Chicago's Gangster Era: Which Political Party Held Power?

During the notorious gangster days of the 1920s and 1930s, Chicago was largely under the political control of the Democratic Party, which dominated local government through a powerful political machine. This machine, often referred to as the Chicago Democratic Machine, was led by figures like Anton Cermak and later Ed Kelly, who maintained tight control over city politics through patronage, corruption, and alliances with organized crime. The era was marked by the rise of infamous gangsters like Al Capone, who exploited the city's political and law enforcement systems to operate with impunity, blurring the lines between legitimate governance and criminal activity. The Democratic Party's dominance during this period was both a reflection of and a contributor to the city's reputation for corruption and vice.

Explore related products

Political History of Chicago (Classic Reprint)

$35.57

A Political Education: Black Politics and Education Reform in Chicago since the 1960s (Justice, Power, and Politics)

$24.57 $34.95

The Political Culture of the American Whigs

$44

Miami and the Siege of Chicago: An Informal History of the Republican and Democratic Conventions of 1968

$15.45 $29

Chicago Socialism: The People's History

$11.99 $17.99

Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

$25.81 $34

Democratic Machine Dominance: Controlled Chicago politics, often linked to organized crime during the Prohibition era

During the Prohibition era, Chicago's political landscape was dominated by the Democratic Machine, a powerful network that intertwined local governance with organized crime. This machine, often referred to as the "Chicago Democratic Party," operated through a system of patronage, where political support was exchanged for jobs, favors, and protection. At its core, the machine was led by figures like Anton Cermak and later Ed Kelly, who maintained control by delivering services to constituents while turning a blind eye to the illicit activities of gangsters like Al Capone. This symbiotic relationship allowed the Democratic Machine to consolidate power, ensuring its candidates won elections while organized crime flourished under its watchful—yet permissive—gaze.

To understand the machine's dominance, consider its operational mechanics. Precinct captains, often connected to local gangs, mobilized voters through intimidation, bribery, or promises of employment. These captains reported to ward bosses, who in turn answered to the party leadership. This hierarchical structure ensured loyalty and control, as every level of the machine depended on the next for resources and influence. For instance, during elections, precinct captains would deliver votes en masse, often through fraudulent means, securing victories for Democratic candidates. This system was so effective that the party maintained near-absolute control over Chicago's political offices, from aldermen to the mayor’s office, for decades.

The link between the Democratic Machine and organized crime was not merely coincidental but strategic. Prohibition created a lucrative black market for alcohol, and gangsters like Capone relied on political protection to operate their bootlegging empires. In return, these criminals provided the machine with financial support, muscle to enforce its will, and even voter turnout. For example, Capone’s organization was known to “encourage” citizens to vote for Democratic candidates by stationing his men at polling places. This unspoken alliance allowed the machine to thrive while gangsters operated with impunity, blurring the lines between legitimate governance and criminal enterprise.

Despite its dark underbelly, the Democratic Machine maintained popularity by delivering tangible benefits to Chicago’s working-class population. It provided jobs during the Great Depression, built public infrastructure, and offered social services that the federal government often neglected. This pragmatic approach earned the machine loyalty from immigrant communities, who saw it as their ticket to economic stability and political representation. However, this came at a cost: corruption became endemic, and the rule of law was often subordinated to the machine’s interests. The machine’s ability to balance public service with criminal complicity remains a fascinating, if troubling, case study in political survival.

In retrospect, the Democratic Machine’s dominance in Chicago during the gangster days was a product of its adaptability and willingness to exploit both legal and illegal means to maintain power. Its legacy is a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked political machines and the erosion of democratic principles. While it delivered short-term benefits to its constituents, the long-term consequences included systemic corruption, weakened institutions, and a culture of impunity. Understanding this era offers valuable insights into the complexities of power, governance, and the enduring challenge of balancing political expediency with ethical leadership.

Anton Cermak’s Rise: Led the Democratic Party, balancing power with gangsters like Al Capone

During the 1920s and 1930s, Chicago’s political landscape was a complex interplay of legitimate governance and organized crime, with the Democratic Party emerging as the dominant force. At the heart of this era was Anton Cermak, a political strategist who navigated the treacherous waters of Chicago’s gangster days by balancing power with figures like Al Capone. Cermak’s rise to leadership within the Democratic Party was marked by pragmatism, ambition, and a willingness to engage with the city’s underworld to secure his political future.

Cermak’s ascent began in the early 1920s, when he recognized the untapped political potential of Chicago’s immigrant communities, particularly Czechs and other Eastern Europeans. By championing their interests and building a robust political machine, he consolidated power within the Democratic Party. However, his success was not solely due to grassroots support. Cermak understood that Chicago’s political ecosystem was deeply intertwined with organized crime, and he forged alliances with gangsters to secure votes, funding, and influence. This strategy was not unique to him, but Cermak mastered the art of maintaining a delicate balance between legitimacy and criminal association.

