Chicago--center of the US automobile industry?

Two sources--A. J. Libeling and Michael Barone--suggest that it was possible, and give similar reasons for why it didn't happen (their agreement is notable, since they wrote from the opposite ends of the poltical spectrum, Liebling from the Left, Barone from the Right):

(1) "The kind of buccaneering drive that won the slot-machine industry for the city has been lacking since a date that is hard to fix definitely but that preceded the rise of the automobile. 'Chicago could have had the automobile industry if Chicago money had gone out after it,' a Chicago stockbroker assured me. 'We're nearer than Detroit to both iron ore and coal, and we had the greatest supply of skilled and unskilled labor in America when Detroit was still a small city. But the big boys let it go by default; they didn't want an industry in here that would dwarf them. The arteries had already hardened.'" A. J. Liebling, *Chicago: The Second City* (1952), pp. 44-45 http://books.google.com/books?id=nSjw-uKbcKYC&pg=PA44

(Liebling's book, unsurprisingly, was not well-received by Chicagoans, who regarded it as a condescending New Yorker--and *New Yorker*--view of their metropolis. Though as Liebling observed of his hostile letters, "The fiercest epistolary defenders of Chicago live in places like Winnetka and Lake Forest." The book did at least provide the name for a famous improvisational comedy troupe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_City)

(2) "Finally, starting around 1900, came autos. That this industry came to be centered in Michigan was an accident; Ohio or Chicago, on the major east-west transportation routes, were likelier sites. But several of the early entrepreneurs came from Michigan (Henry Ford, W. C. Durant, R. E. Olds) and Detroit bankers were more willing to provide venture capital than bankers in the bigger, more established cities of Cleveland and Chicago..." Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, *Almanac of American Politics 1988,* pp. 572-3.

As this article in the *Encyclopedia of Chicago* indicates, Chicago did manufacture autos for a while--and there still is one Ford assembly plant in Hegewisch on the Far Southeast Side--but never quite managed to rival Detroit:
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/96.html

***
Automobile Manufacturing

Although two early automobiles were exhibited at the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893--the prototype Morrison electric and a gasoline-powered car from Germany--horseless carriages didn't receive much notoriety until the *Chicago Times-Herald* offered $5,000 in prizes to the winner of a round-trip race between Chicago and Evanston two years later. The race attracted considerable attention because two cars were able to finish despite the fact that a storm had deposited a foot of snow on the Chicago area two days earlier.

What was possibly the nation's first auto show was held in conjunction with the race. A modest 12 automobiles were exhibited in a donated Studebaker Company wagon and buggy showroom on South Wabash Avenue. Annual auto shows at which builders exhibited production and futuristic vehicles did not begin in Chicago until after 1900. Except during major wars they continued through the end of the century. Road races and 'reliability runs' intended to demonstrate the durability of motor cars were also popular in the early twentieth century.

The 1895 race in a way marks the beginning of Chicago's auto manufacturing industry; at least six local tinkerers tried to build vehicles for the race but were unable to complete them in time. In the final five years of the nineteenth century at least 22 local companies were formed to build and sell horseless carriages, and at least 12 got their vehicles into production.

Although Chicago never quite rivaled Detroit as the nation's auto capital, during the first decade of the twentieth century no less than 28 companies produced 68 models of cars in the Windy City and its environs. Chicago's industrial base, which included a profusion of machine shops able to turn out automotive components, established the city as a center of manufacture of automobile parts through the twentieth century. The fact that the city was a railroad center enabled customers to travel to Chicago from all over the Midwest to buy cars built locally as well as in Detroit. In the decades before rural roads were paved to permit intercity travel by auto, out-of-town customers would buy cars along Auto Row south of the Loop and ship them home by train.

Many early manufacturers also built light delivery trucks, which for a time provided more of an impetus for the conversion from horsepower to motor vehicles than did autos because they were less expensive to operate than horse-drawn drays. Trucks also enabled Chicago to reduce pollution from dung and urine deposited by horses on the streets and to avoid epizootic diseases which decimated urban horse populations in the late nineteenth century. Several auto manufacturers, such as International Harvester Company and Diamond T Motor Car Company, successfully converted to heavy truck production. International Harvester, which became Navistar Corporation in 1986, was one of the nation's largest builders of large
trucks and school buses.

A motorized farm buggy known generically as the 'highwheeler' because of its wagon-style wheels was developed in Chicago, which became the center of manufacture of that type of car between about 1903 and 1912, when the Model T Ford drove it from the market. Holsman Automobile Company, International Harvester, Staver Carriage Company, and Sears, Roebuck & Co. combined built nearly 18,000 highwheelers in Chicago. Sears sold them through its catalog.

Woods Motor Vehicle Company manufactured more than 13,500 electric and dual-powered cars between 1896 and 1918, when it went out of business. Other well-known Chicago auto manufacturers included Checker Motors Corporation, a taxicab builder which moved to Kalamazoo, Michigan; Yellow Cab Manufacturing Company, one of auto-leasing company founder John Hertz's ventures; and Thomas B. Jeffery & Co., a bicycle maker who developed the Rambler auto and moved his manufacturing operations to north suburban Kenosha, Wisconsin. The Rambler was the most popular auto developed in Chicago. More than 4.2 million were sold between 1902 and their discontinuance in 1969 by the successor American Motors Corporation. As the twentieth century ended, the Rambler factory in Kenosha was used to build engines for Chrysler Corporation autos.

The auto manufacturing industry in the Windy City began to decline by World War I as Detroit-made cars became dominant, although the Chicago area remained an important center for auto parts and steel used to make cars. At the end of the twentieth century, Ford Motor Company maintained an assembly plant in Hegewisch, and Chrysler Corporation maintained one in in Belvidere [Belvidere is almost 80 miles from Chicago and is actually in the Rockford rather than Chicago metropolitan area--DT], but the last Chicago manufacturer of consequence was Elgin Motor Car Company, which built 16,784 conventional cars in suburban Argo (Summit) between 1916 and its bankruptcy in 1924. In 1946, Preston Tucker organized his company and planned to build the 'Torpedo' in a factory in the West Lawn Community Area. Detroit was so dominant that he had no chance of success. The company was bankrupted in 1949 after producing only 51 vehicles.

***

Suppose--with the help of a farsighted manufacturer (Henry Ford's parents move from a Michigan to an Illinois farm while he is a boy, and he becomes an apprentice machinist in Chicago rather than Detroit?) and/or banker or two--Chicago did manage to become the center of the US automobile industry? One can argue, looking at what has happened to Detroit, that is is just as well for Chicago that this did not happen, but perhaps Detroit only illustrates the dangers of a city becoming too dependent on a single industry. Chicago, even with the auto industry centered in the city, would presumably have a much more diversified economy than that of OTL's Detroit.

Thoughts?
 

Deleted member 1487

You'd probably have to prevent the labor movement in Chicago from being so big. AFAIK Detroit did not have that issue until the World Wars when labor unions were politically acceptable; Chicago kind of organized its way out of that sort of industry, as in the early 20th century there was a pretty strong aversion to unions in industry.

Edit: Ford is a bad option, he had more a 'Japanese' view of labor: hated unions, but treated workers well (eventually) to get them to be loyal to the company. He heavily funding anti-leftist movements, namely the Nazis, to combat communism. AFAIK his anti-semitism had to do with his hatred of communism and bankers, which goes to show how little he wanted to be associated with Chicago, which had a larger Jewish population than Detroit, more labor organization, and more finance. In Detroit car manufacturers built that city and ruled it as their fiefdom, which IMHO is why Detroit rather than Chicago became the hub of auto industry; it was a mid-sized city without much else, so the auto barons could rule it as they saw fit on their terms, rather than deal with the intrenched interests already in Chicago (known for its corruption already), which they would have to compete with and couldn't dominate like they could with Detroit.

As to labor issues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Auto_Workers
The UAW was founded in 1935, which meant that the formative years of the auto industry came first and unions waited until FDR enabled their rise in the industry; they stayed away from Chicago to avoid it, but in time it came to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487


Yeah, there was a good point on that thread about geography; at the time the industry was developing Michigan had better access to the Great Lakes and was closer to the East Coast, the population hub of the country; in the long term with the development of the West Chicago would be a more central position that made sense, but at the time Detroit had better access to the markets that they needed; Chicago was further away and would increase transportation costs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Detroit#Rise_of_industry_and_commerce
Detroit's central location in the Great Lakes Region has contributed to its status as a major center for commerce and global trade. As Detroit grew, it emerged as a U.S. transportation hub linking the Great Lakes system of waterways to the Erie Canal and to rail lines.
 
You'd probably have to prevent the labor movement in Chicago from being so big. AFAIK Detroit did not have that issue until the World Wars when labor unions were politically acceptable; Chicago kind of organized its way out of that sort of industry, as in the early 20th century there was a pretty strong aversion to unions in industry.

The idea that Chicago was a "union town" is greatly oversimplified. Unions were strong among skilled workers and especially in the building trades, but in heavy industry they faced a mostly losing struggle (despite a few upsurges) until the New Deal. As the Encyclopedia of Chicago notes, http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1284.html

"Chicago's historic reputation as a 'labor town' is somewhat misleading. Workers have built some of the strongest organizations in the country, but unions have often struggled for life against well-organized, militant employers...

"Yet much of this movement, particularly among the unskilled, had been destroyed by 1905. In the building and metal trades, among transport owners and garment manufacturers, and elsewhere, well-organized employers declared their establishments open shops and waged war on the city's unions. Spectacular lockouts in the midst of heavy unemployment in 1904 weakened organization among the skilled and extinguished it among immigrant laborers in meatpacking and other factories around the city. Except for the clothing and garment industry, where strikes in 1909 and 1910 led to the expansion of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and the foundation of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA) in 1910, new organization was minimal until World War I.

