, see Lessoff, Alan, The Nation and Its City: Politics, “Corruption,” and Progress in Washington, D.C., 1871–1902 (Baltimore, 1994), 45–47Google Scholar, 66–68, 79–80.

9. Stave, Bruce M. et al. ., “A Reassessment of the Urban Political Boss: An Exchange of Views,” History Teacher 21 (May 1988): 307CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Bossism,” Scribner’s Monthly, 625; Independent, 17 November 1881, 17; Puck, 7 November 1877, 16.

10. These arguments built upon broader defenses of party politics developed through the middle decades of the nineteenth century, for example: Buren, Martin Van, Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States (New York: A.M. Kelley, 1867)Google Scholar. On party defenses, Hofstadter, Richard, The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of a Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780–1840 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 223–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keller, Morton, Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth-Century America (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 531–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Richard Croker, “Tammany Hall and the New Democracy,” North American Review, February 1892, 228.

12. ”Mr. Croker on Politics and Spoils,” Outlook, 22 April 1899, 900. For other examples of this rhetorical habit, see Zink, Harold, City Bosses in the United States (Durham, 1930), 207Google Scholar; Boston Post, 11 April 1915, clipping in Martin Lomasney Scrapbook [microfilm], Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. 23, p. 37.

13. Croker, Tammany Hall and the New Democracy,” 228–29; Lewis, Croker, 42, 76, 73; Tucker, Louis Leonard, ed., “The Life of the ‘Boss of Cincinnati,’” Bulletin of the Cincinnati Historical Society 26 (April 1968): 145, 156.Google Scholar

14. Report of a Committee of One, 42; McLaughlin, Life and Times of John Kelly, 7; Philadelphia Inquirer, 9 November 1897, clipping in Israel Durham Scrapbooks, 1896–98, 28, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; William T. Stead, “Mr. Richard Croker and Greater New York,” Review of Reviews, 17 October 1897, 343; Alfred Henry Lewis, “The Modern Robin Hood,” Cosmopolitan, June 1905, 186–92.

15. Czitrom, Daniel, “Underworlds and Underdogs: Big Tim Sullivan and Metropolitan Politics in New York, 1889–1913,” Journal of American History 78 (September 1991): 538CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 555. Zink, City Bosses, 7–8.

16. Wendt, Lloyd and Kogan, Herman, Bosses in Lusty Chicago: The Story of Bathhouse John and Hinky Dink (Bloomington, 1967), 91Google Scholar; Czitrom, “Underworld and Underdogs,” 544; Boston Post, 6 December 1903; Connolly, James J., The Triumph of Ethnic Progressivism: Urban Political Culture in Boston, 1900–1925 (Cambridge, Mass., 1998), chap. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Riordon, William L., Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, ed. McDonald, Terrence J. (1905; Boston, 1994), 98–99Google Scholar; on how Riordon manipulated Plunkitt’s self-portrayal and even his words to develop his own portrait, see McDonald’s introduction “How George Washington Plunkitt Became Plunkitt of Tammany Hall,” 26–29.

18. Buenker, John D., Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform (New York, 1973)Google Scholar. Greenwald, Richard, The Triangle Fire, the Protocols of Peace, and Industrial Democracy in Progressive Era New York (Philadelphia, 2005).Google Scholar

19. Tucker, ed., “Life of the Boss,” 145; Ross, Steven, Workers on the Edge: Work, Leisure, and Politics in Industrializing Cincinnati, 1789–1890 (New York, 1985), 271–72Google Scholar. Ansell, Christopher K. and Burris, Arthur L., “Bosses of the City Unite! Labor Politics and Machine Consolidation, 1870–1920,” Studies in American Political Development 11 (Spring 1997): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Croker quoted in Henderson, Thomas M., Tammany and the New Immigrants: The Progressive Years (New York, 1976), 140Google Scholar; Lewis, Croker, 150. Progressive Era urban affairs expert Robert C. Brooks ridiculed “this view [that] the machine, dominated by the boss or gang, is the defender of our society against the attacks of our internal barbarians” and deplored political scholars who collaborated with bosses in giving currency to it. Robert C. Brooks, Corruption in American Politics and Life (New York, 1910), 15.

