July 20, 1973 National Archives
Shocking images of air pollution from Cleveland’s past By Tim Kovach May 1, 2014
The link is here
www.teachingcleveland.org
July 20, 1973 National Archives
Shocking images of air pollution from Cleveland’s past By Tim Kovach May 1, 2014
The link is here
The late Rabbi Daniel Jeremy Silver, who was the spiritual leader of The Temple, gave a sermon in the mid 1980s that should be well remembered by Clevelanders, especially as the city examines why its population has declined so severely over the years.
It may offer some insight into how Cleveland deteriorated and why. I believe it dissected Cleveland’s downfall and the reasons why the city decayed over the years. It suggests the city suffered the inertia of its past success. I think it also gives us something to think about when we get over-excited about projects – like the East Bank Flats development now and Gateway and other costly developments of the past couple of decades.
Cleveland’s greatness, he tells us, was a “matter of historical accident.” Geography, indeed, played a major component in our growth. It was not planned, nor could have been, I’d say.
Rabbi Silver’s words were taken from a sermon he gave in the mid-1980s. It was given wider exposure in the Cleveland Edition on March 6, 1985, more than 25 years ago. To me it’s as fresh as if it were given yesterday.
His words should receive much wider exposure in this day of the internet. It traces our downfall. It details many of the reasons we have failed.
I was particularly struck by his recitation of an attempt by John D. Rockefeller to finance higher education here and the response he got from Samuel Mather, one of Cleveland’s wealthy leaders of our iron ore and steel industry. Mather told Rockefeller that his children and his friends went to Yale. Cleveland didn’t need a great university. Go elsewhere, he advised Rockefeller. Rockefeller did. He gave the first million dollars to the University of Chicago, setting that university on its way to greatness. Cleveland lost its chance.
Rabbi Silver also told us that “… the future of this city does not depend upon entertainment or excitement….” He goes on: “In real life people ask about the necessities – employment and opportunity – before they ask about lifestyle and leisure-time amenities.” How about that?
Here are his words. This is a first attempt to look at Cleveland’s population losses and its tragic downfall as a leading American city.
I suggest anyone interested in the history of the city to print out Rabbi Silver’s address and keep it to read and re-read. It may be 25 years old but it speaks to us today as we make some of the same mistakes.
I hope to be able to trace some of the city’s decline and its causes as I have seen it from the mid-1960s until the present soon.
What’s Wrong with Cleveland
By Rabbi Daniel Jeremy Silver
Cities grow for practical reasons. Cities grow where there is water and farm land. