1. On the integrative function of machines, see, e.g., Cornwell, Elmer E. Jr, “Bosses, Machines, and Ethnic Groups,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 353 (05 1964): 31Google Scholar; and Scott, James C., “Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change,” American Political Science Review 63 (12 1969): 1154–55Google Scholar. On social provision, see, e.g., Greenstein, Fred I., “The Changing Pattern of Urban Party Politics,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 353 (05 1964): 5Google Scholar. On the machine as an avenue of upward mobility, see, e.g., Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1968), 130–31Google Scholar; and Cornwell, “Bosses, Machines, and Ethnic Groups,” 33. On the coordinating role of the machines, see Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, 126–27; and Greenstein, “The Changing Pattern of Urban Party Politics,” 4.

2. See, e.g., Katznelson, Ira, City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), esp. 69–71Google Scholar.

3. For an early statement of this position, see Scott, “Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change,” 1156.

4. Scholarship focused on the early twentieth century has been increasingly attentive to the role of labor in supporting reform movements. The best recent example is by Fine-gold, Kenneth, Experts and Politicians (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995), 20–22Google Scholar, which also provides a review of related research. Despite its focus on a later time period, this scholarship shares our emphasis on the importance of labor as a variable in explaining urban political regimes.

5. Glazer, Nathan and Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Means, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1963), 223–29Google Scholar. For another expression of this general point of view, see Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Knopf, 1960), 9Google Scholar. Scott, “Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change,” 1148, offers a more nuanced treatment, but he does call attention to what he terms “patterns of loyalty” in creating the machine.

6. Banfield, Edward C. and Wilson, James Q., City Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 118, 121Google Scholar; Cornwell, “Bosses, Machines, and Ethnic Groups,” 28–29; Scott, “Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change,” 1147, 1150; Wade, Richard, “Urbanization,” in The Comparative Approach to American History, ed. Woodward, C. Vann (New York: Basic, 1968), 195–96Google Scholar. This is also the implicit argument in Handlin, Oscar, The Uprooted, 2d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973), 180–202Google Scholar.

7. Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, 174–75.

8. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, 126–27. This general perspective also received early expression in the work of Merriam, Charles, Chicago: A More Intimate View of Urban Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1929), 68, 90Google Scholar.

9. Wade, “Urbanization,” 196.

10. Bridges, Amy, A City in the Republic: Antebellum New York and the Origins of Machine Politics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987), 5Google Scholar.

11. DiGaetano, Alan, “The Rise and Development of Urban Political Machines: An Alternative to Merton's Functional Analysis,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 24 (12 1988): 250CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Ibid., 242–67. For a more general critique of functionalism as a variety of causal theory, see Nagel, Ernest, The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979), 23–24Google Scholar.

13. Banfield and Wilson, City Politics, 135–36.

14. Wolfinger, Raymond E., “Why Political Machines Have Not Withered Away and Other Revisionist Thoughts,” Journal of Politics 34 (02 1972): 374–75Google Scholar. The relative prevalence over time of factional and centralized patterns of machine politics is assessed in Brown, M. Craig and Halaby, Charles N., “Machine Politics in America, 1870–1945,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 17 (Winter 1987): 587–612Google Scholar.

15. Ostreicher, Richard has forcefully made the point in his review essay, “Urban Working-Class Political Behavior and Theories of American Electoral Politics, 1870–1940,” Journal of American History 74 (1987): 1257–96Google Scholar. For a national perspective, see Mink, Gwendolyn, Old Labor and New Immigrants in American Political Development: Union, Party, and State, 1875–1920 (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

16. Shefter, Martin, “The Emergence of the Political Machine: An Alternative View,” in Theoretical Perspectives on Urban Politics, ed. Hawley, Willis D. and Lipsky, Michael (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976), 14–44Google Scholar; Shefter, Martin, “The Electoral Foundations of the Political Machine: New York City, 1884–1897,” in The History of American Electoral Behavior, ed. Silbey, Joel H., Bogue, Allan G., and Flanigan, William H. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978), 263–98Google Scholar. As Shefter puts it: “A general theory of the machine, in other words, must recognize that the political machine was, in the first instance, a political institution. The machine did not simply reflect an underlying (and unambiguous) set of popular loyalties and preferences. Rather, the dominant machines succeeded in institutionalizing a particular pattern of such preferences, and in the process, other plausible lines of cleavage were organized out of politics” (“Electoral Foundations,” 297–98). In a very different way, Erie, Steven P. pursues an institutional approach in Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840–1985 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar. We consider Erie's excellent book at the end of this essay. Another argument for the need to place institutions at the center of explanations of urban politics is made by Ethington, Philip J., The Public City: The Political Construction of Urban Life in San Francisco, 1850—1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 14Google Scholar.

17. Shefter, “Electoral Foundations” and “The Origins of Machine Politics.”

18. Shefter, “Electoral Foundations,” 296.

19. We consider the case of Chicago, in detail, later.

20. Ansell, Christopher K., “French Workers between Party and Union, 1872–1922” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1993)Google Scholar.

21. Shefter, Martin, “Trade Unions and Political Machines: The Organization and Disorganization of the American Working Class in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Zolberg, Aristide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 197–276Google Scholar.

22. See Fink, Leon, Workingmen's Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

23. Key, V. O. Jr, Southern Politics in Stale and Nation (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984), esp. 37–41Google Scholar.

24. For a sense of the multiethnic nature of wards in Chicago, e.g., see Hirsch, Eric, Urban Revolt: Ethnic Politics in the Nineteenth-Century Chicago Labor Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 36Google Scholar.

25. The literature is large, but for various perspectives on craft unionism, see Jackson, Robert M., The Formation of Craft Labor Markets (Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984)Google Scholar: Haydu, Jeffrey, Between Craft and Class: Skilled Workers and Factory Politics in the United Stales and Britain, 1890–1922 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Hattam, Victoria, Labor Visions and Slate Power: The Origins of Business Unionism in the United States (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; and Joseph, Antoine, “The Solidarity of Skilled Workers: Creating a Logic of Particularism,” Historical Sociology 6 (1993): 288–350Google Scholar.

26. At the end of the nineteenth century, the labor movement was engaged in a fierce battle to create and defend unions. In part, these battles were internal to the labor movement, and differences in organizational strategy and structure were at the heart of these internal battles. We note two broad strategies. One strategy was to organize at the “point of production” to exert leverage over an employer through community and workplace solidarities. A second strategy was to organize craft labor markets by controlling the supply of labor (“craft sectoralism”). Whereas the first strategy tended to lead toward localistic and inclusive mobilization of the working class, the latter tended to lead toward national and exclusive forms of organizational mobilization. Although these strategies were not always in opposition, they did tend to create conflicting organizational imperatives. A major point of contention, for instance, was when, where, and how strikes would be organized and who would have authority over them. Eventually, the strategy of organizing the labor market triumphed over organization at the “point of production.” The AFL embodied a strategy of organizing craft labor markets on a national basis. The institution at the heart of the AFL strategy was the national trade union – federations of local unions organized around a particular trade. These national trade unions organized craft labor markets by centralizing control over strikes and membership policy at the national level and by exerting strict jurisdictional control over the trade. Here, see Ulman, I. Loyd, The Rise of the National Trade Union: The Development and Significance of Its Structure, Governing Institutions, and Economic Policies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955)Google Scholar. To achieve this centralization, the national trade union had to overcome the resistance of local unions who desired to preserve their autonomy for making decisions about strikes and membership. To exert jurisdictional control, the national union had to demarcate the category of labor over which its policies held sway. Often, these local unions sought to preserve their freedom to engage in local strike actions in concert with other local trades or with unskilled workers (the “point-of-production” strategy). Furthermore, the localistic focus was often combined with local political action. Third-party tickets were often promoted by city-based union federations that linked unions associated with different trades and skill levels together.

27. Shefter, “Trade Unions and Political Machines,” esp. 272.

28. For example, the KOL national leadership was opposed to strikes as an organizing tactic; this, however, did not stop many local assemblies from participating in strikes. For an analysis of the rise and decline of the KOL, see Voss, Kim, The Making of American Exceptionalism: The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

29. For systematic evidence about ethnic segmentation in occupations, see Olzak, Susan, The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1992), 166–67Google Scholar.

30. Ragin, Charles, The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 125–27Google Scholar.

31. George, Alexander L., “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison,” in Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy, ed. Lauren, Paul Gordon (New York: Free Press, 1979), 43–68Google Scholar.

32. We were, therefore, unable to adopt the type of large-n approach that easily coded variables make possible. For a nice example of a large-n study of city politics, see Knoke, David, “The Spread of Municipal Reform: Temporal, Spatial, and Social Dynamics,” American Journal of Sociology 87 (1982): 1314–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. For an example of the detailed archival reconstruction necessary to undertake nonecological statistical analysis of voting, see Ethington, Philip J., “Recasting Urban Political History: Gender, the Public Household, and Political Participation in Boston and San Francisco during the Progressive Era,” Social Science History 16 (Summer 1992): 301–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. The lack of agreement on this issue is evident in the disagreements in scholars' assessments of when and where machines became consolidated in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. So, e.g., Alan DiGaetano suggests that the New York City machine consolidated at an unspecified time in the 1870s, Steven Erie places that consolidation at about 1885, and Jon Teaford argues that machine consolidation occurred in New York in the late 1880s and early 1890s. With respect to Philadelphia, Erie places the consolidation of the machine in the 1860s, while DiGaetano puts it in the 1880s, and Teaford in the early twentieth century. The empirical disagreements are even more striking with respect to Boston, where scholars' differences go beyond questions of timing: while DiGaetano suggests that the machine consolidated in the 1880s, Teaford's work suggests that no machine had consolidated by 1900, and Erie argues that no consolidated machine ever emerges. See DiGaetano, “The Rise and Development of Urban Political Machines,” 260; Erie, Rainbow's End, 20–21; and Teaford, Jon, The Unheralded Triumph: City Government in America, 1870–1900 (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

35. Shefter's work prepared us only for an electoral challenge from an independent labor party. In analyzing our case materials, we discovered that labor unions also joined coalitions in some cities, sometimes with a major party and sometimes with other third-party elements.

36. Gavett, Thomas W., Development of the Labor Movement in Milwaukee (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965), 72–89Google Scholar.

37. Post, Louis F. and Leubuscher, Fred C., Henry George's 1886 Campaign: An Account of the George-Hewitt Campaign in the New York Municipal Election of 1886 (Westport, Conn.: Hyperion, 1976), 3–4Google Scholar.

38. For a helpful account of the campaign, see Hurwitz, Howard Lawrence, Theodore Roosevelt and Labor in New York State, 1880–1900 (New York: AMS Press, 1968), 111–45Google Scholar.

39. Mendel, Ronald, “Workers in Gilded Age New York and Brooklyn, 1886–1898” (Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York, 1989), 593–94Google Scholar. For a description of the involvement of German workers in the 1886 George campaign, see Schneider, Dorothee, Trade Unions and Community: The German Working Class in New York City, 1870–1900 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 119–29Google Scholar.

40. Post, and Leubuscher, , Henry George's 1886 Campaign, 168, See also the coverage of the election in the New York Herald. 11 2, 1886, 5Google Scholar; November 3, 1886, 1; and November 4, 1886, 3.

41. Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age,” 8.

42. Ibid., chap. 4.

43. Ibid., chap. 7; chap. 9, esp. 346–47; chap. 11; Schneider, Trade Unions and Community, 96–108.

44. Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age,” 443, 583.

45. Ibid., 350–53, 376–78, 389.

46. Schneider, Trade Unions and Community, 109–15; Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age,” 279–80, 289–92, 579.

47. Schneider, Trade Unions and Community, 113–15; Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age,” 280.

48. Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age,” 190–210.

49. Goldschmidt, Eli, “Labor and Populism: New York City, 1891–1896,” Labor History 13 (Fall 1972): 522CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age,” 594–600.

50. Shefter, “The Electoral Foundations,” 264. The presence of a pronounced factionalism is evident, e.g., in the 1888 election, in which the County Democracy ran its own candidate for mayor, who won more than 60,000 votes. The Tammany candidate, however, won the election, polling over 103,000 votes. For coverage of the election and the factionalism within it, see the New York Herald, November 4, 1888, 10; November 5, 1888, 4; November 6, 1888, 3; and November 7, 1888, 5. On the early factionalism with Mozart Hall, see Callow, Alexander B. Jr, The Tweed Ring (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 24, 27, 39Google Scholar; and Mushkat, Jerome, The Reconstruction of the New York Democracy, 1861–1874 (Rutherford, N.J.: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981), 23–30Google Scholar. On the formation of the County Democracy in 1880 and 1881, see Breen, Matthew Patrick, Thirty Years of New York Politics Up-to-Date (New York: n.p., 1899), 632–35Google Scholar. On the factional struggles of the early 1880s, see also Myers, Gustavus, The History of Tammany Hall (New York: n.p., 1901), 312–15Google Scholar.

51. Post and Leubuscher, Henry George's 1886 Campaign, 31–32.

52. Shefter, “The Electoral Foundations,” 265–66.

53. Mendel, “Workers in Gilded Age,” 595–96.

54. Ross, Steven J., Workers on the Edge: Work, Leisure, and Politics in Industrializing Cincinnati, 1788–1890 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), chap. 12Google Scholar; Miller, Zane I., Boss Cox's Cincinnati: Urban Politics in the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 76Google Scholar; Wright, Henry C., Bossism in Cincinnati (Cincinnati: n.p., 1905), 32Google Scholar. The activities of the ULP in the 1887 campaign in Cincinnati are detailed nicely in reportage of the Chicago Tribune, April 4, 1887, 2; April 5, 1887, 1; and April 6, 1887, 2–3.