21. Hartley Davis, “Tammany Hall: The Most Perfect Political Organization in the World,” Munsey’s, October 1900, 55–67.

22. Paul Leicester Ford, The Honorable Peter Stirling and What People Thought of Him (1894; repr. Ridgewood, N.J., 1968). Other sympathetic fictional portraits of bosses included Lewis, Alfred Henry, The Boss, and How He Came to Rule New York (New York, 1903)Google Scholar; and Williams, Francis Churchill, J. Devlin, Boss: A Romance of American Politics (Boston, 1901).Google Scholar

23. On Stead, see Downey, Dennis B., “William Stead in Chicago: A Victorian Jeremiad in the Windy City,” Mid-America 68 (January 1986): 153–66Google Scholar; Miller, Donald L., City of the Century: The Epic of Chicago and the Making of America (New York, 1996), 533–42.Google Scholar

24. Howe, Frederic, The City: The Hope of Democracy (New York, 1905), 96–97Google Scholar; for a critique of Howe’s antimonopoly analysis by an urban affairs expert versed in Progressive Era debates, see Griffith, Ernest S., Current Municipal Problems (Boston, 1933), 37Google Scholar; Miller, Kenneth E., From Progressive to New Dealer: Frederic Howe and American Liberalism (University Park, Pa., 2010)Google Scholar, chaps. 4–6. On Steffens’s relevance and limitations, see Teaford, Jon C., “Finis for Tweed and Steffens: Rewriting the History of Urban Rule,” Reviews in American History 10 (December 1982): 133–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Connolly, James J., “The Public Good and the Problem of Pluralism in Lincoln Steffens’s Civic Imagination,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 4 (April 2005): 125–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Jane Addams, “Why the Ward Boss Rules,” Outlook, 2 April 1898, 879–82. See also Ray Stannard Baker, “Hull House and the Ward Boss,” Outlook, 28 March 1898, 256–57; Nelli, Humbert S., “John Powers and the Italians: Politics in a Chicago Ward, 1896–1921,” Journal of American History 57 (June 1970): 67–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Platt, Harold, “Jane Addams and the Ward Boss Revisited: Class, Politics, and Public Health in Chicago, 1890–1930,” Environmental History 5 (April 2000): 194–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knight, Louise W., Citizen: Jane Addams and the Struggle for Democracy (Chicago, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chap. 15–16.

26. Ethington, Philip J., “The Metropolis and Multicultural Ethics,” in Progressivism and the New Democracy, ed. Milkis, Sidney M. and Mileur, Jerome M. (Amherst, 1999), 192–225Google Scholar; Mattson, Kevin, Creating a Democratic Public: The Struggle for Urban Participatory Democracy in the Progressive Era (University Park, Pa., 1998)Google Scholar; Schäfer, Axel, American Progressives and German Social Reform, 1875–1920 (Stuttgart, 2000), 113–24Google Scholar; Menand, Louis, The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (New York, 2001)Google Scholar, chap. 12; Tonn, Joan C., Mary Parker Follett: Creating Democracy, Transforming Management (New Haven, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chap. 10–14.

27. Jane Addams, “Ethical Survivals in Municipal Corruption,” International Journal of Ethics 8 (April 1898): 274–76, 282.