One of Cermak’s most notable relationships was with Al Capone, the notorious crime boss whose empire dominated Chicago’s bootlegging, prostitution, and gambling industries. Capone’s financial contributions and ability to mobilize voters in key wards proved invaluable to Cermak’s political campaigns. In return, Cermak turned a blind eye to Capone’s operations, ensuring that law enforcement pressure remained minimal. This quid pro quo arrangement allowed both men to thrive: Capone expanded his criminal empire, while Cermak solidified his control over the Democratic Party and, eventually, the mayor’s office in 1931.

Cermak’s leadership style was both pragmatic and opportunistic. He understood that outright confrontation with gangsters like Capone would be politically and personally dangerous. Instead, he adopted a policy of controlled cooperation, using his influence to limit the most egregious criminal activities while allowing the underworld to operate within certain boundaries. This approach not only preserved his political power but also earned him a reputation as a leader who could “get things done,” even in a city as corrupt and chaotic as Chicago.

However, Cermak’s alliance with gangsters was not without risk. His association with figures like Capone drew criticism from reformers and fueled accusations of corruption. Yet, Cermak’s ability to deliver tangible benefits to his constituents—such as public works projects and social services—helped maintain his popularity. His tragic assassination in 1933, while attending the World’s Fair in Miami, remains shrouded in mystery, with theories persisting that it was linked to his complex relationships with both political rivals and criminal elements.

In retrospect, Anton Cermak’s rise exemplifies the intricate dynamics of Chicago’s gangster days. His leadership of the Democratic Party was a masterclass in political survival, blending grassroots appeal with strategic alliances in the underworld. While his methods were controversial, they underscore the realities of governing a city where power was often shared between elected officials and criminal kingpins. Cermak’s legacy serves as a cautionary tale about the compromises required to wield power in a corrupt system, as well as a testament to the resilience and resourcefulness needed to navigate such treacherous terrain.

Corruption and Patronage: Political favors exchanged for votes, with gangsters influencing elections and policies

During the gangster days of Chicago, the Democratic Party dominated the city's political landscape, often through a system of corruption and patronage that intertwined political power with organized crime. This symbiotic relationship allowed politicians to secure votes and maintain control, while gangsters gained protection and influence over city policies. The exchange of political favors for votes became a cornerstone of this era, with figures like Al Capone leveraging their resources to sway elections and shape legislation in their favor.

Consider the mechanics of this system: politicians would promise jobs, contracts, or legal leniency to gangsters and their associates in exchange for mobilizing voters or even outright fraud. For instance, Capone’s organization was notorious for delivering bloc votes in key wards, often through intimidation or bribery. In return, law enforcement turned a blind eye to speakeasies and other illicit activities, and city officials ensured that zoning laws or liquor licenses benefited Capone’s operations. This quid pro quo created a cycle of dependency, where political survival hinged on criminal support, and criminal enterprises thrived under political protection.

Analyzing this dynamic reveals a broader societal failure. The patronage system, while not inherently corrupt, became a tool for exploitation when combined with the unchecked power of organized crime. Politicians prioritized short-term gains—re-election and party dominance—over long-term civic health. Meanwhile, gangsters exploited the system’s vulnerabilities, using their financial and coercive power to infiltrate every level of government. The result was a hollowed-out democracy, where the will of the people was often overshadowed by the interests of a criminal elite.

To understand the practical implications, examine the 1928 mayoral election, where Democratic candidate William Hale Thompson relied heavily on Capone’s machine to secure victory. Thompson’s campaign promises included lax enforcement of Prohibition, which directly benefited Capone’s bootlegging empire. In return, Capone’s men ensured Thompson’s win through voter fraud and strong-arm tactics. This example illustrates how corruption and patronage not only distorted electoral outcomes but also undermined the rule of law, as policies were crafted to serve criminal interests rather than the public good.

Breaking this cycle requires systemic reforms. First, transparency in campaign financing and voting processes is essential to prevent undue influence. Second, strengthening law enforcement independence from political pressure can curb the protection gangsters once enjoyed. Finally, educating voters about the dangers of patronage politics empowers them to demand accountability. While Chicago’s gangster days are a relic of the past, the lessons remain relevant: when political favors are exchanged for votes, democracy itself is compromised.