55. Miller, Boss Cox's Cincinnati, 76.

56. Ross, Workers on the Edge, chap. 12.

57. Ibid., 295.

58. Ibid., 324.

59. Morris, James M., “The Cincinnati Shoemakers' Lockout of 1888: A Case Study in the Demise of the Knights of Labor,” Labor History 13 (Fall 1972): 505–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ross, Workers on the Edge, 319.

60. Morris, “The Cincinnati Shoemakers' Lockout,” 518–19.

61. Ross, Workers on the Edge, 324.

62. Miller, Boss Cox's Cincinnati, 123.

63. Quoted in Ibid., 124.

64. Ibid., 125.

65. Ibid., chap. 10 and 11.

66. For a discussion of the ULP's activities, see Fones-Wolfe, Ken, Trade Union Gospel: Christianity and Labor in Industrial Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), 89Google Scholar; see also the Philadelphia Inquirer, October 29, 1886, 2; November 1, 1886, 1; and November 2, 1886, 2.

67. Wallock, Leonard Syd, “Chapel, Custom, Craft: The Transformation of the Struggle to Control the Labor Process Among the Journeymen Printers of Philadelphia, 1850–1886” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1984), 533Google Scholar. See also the Philadelphia Inquirer, November 3, 1886, 1.

68. Goldberg, Judith, “Strikes, Organizing, and Change: The Knights of Labor in Philadelphia, 1869–1890” (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1985), 388Google Scholar.

69. Fones-Wolf, Trade Unéon Gospel, 107.

70. Ibid., 112, 100.

71. Ibid., 113, 162–64.

72. McCaffrey, Peter, When Bosses Ruled Philadelphia: The Emergence of the Republican Machine, 1867–1933 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993), 30–36Google Scholar. On the factionalism in the Republican party, in the period up to the mid-1880s, see Gillette, Howard Frank Jr, “Corrupt and Contented: Philadelphia's Political Machine, 1865–1887” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1970), esp. 163–78 on the 1870sGoogle Scholar. For further evidence of Republican factionalism in the mid-1880s, one need only look at the accounts of the nomination battles for the spring 1886 municipal election in the Philadelphia Inquirer, January 7, 1886, 2; January 13, 1886, 1; January 14, 1886, 8; January 15, 1886, 8; February 4, 1886, 8; February 12, 1886, 3.

73. McCaffrey, When Bosses Ruled Philadelphia, 82–83; for an account of a meeting that changed party organization in a centralizing direction, see the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 4, 1896, 6.

74. McCaffrey, When Bosses Ruled Philadelphia, 87, 99–100, 113.

75. Green, Paul M. and Holli, Melvin, The Mayors: The Chicago Political Tradition (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987)Google Scholar: Teaford, The Unheralded Triumph, 176, 179; Pierce, Bessie, A History of Chicago (New York: Knopf, 1937), 360Google Scholar.

76. Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 120.

77. Green and Holli, The Mayors, 19; Eric Hirsch, Urban Revolt, 140; Jentz, John B., “Class and Politics in an Emerging Industrial City: Chicago in the 1860's and 1870's,” Journal of Urban History 17 (1991): 254–55Google Scholar; Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 123–24.

78. Pierce, A History of Chicago, 370.

79. Schneirov, Richard and Suhrbur, Thomas J., Union Brotherhood, Union Town: The History of the Carpenter's Union of Chicago, 1863–1987 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988), 80Google Scholar. For evidence of organized labor's support for Harrison, Carter II see the Chicago Tribune, 04 5, 1897Google Scholar.

80. Green and Holli, The Mayors, 22–28; Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 127–35; Erie, Rainbow's End, 44.

81. Nelson, Bruce C., Beyond the Martyrs: A Social History of Chicago's Anarchists, 1870–1900 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Kann, Kenneth L., “Working Class Culture and the Labor Movement in Nineteenth Century Chicago” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1977)Google Scholar; Hirsch, Urban Revolt; Schneirov, Richard, “The Knights of Labor in the Chicago Labor Movement and in Municipal Politics, 1877–1887” (Ph.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1984)Google Scholar.