28. Ibid., 290–91. Addams, “Why the Ward Boss Rules,” 879; Ethington, “The Metropolis and Multicultural Ethics,” 202–4.

29. Addams, “Ethical Survivals in Municipal Corruption,” 288.

30. Brooks, Robert C., Political Parties and Electoral Problems, 3rd. ed. (New York, 1933), 247.Google Scholar

31. Frank J. Goodnow, City Government in the United States (1910; New York, 1974), e.g., 55, 87; Frisch, Michael H., “Urban Theorists, Urban Reform, and American Political Culture in the Progressive Period,” Political Science Quarterly 97 (Summer 1982): 295–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bulmer, Martin, The Chicago School of Sociology (Chicago, 1984)Google Scholar, chap. 3; Fox, Kenneth, Better City Government: Innovation in American Urban Politics, 1850–1937 (Philadelphia, 1977)Google Scholar; Schiesl, Martin J., The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1880–1920 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1977).Google Scholar

32. Rodgers, Daniel, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 153–59(158)Google Scholar. See also Gerstle, Gary, “AHR Exchange: A State Both Strong and Weak,” American Historical Review 115 (June 2010): 784–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Hays, Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55 (October 1964): 157–69Google Scholar; Holli, Melvin G., Reform in Detroit: Hazen S. Pingree and Urban Politics (New York, 1969)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 8. For a clear critique, see Finegold, Kenneth, Experts and Politicians: Reform Challenges to Machine Politics in New York, Cleveland, and Chicago (Princeton, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chaps. 1, 2.

34. Goodnow, City Government in the United States, 109. Teaford, Unheralded Triumph, chap. 5, suggests that home-rule advocates overestimated the harm and underestimated the benefits of state interference.

35. Rice, Bradley R., Progressive Cities: The Commission Government Movement in America, 1901–1920 (Austin, 1977)Google Scholar; Bridges, Amy, Morning Glories: Municipal Reform in the Southwest (Princeton, 1999)Google Scholar; Trounstine, Jessica, Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers (Chicago, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chap. 4.

36. Belle Zeller, review of Dayton David McKean, The Boss: The Hague Machine in Action (1940), in American Sociological Review 6 (August 1941): 591–92; DiGaetano, Alan, “Urban Political Reform: Did It Kill the Machine?” Journal of Urban History 18 (November 1991): 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Griffith, Current Municipal Problems, 38, 48.

38. Harold Zink, review of George M. Reynolds, Machine Politics in New Orleans (1936), in American Sociological Review 2 (August 1937): 581; Salter, J. T., “Personal Attention in Politics,” American Political Science Review 34 (February 1940): 54–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Gosnell, Harold F., “The Political Party versus the Political Machine,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 169 (September 1933): 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. Ibid., 26; Johnson, Marilynn S., Street Justice: A History of Police Violence in New York City (Boston, 2003)Google Scholar, chaps. 1, 3; Hammack, David, Power and Society: Greater New York at the Turn of the Century (1982: repr. New York, 1987), 147–52Google Scholar; Burrows, Edward G. and Wallace, Mike, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 (New York, 1999), 1192–94Google Scholar; Schneirov, Richard, Labor and Urban Politics: Class Conflict and the Origins of Modern Liberalism in Chicago, 1864–97 (Urbana, 1998)Google Scholar; McCormick, Richard L., “The Discovery That Business Corrupts Politics: A Reappraisal of the Origins of Progressivism,” American Historical Review 86 (April 1981): 247–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Salter, J. T., The People’s Choice: Philadelphia’s William S. Vare (New York, 1971), 43Google Scholar, 61, 70; see also Salter, “The End of Vare,” Political Science Quarterly 50 (June 1935): 214–35; and Salter, Boss Rule: Portraits in City Politics (1935; repr. New York, 1974); Salter, review of McKean, The Boss, in American Journal of Sociology 47 (September 1941): 238–39; McCaffrey, Peter, When Bosses Ruled Philadelphia: The Emergence of the Republican Machine, 1867–1933 (University Park, Pa., 1993)Google Scholar; Connolly, Triumph of Ethnic Progressivism; Beatty, Jack, The Rascal King: The Life and Times of James Michael Curley, 1874–1958 (Reading, Mass., 1992).Google Scholar

42. Merriam, Charles E., Chicago: A More Intimate View of Urban Politics (New York, 1929), 45–46Google Scholar; Zink, Harold, Government of Cities in the United States (New York, 1939), 224–25.Google Scholar