'The CFL attracted national attention again from 1917 to 1919, spawning successful national organizing drives in both steel and meatpacking and launching the Cook County Labor Party, the linchpin for the national labor party movement of the postwar years. Again, a combination of mainline progressives around CFL president John Fitzpatrick and secretary Edward Nockels with syndicalists and other radicals associated with William Z. Foster provided much of the leadership for these movements, and they made special efforts to integrate immigrant and African American laborers. Political repression in the form of the Red Scare (1919–1922), however, along with unemployment, the Race Riot of 1919, and a powerful employers' open-shop drive employing court injunctions, lockouts, and blacklists, shattered the movement. While organization persisted under fire throughout the 1920s in the building trades, among other craftsmen, and on the railroads, most of the breakthroughs among the unskilled in basic industries were eradicated by 1922, and political innovation stagnated for most of the next decade."

In short, there is no reason to think the auto companies would have had much more trouble with unions in Chicago before the mid-1930's than they had in OTL in Detroit.
 

Deleted member 1487

The idea that Chicago was a "union town" is greatly oversimplified. Unions were strong among skilled workers and especially in the building trades, but in heavy industry they faced a mostly losing struggle (despite a few upsurges) until the New Deal. As the Encyclopedia of Chicago notes, http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1284.html

"Chicago's historic reputation as a 'labor town' is somewhat misleading. Workers have built some of the strongest organizations in the country, but unions have often struggled for life against well-organized, militant employers...

"Yet much of this movement, particularly among the unskilled, had been destroyed by 1905. In the building and metal trades, among transport owners and garment manufacturers, and elsewhere, well-organized employers declared their establishments open shops and waged war on the city's unions. Spectacular lockouts in the midst of heavy unemployment in 1904 weakened organization among the skilled and extinguished it among immigrant laborers in meatpacking and other factories around the city. Except for the clothing and garment industry, where strikes in 1909 and 1910 led to the expansion of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and the foundation of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA) in 1910, new organization was minimal until World War I.

'The CFL attracted national attention again from 1917 to 1919, spawning successful national organizing drives in both steel and meatpacking and launching the Cook County Labor Party, the linchpin for the national labor party movement of the postwar years. Again, a combination of mainline progressives around CFL president John Fitzpatrick and secretary Edward Nockels with syndicalists and other radicals associated with William Z. Foster provided much of the leadership for these movements, and they made special efforts to integrate immigrant and African American laborers. Political repression in the form of the Red Scare (1919–1922), however, along with unemployment, the Race Riot of 1919, and a powerful employers' open-shop drive employing court injunctions, lockouts, and blacklists, shattered the movement. While organization persisted under fire throughout the 1920s in the building trades, among other craftsmen, and on the railroads, most of the breakthroughs among the unskilled in basic industries were eradicated by 1922, and political innovation stagnated for most of the next decade."

In short, there is no reason to think the auto companies would have had much more trouble with unions in Chicago before the mid-1930's than they had in OTL in Detroit.

Yeah, looking into the info about why Detroit developed as it did, its clear that Detroit had geographic advantages and luck in the fact that major auto owners grew up in Detroit.

Though the reputation for violent labor movements in Chicago does have some credence, you're right that it wasn't that unusual in its era, it was just a bigger city, so it had more prominence and is better remembered, like the Haymarket riots. I'm from Chicago so I have a biased perspective about it, as I'm not that familiar with non-Chicago labor agitation.
 
Edit: Ford is a bad option, he had more a 'Japanese' view of labor: hated unions, but treated workers well (eventually) to get them to be loyal to the company.

Henry Ford instituted the $5 daily wage in 1914 because his moving assembly line resulted in heavy turnover. In his book Driving Detroit: The Quest for Respect in the Motor City, Professor George Galster wrote that Ford was also afraid that the IWW would organize his workers.

As for how Detroit, rather than Chicago, became the Motor City, Henry Ford is a major factor. Other factors include Detroit's manufacturing heritage (believe it or not, it was a center of stove manufacturing) and abundance of what we today call venture capital: lumber barons had made fortunes, but by the early 20th century most of the state's trees had been cut down.

Take Henry Ford out of the picture--maybe he quits the auto industry after one too many fights with business partners or investors--and Detroit might lose out to another Great Lakes city when the auto industry consolidated after WWI.
 
'The CFL attracted national attention again from 1917 to 1919, spawning successful national organizing drives in both steel and meatpacking and launching the Cook County Labor Party, the linchpin for the national labor party movement of the postwar years.

I'm old enough to remember listening to WCFL, "The Voice of Labor," when I was an undergraduate at Notre Dame in the early 1970s. As well as WGN ("World's Greatest Newspaper") and WLS ("World's Largest Store," Sears Roebuck).
 
Top