82. Schneirov, Richard, “Rethinking the Relation of Labor to the Politics of Urban Social Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century America: The Case of Chicago,” International Labor and Working Class History 46 (1994): 95Google Scholar; Mittelman, Edward, “Chicago Labor in Politics, 1877–1896,” Journal of Political Economy 28 (1920): 407–18Google Scholar.

83. This was the election in which Carter Harrison I was first elected as mayor (Nelson, Beyond the Martyrs, chap. 3). For the returns, see the Chicago Tribune, April 2, 1879, 1; April 3, 1879, 6.

84. Nelson, Beyond the Martyrs, 211; Schneirov, , “The Knights of Labor in the Chicago Labor Movement,” 523–39. For the returns, see the Chicago Tribune, 04 6. 1887, 1Google Scholar.

85. Destler, Chester McArthur, American Radicalism, 1861–1901 (New York: Octagon Books, 1965), chap. 11Google Scholar; Foner reports 12 percent following an unpublished study (Foner, Philip S., History of the Labor Movement in the United States, vol. 2 [New York: International Publishers, 1955], 326)Google Scholar.

86. Schneirov, “The Knights of Labor in the Chicago Labor Movement,” 501. See also Nelson, Beyond the Martyrs, 210.

87. Montgomery, David, The Fall of the House of Labor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 269Google Scholar.

88. For a list of unions attending a CLU rally in 1886, see Hirsch, Urban Revolt, 68.

89. Nelson, Beyond the Martyrs, esp. 42–43; Kann, “Working Class Culture and the Labor Movement,” 400–6; Hirsch, Urban Revolt, 54–73. On page 78, Hirsch reports that the CLU had 40,000 members in the spring of 1886.

90. Nelson, Beyond the Martyrs, 182.

91. Hirsch, Urban Revolt, 80; Kann, “Working Class Culture and the Labor Movement,” 469.

92. Destler, American Radicalism, 182.

93. Ibid., 234.

94. Schneirov and Suhrbur, Union Brotherhood, Union Town, 59; Destler, American Radicalism, 235.

95. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, 343.

96. Nelson, Beyond the Martyrs, 228–32.

97. Ensslen, Klaus and Ickstadt, Heinz, “German Working-Class Culture in Chicago: Continuity and Change in the Decade from 1900 to 1910,” in German Workers in Industrial Chicago, 1850–1910: A Comparative Perspective, ed. Keil, H. and Jentz, J. (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1983), 239Google Scholar.

98. Schneirov “Rethinking the Relation of Labor to the Politics of Urban Social Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century America,” 101.

99. Montgomery, David, Workers' Control in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 49Google Scholar.

100. Barrett, James, Work and Community in the Jungle: Chicago's Packinghouse Workers, 1894–1922 (Urbana: University of Chicago Press, 1987)Google Scholar. Barrett, on page 179, reports that the packinghouse district of the city sent a socialist to the state senate in 1904.

101. Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor, 269; Barrett, Work and Community in the Jungle, 143.

102. Barrett, Work and Community in the Jungle, 142.

103. Steffens, Lincoln, The Shame of the Cities (New York: Sagamore, 1957), 70Google Scholar.

104. Rafferty, Edward C., “The Boss Who Never Was: Colonel Ed Butler and the Limits of Practical Politics in St. Louis,” Gateway Heritage, Winter (1992): 54–73Google Scholar.

105. Mormino, Gary Ross, Immigrants on the Hill: Italian-Americans in St. Louis, 1882–1982 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 175–76Google Scholar.

106. Rafferty, , “The Boss Who Never Was,” 62. The factional battles among the Democrats in 1887 were well documented by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 03 22, 1887, 1Google Scholar; March 23, 1887, 1; March 24, 1887, 7; and Apri 16, 1887, 1.

107. For the returns, see the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 6, 1887, 1. 3.

108. Rafferty, “The Boss Who Never Was,” 65. Rafferty may even overstate the extent of Butler's control within the party. For reports of the factionalism among the Democrats and Butler's weakness within the party in 1889, see the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 26, 1889, 2; March 27, 1889, 1; March 28, 1889, 7; and April 3, 1889, 1, 2.

109. His loss of control over the party is evident in the reporting of the election campaign in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 3, 1897, 8; and March 4, 1897, 11.

110. Rafferty, 'The Boss Who Never Was,” 66–67.

111. Kanter, Elliot, “Class, Ethnicity, and Socialist Politics: St. Louis, 1876–1881,” UCIA Historical Journal 3 (1982): 36–60Google Scholar.

112. Fine, Nathan, Labor and Farmer Parties in the United Stales, 1828–1928 (New York: Russell & Russell, 1961 [1928]), 103Google Scholar.

113. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, 129; Rayback, Joseph, A History of American Labor (New York: Free Press, 1966), 172Google Scholar. The election returns are reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 6, 1887, 1. 3.

114. Nolen, Russell M., “The Labor Movement in St. Louis from 1860 to 1890,” Missouri Historical Review 34 (01 1940): 180Google Scholar.

115. Fink, Gary M., Labor's Search for Political Order: The Political Behavior of the Missouri Labor Movement, 1890–1940 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1973), 26Google Scholar.

116. Ibid., 1.

117. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, 301, 303, 320.

118. Fink, Labor's Search for Political Order, 1.

119. Fine, Labor and Farmer Parties in the United States, 250–51.

120. Young, Dina M., “The St. Louis Streetcar Strike of 1900: Pivotal Politics at the Century's Dawn,” Gateway Heritage, Summer (1991): 6Google Scholar.

121. Bullough, William A., The Blind Boss & His City: Christopher Augustine Buckiey and Nineteenth-Century San Francisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 86–87Google Scholar.

122. Ibid., 93.

123. Ibid., 154–56.

124. Ibid., 161–63, 176–77. As Bullough notes, the Democrats neglect of working class voters was an important cause of poor electoral performance in 1884. He argues that they learned their lesson in the 1886 elections and embraced a number of prolabor planks. Buckley also allegedly tried to infiltrate the United Labor Party.

125. Ibid., 183 and chap. 8.

126. Ibid., 195.

127. Callow, Alexander, “San Francisco's Blind Boss,” Pacific Historical Review 25 (1956): 272CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128. Bullough, The Blind Boss & His City, 217–37. See also the San Francisco Examiner, November 2, 1892, 13, which shows the factionalism between the “Regular Democratic Municipal Ticket” and the “Old Democratic Municipal Ticket.” The mayor's office was won in 1892 by a nonpartisan candidate, Ellert, L. B.. See the coverage of the election in the San Francisco Examiner, 11 9, 1892Google Scholar, 3; and November 11, 1892, 1.

129. Bullough, The Blind Boss Of His City, 243–54. See also Bullough, William A., “The Steam Beer Handicap: Chris Buckley and the San Francisco Municipal Election of 1896,” California Historical Quarterly 54 (1975): 245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

130. Cross, Ira, A History of the Labor Movement in California (Berkeley: University of California, 1935)Google Scholar, chap. 7.

131. See the election coverage in the Evening Bulletin, September 8, 1879, 2, and the interview with Kalloch in the Evening Bulletin, September 11, 1879, 2. The Workingmen's Party also won other city-wide offices in that municipal election, including Sheriff, Auditor, and District Attorney.

132. Bullough, The Blind Boss & His City, 6. Saxton notes that the WPC had thirty-five clubs in San Francisco, most of them appropriated from the Democratic party (Saxton, Alexander, The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971], 145)Google Scholar.

133. Cross, A History of the Labor Movement in California, 186.

134. McDonald, Terrence, The Parameters of Urban Fiscal Policy: Sodoeconomic Change and Political Culture in San Francisco, 1860–1906 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 199Google Scholar. O'Donnell's strong showings are covered in the San Francisco Examiner, November 7, 1888, 3; November 8, 1888, 2; November 9, 1892, 3; and November 11, 1892, 1.

135. Kazin, Michael, Barons of Labor: The San Francisco Building Trades and Union Power in the Progressive Era (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 39Google Scholar.

136. Cross, A History of the Labor Movement in California, chap. 11 and 12.

137. In a dispute with the national brewers' federation in 1890, for instance, the AFL withdrew its charter from the FTC, which was restored a year later (Ibid., 197).

138. Ibid., 216, 224.

139. Kazin, Barons of Labor, 30. Even Jules Tygiel, who argues that San Francisco witnessed the development of a labor aristocracy, agrees with Kazin that the San Francisco labor movement was not a case where skilled workers “fetter an otherwise militant trade union movement” (Tygiel, Jules, Workingmen in San Francisco, 1880–1901 [New York: Garland Publishing, 1992], xivGoogle Scholar). On the BTC's conflicts with the San Francisco Labor Council and its parent, the AFL, see Kazin, Barons of Labor, 52–53.

140. The competition between the Labor Council and the BTC encouraged the former to adopt a more active political position (Cross, A History of the Labor Movement in California, 225).