43. Brooks, Political Parties and Electoral Problems, 227; Merriam, Chicago: A More Intimate View, 38.

44. Merriam, Chicago: A More Intimate View, 186–89. Karl, Barry D., Charles E. Merriam and the Study of Politics (Chicago, 1974)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 7; Diner, Steven J., A City and Its Universities: Public Policy in Chicago, 1892–1919 (Chicago, 1980)Google Scholar, chap. 7; Finegold, Experts and Politicians, chap. 11; Bulmer, Chicago School of Sociology, esp. chap. 8; Robert E. L. Faris, Chicago Sociology, 1920–1932 (San Francisco, 1967), chap. 4; Crick, Bernard, The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1959)Google Scholar, chap. 8; Ross, Dorothy, The Origins of American Social Science (New York, 1991)Google Scholar, chap. 10; Allswang, John M., Bosses, Machines, and Urban Voters, rev. ed. (Baltimore, 1986), 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. Gosnell, Harold F., Machine Politics: Chicago Model (1937; Chicago, 1968), 8–12.Google Scholar

46. Ibid., 70–71, 183. Lasswell, Harold D., “Chicago’s Old First Ward: A Case Study in Political Behavior,” National Municipal Review 12 (March 1923): 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the problem of assessing bosses’ claims of generosity, see McDonald, introduction to Riordon, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, 13–25. Erie, Rainbow’s End, chaps. 2, 3.

47. Salter, Boss Rule, 254–55; Salter, J. T., “Party Organization in Philadelphia: The Ward Committeeman,” American Political Science Review 27 (August 1933): 620–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gosnell, Machine Politics: Chicago Model, 44–45. On machine resistance to accommodating newer ethnic groups, see Henderson, Tammany and the New Immigrants; Erie, Stephen, “Bringing the Bosses Back In: The Irish Political Machines and Urban Policy Making,” Studies in American Political Development 4 (March 1990): 269–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Erie, Rainbow’s End, esp. chaps. 1–3; DiGaetano, Alan, “Urban Governance in the Gilded Age: An Examination of Political-Culture, Social-Control, and Fiscal-Ideology Theories,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 30 (December 1994): 187–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trounstine, Political Monopolies in American Cities, esp. chap. 3.

48. Salter, “Personal Attention in Politics,” 55.

49. Beard, Charles, American City Government: A Study of Newer Tendencies (New York, 1912), 50.Google Scholar

50. Munro, William Bennett, The Government of American Cities, 3rd ed. (New York, 1924), 35–36Google Scholar. On Munro as an exemplar within political science of traditionalist values, including nativism, see Ross, Origins of American Social Science, 462–66. See also Brooks, Political Parties and Electoral Problems, 196.

51. Griffith, Current Municipal Problems, 44–46, 49–50, 67; Ethington, “The Metropolis and Multicultural Ethics”; Mattson, Creating a Democratic Public.

52. Merriam, Chicago: A More Intimate View, 191–92.

53. Wirth, Louis, “Urbanism as a Way of Life,” American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 16; Thomas Bender, Community and Social Change in America (repr. Baltimore, 1982).

54. Gosnell, Harold F., Negro Politicians: The Rise of Black Politics in Chicago (1935; Chicago, 1966), 373Google Scholar; Bulmer, The Chicago School of Sociology, chaps. 2, 7.

55. A partial exception is Allswang, Bosses, Machines, and Urban Voters, chap. 1, which pointed to Merriam, Gosnell, and the Chicago School—and in different ways to Zink and Salter—as the main figures in the effort to develop “a theoretical and functional understanding of the nature of urban politics” (25). Allswang, however, was dedicated to a functionalist and ethnocultural model of urban machines. He treated prewar urban politics experts as precursors of his own approach, which removed them from their intellectual context and inhibited reflection on the historically contingent character of what had come to seem a set of generalizable archetypes.

56. Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (1949; rev. ed., Glencoe, Ill., 1957), 75 n. 98, 80. For background, see DiGaetano, Alan, “The Rise and Development of Urban Political Machines: An Alternative to Merton’s Functional Analysis,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 24 (December 1988): 242–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDonald, Terrence J., “The Problem of the Political in Recent American History: Liberal Pluralism and the Rise of Functionalism,” Social History 10 (October 1985): 323–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York, 1955), 185Google Scholar. For the intellectual and political background of Hofstadter’s Age of Reform, see Brown, David S., Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography (Chicago, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chaps. 4, 5; Brinkley, Alan, “Richard Hofstadter’s The Age of Reform: A Reconsideration,” Reviews in American History 13 (September 1985): 462–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnston, Robert D. and Harp, Gillis, “Forum: Richard Hofstadter’s The Age of Reform After Fifty Years,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 6 (April 2007): 125–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Hofstadter’s evolving understanding of political processes, see Singal, Daniel J., “Beyond Consensus: Richard Hofstadter and American Historiography,” Journal of American History 89 (October 1984): 976–1004.Google Scholar

58. Handlin, Oscar, The Uprooted (Boston, 1951), 188.Google Scholar

59. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, 73. For a summary of historiographic arguments over consumerist democracy, see Nichols, Christopher McKnight, “Modernity and Political Economy in the New Era and the New Deal,” in Fractured Modernity: America Confronts Modern Times, 1890s–1940s, ed. Welskopp, Thomas and Lessoff, Alan (Munich, 2012), 129–50.Google Scholar

60. Lasswell, Harold D., Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (1936; New York, 1950)Google Scholar; Higham, John, “Ethnic Pluralism in Modern American Thought,” repr. in Send These to Me: Jews and Other Immigrants in Urban America (New York, 1975), 197Google Scholar, 226; Ethington, “The Metropolis and Multicultural Ethnics,” 213–16; Connolly, An Elusive Unity, chap. 7; Ross, Origins of American Social Science, 330–39, 454–58; Crick, American Science of Politics, chaps. 7–10; Purcell, Edward A., The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism and the Problem of Value (Lexington, Ky., 1973)Google Scholar, chaps. 6, 10.

61. Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, 1961)Google Scholar; Arthur F. Bentley, The Process of Government (1908; repr. Cambridge, Mass., 1967), 228–31; Nicholas Lemann, “Conflict of Interests,” The New Yorker, 11 August 2008.

62. On the rejection of functionalism and pluralist models and of the preoccupation with bossism to the exclusion of other aspects of urban politics and policy, see Thelen, David, “Urban Politics: Beyond Bosses and Reformers,” Reviews in American History 7 (September 1979): 406–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frisch, Michael, “Oyez, Oyez, Oyez: The Recurring Case of Plunkett v. Steffens,” Journal of Urban History 7 (February 1981): 205–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar. McDonald, Terrence J., “Putting Politics Back into the History of the American City,” American Quarterly 34 (Summer 1982): 200–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Teaford, “Finis for Tweed and Steffens.” On the application of regime theory to the American urban machines, see Erie, Rainbow’s End; DiGaetano, “The Rise and Development of Urban Political Machines”; DiGaetano, “Urban Political Reform: Did It Kill the Machine?”; Boulay, Harvey and DiGaetano, Alan, “Why Did Political Machines Disappear?” Journal of Urban History 12 (November 1985): 25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shefter, Martin, “Political Incorporation and Containment: Regime Transformation in New York City,” in Power, Culture, and Place: Essays on New York City, ed. Mollenkopf, John Hull (New York, 1988), 135–57Google Scholar. On the concept of an urban regime, see Stone, Clarence N., “Summing Up: Urban Regimes, Development Policy, and Political Arrangements,” in The Politics of Urban Development (Lawrence, Kans., 1987)Google Scholar; and Stone, Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988 (Lawrence, Kans., 1989). For a critique, see Mossberger, Karen and Stoker, Gerry, “The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory: The Challenge of Conceptualizaton,” Urban Affairs Review 36 (July 2001): 810–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On alternatives besides regime theory to the functionalist model, see Connolly and Lessoff, “Urban Political Bossism in the United States, 1870–1920,” 192–93.

