The Growing Pains of Urbanization 1870-1900 - Machine Politics

ASU HST 200 (Historical Themes) The Growing Pains of Urbanization, 1870-1900 Machine Politics For working-class urban Americans, especially immigrants, machine politics was the main source of solace. This expression described the system whereby each and every city resident, regardless of color or ethnicity, had an alderman who represented them at city hall. People used to contact their alderman to seek solutions for common concerns, such as sewage issues or the need for a walkway along a muddy road. The aldermen understood that they could find a quick, win-win solution by working inside the "machine" of municipal politics, as opposed to going via the drawn-out bureaucratic procedure of city hall. Within the realm of machine politics, votes were obtained by exchanging favors, and quick fixes were paid for with a bribe to the boss. Everyone received what they needed in the near term, but the procedure was opaque, undemocratic, and an ineffective method for the city to run its affairs. The Democratic political machine Tammany Hall in New York, which was headed by machine boss William Tweed with help from George Washington Plunkitt, is one instance of a machine political system (Figure 19.10). There, voters were assured that their immediate issues would be resolved in exchange for their pledge to support the local government in next elections. In this sense, machines gave voters rapid solutions and gave politicians votes. For instance, if sidewalks were desperately needed in Little Italy to increase traffic to the shops on a certain street, the proposal would probably be stymied by the bureaucratic red tape at city hall. Rather, store owners would come up to the device. The "boss" would be approached by a district captain who would inform him of the issue. The employer would get in touch with the local lawmakers and demand that they allot the necessary cash for the sidewalk in return for a pledge to sway votes in their favor during the next election. The employer then paid one of his cronies to build the sidewalk with the money, usually at a hefty cost, in exchange for a bribe. This practice was called corruption. In return for the residents' vows to support candidates backed by machines in the upcoming elections, the walkway was constructed faster than anybody had anticipated. From the 1850s until the 1930s, Tammany Hall effectively controlled New York politics, despite its corrupt practices. Political machines were also used in other major cities, such as Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Kansas City. Between 1870 and 1900, when urbanization was at its peak, machine politics became a powerful influence on the lives of working-class urban Americans, especially those who were immigrants. A system known as "machine politics" provided every city dweller, from all backgrounds, with an alderman to represent them at city hall. When it came to addressing everyday issues like sewage problems or the requirement for infrastructure upgrades, this representative was essential. For quick fixes under the machine politics system, citizens went to their alderman rather than negotiating the bureaucratic labyrinth of city hall. In this system, favors were frequently used to win votes, and payments to the political boss made quick repairs possible. Tammany Hall in New York, run by the infamous machine leader William Tweed and his ally George Washington Plunkitt, was one well-known instance of machine politics. Tammany Hall was a quid pro quo organization that offered people quick fixes to their issues in return for their political support in elections. Politicians and voters enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship that guaranteed the machine-backed candidates would receive a consistent stream of votes. Machine politics was effective because it could quickly resolve urgent problems. For example, city hall bureaucracy would probably impede any progress toward installing sidewalks in a district like Little Italy, even though such improvements would be desperately needed to increase foot traffic to nearby merchants. Rather, proprietors of nearby businesses would come up to the machine and report the issue. In return for electoral support, the machine master would use his connections in politics to get funding for the construction of the walkway. Construction contracts were frequently given to the political boss's buddies, and bribes made sure that everyone benefited from the deal. Even while machine politics was effective in tackling pressing issues, it was opaque and full of corruption. The democratic process was tainted by the practice of trading favors and bribes for political support. However, for decades, political machines such as Tammany Hall dominated metropolitan politics in places like New York, wielding great power and influence. Despite its unethical activities, Tammany Hall dominated New York City politics from the 1850s until the 1930s. Other large American towns including Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Kansas City had comparable political machines in place. Even if they did so at the expense of democratic ideals, these machines were crucial in forming urban administration. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, machine politics was a complicated and frequently contentious facet of urbanization that brought to light the conflicts between ethics and efficiency in urban government.