141. Kazin, Barons of Labor, 40–45.

142. Cross, A History of the Labor Movement in California, 229; Kazin, Barons of Labor, 56–57.

143. Cross, A History of the Labor Movement in California, 246; Kazin, Barons of Labor, 56–58.

144. Cross, A History of the Labor Movement in California, 247.

145. Bean, Walton, Boss Ruef's San Francisco: The Story of the Union Labor Party, Big Business, and the Graft Prosecution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952)Google Scholar; Walsh, James P., “Boss Reuf Was No Boss: Machine Politics, Reform, and San Francisco,” California Historical Quarterly 51 (1972): 3–16Google Scholar.

146. Walsh, “Boss Reuf Was No Boss,” 7.

147. Ibid., 8–9.

148. Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 74.

149. Suman, Michael Wesley, “The Radical Urban Politics of the Progressive Era: An Analysis of the Political Transformation in Cleveland, Ohio, 1875–1909” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1992), 232Google Scholar.

150. Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 75–78; Suman, “The Radical Urban Politics of the Progressive Era,” 246–50.

151. Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 80–81; Suman, “The Radical Urban Politics of the Progressive Era,” 396, 409–18.

152. Suman, “The Radical Urban Politics of the Progressive Era,” 104, and also 116–17, 172. The St. Louis Knights supported the Republicans.

153. Ibid., 312, 321–22, 391.

154. Ibid., 322.

155. Ibid., 105, 160, 318–20, 327, 330, 392, 396. Part of the relative electoral weakness of the left in Cleveland appears to be due to strong divisions between moderate (populist) and radical (socialist) forces (ibid., 418–19).

156. Ibid., 100–1, 295n, 311; Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 92.

157. Suman, “The Radical Urban Politics of the Progressive Era,” 316n.

158. Ibid., 307–11, 419–21.

159. Green, James R. and Donahue, Hugh Carter, Boston's Workers: A Labor History (Boston: Trustees of the Public Library of the City of Boston, 1979), 36Google Scholar.

160. Alun Munslow reports that O'Brien got 51.3 percent of the vote and Hart 40.9 percent, for a total of 92.2 percent of the vote between the two major candidate (Munslow, Alun, “The Decline of Ethnic Politics in Boston, 1882–1921,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society XCVIII [1986[: 118Google Scholar). In Green and Donahue, Bostons Workers, 74, McNeil's candidacy is characterized as being merely “symbolic” and his vote total “insignificant.”

161. Green and Donahue, Boston's Workers, 74.

162. Eisenger, Peter K., “Ethnic Political Transition in Boston, 1884–1933: Some Lessons for Contemporary Cities,” Political Science Quarterly 93 (Summer 1978): 231Google Scholar; Green and Donahue, Boston's Workers, 38, 74. And see the report of the labor party nominating convention in Boston Evening Transcript, November 27, 1886, 3.

163. Green and Donahue, Boston's Workers, 36.

164. Ibid., 38, 74.

165. Ibid., 72.

166. Ibid., 75, 77, 85.

167. Blodgett, Geoffrey, The Gentle Reformers: Massachusetts Democrats in the Cleveland Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 129–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

168. Green and Donahue, Boston's Workers, 83. In 1904 Italian workers established an independent Laborers' Union, with a membership of 1,600, but they soon sought to ally with the CLU, which granted them an AFL charter. See Ryan, Dennis P., Beyond the Ballot Box: A Social History of the Boston Irish (Rutherford, N.J.: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1983), 142Google Scholar.

169. Kleppner, Paul, “From Party to Factions: The Dissolution of Boston's Majority Party, 1876–1910,” in Boston 1700–1980: The Evolution of Urban Politics, ed. Formisano, Ronald P. and Burns, Constance K. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1984), 121Google Scholar.

170. Ibid., 123.

171. See Zink, Harold, City Bosses in the United States: A Study of Twenty Municipal Bosses (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1930), 69–84Google Scholar; and Kleppner, “From Party to Factions,” 124.

172. Kleppner, “From Party to Factions,” 127. For more on the factionalism in the Democratic party during this period, see Blodgett, The Gentle Reformers, esp. chap. 6 and 8.

173. Eisenger, “Ethnic Political Transition in Boston,” 225.

174. Dunn, Mary Anne, “The Life of Isaac Freeman Rasin, Democratic Leader of Baltimore from 1870 to 1907” (master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1949), 37–38, 45–47Google Scholar. On the defection of the Slater faction in the 1885 election, see The Baltimore Sun, October 29, 1885, 1.

175. Dunn, “The Life of Isaac Freeman Rasin,” 65. In the 1889 election, e.g., see the speech of the Democratic mayoral nominee Davidson against the defection of Democrats in the Baltimore Sun, October 24, 1889, 1; and see the message to voters from Warfield, S. Davis, chairman of the “Independent City Democracy,” in the Baltimore Sun, 11 5, 1889, 1Google Scholar.