63. Griffith, Current Municipal Problems, 69–70; Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, 185; Addams, “Ethical Survivals in Municipal Corruption,” 282, 290; Bridges, Morning Glories, 217–22; see also Trounstine, Political Monopolies in American Cities.

64. For example, Ethington, “The Metropolis and Multicultural Ethics”; Mattson, Creating a Democratic Public; Connolly, An Elusive Unity.

65. Crick, American Science of Politics, 151, 154. To Crick, the British scholar of politics, Merriam’s writings on Chicago showed what he could have done had he not fallen prey to scientistic illusions. They bristled with practical observations and shrewd judgments, a contrast to the sterile “flights of pseudo-scientific rhetoric that ruined” much of his other writing.

66. Gosnell, Machine Politics, Chicago Style, 70.

67. Theodore Lowi, Foreword to ibid., xviii. See also Harold F. Gosnell, review of Allswang, A House for All Peoples, in American Journal of Sociology 77 (March 1972): 978–79; Lowi, Theodore, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority (New York, 1969).Google Scholar

68. Rakove, Milton L., Don’t Make No Waves, Don’t Back No Losers: An Insider’s Analysis of the Daley Machine (Bloomington, 1975)Google Scholar; Moscow, Warren, What Have You Done for Me Lately? The Ins and Outs of New York Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967)Google Scholar; Moscow, The Last of the Big-Time Bosses: The Life and Times of Carmine de Sapio and the Rise and Fall of Tammany Hall (New York, 1971). See also Royko, Mike, Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago (New York, 1971).Google Scholar

69. O’Connor, EdwinThe Last Hurrah (Boston, 1956)Google Scholar; Edwin O’Connor, “James Michael Curley and the Last Hurrah,” Atlantic Monthly, September 1961, 48–50; Rank, Hugh, Edwin O’Connor (New York, 1974).Google Scholar

70. Howard Mumford Jones, review of O’Connor, The Last Hurrah, in Saturday Review, 4 February 1956, copy in item 326, Edwin O’Connor Papers, Boston Public Library.

71. Milne, Gordon, The American Political Novel (Norman, Okla., 1966), 167Google Scholar; Stave, Bruce, The New Deal and the Last Hurrah: Pittsburgh Machine Politics (Pittsburgh, 1970)Google Scholar. For critiques, see Erie, Rainbow’s End, chap. 4; Dorsett, Lyle W., Franklin D. Roosevelt and the City Bosses (Port Washington, N.Y., 1977).Google Scholar

72. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., introduction to The Best and Last of Edwin O’Connor (Boston, 1970), 13; Rank, Edwin O’Connor, 9; Connolly, James J., “The Last Hurrah and the Pluralist Vision of American Politics,” in Boston Histories: Essays in Honor of Thomas H. O’Connor, ed. O’Toole, James M. and Quigley, David (Boston, 2004), 214–27.Google Scholar

73. Banfield, Edward C. and Wilson, James Q., City Politics (New York, 1963)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 9.

74. Of these critiques, start with McDonald, “The Problem of the Political in Recent American History”; DiGaetano, “Urban Governance in the Gilded Age”; Craig Brown, M. and Halaby, Charles N., “Machine Politics in America, 1870–1945,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 17 (Winter 1987): 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75. In addition to works in this vein already cited, see Belanger, Elizabeth, “The Neighborhood Ideal: Local Planning Practices in Progressive-Era Women’s Clubs,” Journal of Planning History 8 (May 2009): 87–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spain, Daphne, How Women Saved the City (Minneapolis, 2001)Google Scholar; Flanagan, Maureen A., Seeing with Their Hearts: Chicago Women and the Vision of the Good City, 1871–1933 (Princeton, 2002)Google Scholar; Westhoff, Laura, A Fatal Drifting Apart: Democratic Social Knowledge and Chicago Reform (Columbus, 2007).Google Scholar