Explore related products

The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

$15.97 $30

History of Political Philosophy

$27.99 $38

The Politics of Place: A History of Zoning in Chicago

$22.5

Beethoven's Ninth: A Political History

$30

Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

$27.76 $35

The Chicago Companion to Tocqueville's Democracy in America

$18 $17.99

Prohibition and Politics: Democrats often turned a blind eye to bootlegging, fostering gangster-politician alliances

During the Prohibition era, Chicago became a hotbed of bootlegging and organized crime, with Al Capone’s name synonymous with the city’s underworld. What’s less discussed is the political machinery that allowed such criminal enterprises to thrive. The Democratic Party, which dominated Chicago’s political landscape, often turned a blind eye to bootlegging operations, creating a symbiotic relationship between gangsters and politicians. This wasn’t merely negligence—it was a calculated strategy to maintain power and control in a city teetering on the edge of chaos.

Consider the mechanics of this alliance. Democratic ward bosses and aldermen relied on bootleggers to deliver votes, often through intimidation or bribery. In return, gangsters received protection from law enforcement and free rein to operate speakeasies and distribute illegal liquor. This quid pro quo system ensured that Democrats stayed in power while gangsters amassed wealth and influence. For instance, Capone’s organization was notorious for its ability to sway elections, often by stuffing ballot boxes or strong-arming voters. This political immunity allowed him to build an empire, turning Chicago into a hub of illicit activity.

The consequences of this alliance were far-reaching. Law enforcement became increasingly compromised, with police officers and even judges on the payroll of crime syndicates. The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929, a brutal gangland slaying, exposed the depth of corruption but did little to dismantle the system. Democrats continued to prioritize political survival over public safety, arguing that bootlegging was a victimless crime or a necessary evil in a struggling economy. This narrative, while convenient, ignored the violence, extortion, and moral decay that accompanied the illegal liquor trade.

To understand the Democrats’ role, it’s essential to examine the socioeconomic context. Prohibition, enacted in 1920, was deeply unpopular in urban areas like Chicago, where immigrant communities viewed it as an attack on their cultural practices. Democrats capitalized on this sentiment, positioning themselves as defenders of personal freedom against federal overreach. By aligning with bootleggers, they not only secured votes but also tapped into a lucrative underground economy that funded their political campaigns. This pragmatic approach, however, came at the cost of institutional integrity and public trust.

In practical terms, breaking this cycle required more than moral outrage—it demanded systemic reform. The eventual repeal of Prohibition in 1933 dismantled the economic foundation of bootlegging, but the political alliances persisted. Modern lessons from this era emphasize the need for transparency and accountability in governance. For communities grappling with corruption today, the Chicago example underscores the importance of independent oversight, robust law enforcement, and a citizenry willing to demand ethical leadership. The Democrats’ complicity during Prohibition serves as a cautionary tale: when politics and crime intertwine, the public always pays the price.

Post-Capone Era: Democratic Party maintained control despite federal crackdowns on organized crime

The Democratic Party's grip on Chicago's political machinery persisted long after Al Capone's heyday, even as federal authorities intensified their efforts to dismantle organized crime. This resilience wasn't merely a matter of inertia; it was a testament to the party's adaptability and its deep-rooted connections within the city's social fabric. While the Capone era symbolized the zenith of gangster influence, the subsequent decades revealed a more nuanced relationship between politics and crime, one where the Democratic Party navigated federal crackdowns while maintaining its dominance.

Consider the strategic recalibration that occurred post-Capone. The Democratic Party, recognizing the shifting legal and public opinion landscapes, began to distance itself from overt ties to organized crime. This didn't mean severing all connections, but rather refining them. For instance, the party leveraged its control over patronage systems to reward loyalty and ensure compliance, all while publicly condemning criminal activities. This dual approach allowed the Democrats to project an image of reform while retaining the mechanisms of control that had been established during the gangster days.

A key factor in the Democratic Party's continued dominance was its ability to co-opt the very tools federal authorities used against organized crime. The RICO Act, designed to dismantle criminal enterprises, inadvertently provided a blueprint for political survival. By integrating former criminal networks into legitimate political operations, the party created a buffer between itself and illegal activities. This not only insulated the Democrats from direct federal scrutiny but also allowed them to maintain influence over key constituencies, particularly in working-class and immigrant neighborhoods where the party's support was strongest.

Moreover, the Democratic Party's control was reinforced by its mastery of local governance. Chicago's aldermanic system, dominated by Democrats, ensured that the party had a stranglehold on city resources and decision-making processes. This local control translated into tangible benefits for constituents, from public works projects to social services, which in turn solidified voter loyalty. Federal crackdowns, while effective in targeting high-profile criminal figures, struggled to dismantle this intricate web of political patronage and community engagement.

In conclusion, the Democratic Party's ability to maintain control in Chicago post-Capone was not accidental but the result of strategic adaptation and institutional resilience. By blending public reform with private influence, and by leveraging both federal tools and local governance, the party ensured its survival in the face of significant challenges. This period underscores the complexity of political power in urban America, where the lines between legality and illegality often blur in the pursuit of dominance.

Frequently asked questions