176. Crooks, James B., ”Maryland Progressivism,” in Maryland: A History, 1632—1974, ed. Walsh, Richard and Fox, William Lloyd (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1974), 606–8Google Scholar; Dunn, “The Life of Isaac Freeman Rasin,” 83–84.

177. Dunn, “The Life of Isaac Freeman Rasin,” 89–91, 96. On the conflict between Hayes and Rasin, see also Crooks, James B., Politics & Progress: The Rise of Urban Progressivism in Baltimore, 1895–1911 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968), 100Google Scholar.

178. Dunn, 'The Life of Isaac Freeman Rasin,” 43.

179. Ibid., 54.

180. Ibid., 61–62. Furthermore, some KOL members even protested the union's opposition to the Democratic gubernatorial candidate. See the Baltimore Sun, October 21, 1887, 1. There was a token ULP candidacy for mayor in 1887, but the candidate won only a total of 112 votes in the entire city, and there is no evidence of KOL backing of this candidacy. See the Baltimore Sun, October 27, 1887, 1.

181. See the election coverage in the Baltimore Sun 27 October 1887, 1.

182. Crane, R. T., “The Knights of Labor Movement in Baltimore,” Johns Hopkins University Circulars XXII (1903)Google Scholar; Bruchey, Eleanor, “The Industrialization of Maryland, 1860–1914,” in Maryland: A History, 1632–1974, ed. Walsh, Richard and Fox, William Lloyd (Baltimore: Mary-land Historical Society, 1974), 445–50Google Scholar; see also Hirschfield, Charles, “A Social History of Baltimore, 1870–1900,” Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science LIX, no. 2 (1941): 66–69Google Scholar.

183. Hirschfield, “A Social History of Baltimore,” 66–69; see also Bruchey, “The Industrialization of Maryland,” 445–50.

184. Erie, Rainbow's End, esp. 1–12.

185. Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 76. We might also note that the same alliance in Cincinnati (Cox-Foraker) did coincide with machine consolidation. Miller, Boss Cox's Cincinnati, 78, 82, 102.

186. See, e.g., Dunn, “The Life of Isaac Freeman Rasin,” 49–50.

187. Erie, Rainbow's End, 39–40.

188. See, e.g., Hays, Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55 (10 1964): 157–69Google Scholar; Connolly, James J., “Reconstituting Ethnic Politics: Boston, 1909–1925,” Soaal Science History 19 (Winter 1995): 479–509Google Scholar.

189. Schiesl, Martin J., The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America: 1880–1920 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), 51Google Scholar.

190. For a discussion of this point, see DiGaetano, “The Rise and Development of Urban Political Machines,” 258–59.

191. On New York, see Werner, M. R., Tammany Hall (New York: Doubleday, 1928), 172–73Google Scholar; and Callow, The Tweed Ring, 225–29. On Cincinnati, see Miller, Boss Cox's Cincinnati, 95–96. On Philadelphia, see Abernathy, Lloyd M., “Progressivism,” in Philadelphia: A 300-Year History, ed. Weigley, Russell (New York: Norton, 1982), 546–45Google Scholar. On Cleveland, see Finegold, Experts and Politicians, 76–77. On San Francisco, see Ethington, The Public City, 387–98; and Issel, William and Cherny, Robert W., San Francisco, 1865–1932: Politics, Power, and Urban Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 140–52Google Scholar. On Boston, see Kleppner, “From Party to Factions,” 117–18. On Baltimore, see Crooks, “Maryland Progressivism,” 618–19.

192. McDonald, Terrence J., “The Problem of the Political in Recent American Urban History: Liberal Pluralism and the Rise of Functionalism,” Social History 10 (10 1985): 323–45Google Scholar; McDonald, Terrence J., “The Burdens of Urban History: The Theory of the State in Recent American Social History,” Studies in American Political Development 3 (1989): 3–29Google Scholar. Philip J. Ethington has argued a similar position, in The Public City, 24–29.

193. Katznelson, Ira, “‘The Burdens of Urban History’: Comment,” Studies in American Political Development 3 (1989): 30–51Google Scholar. Erie, Steven P., “Bringing the Bosses Back In: The Irish Political Machines and Urban Policy Making,” Studies in American Political Development 4 (1990): 269–81Google Scholar.

194. McDonald, “The Burdens of Urban History,” 25.

195. Brown and Halaby, “Machine Politics in America,” 612.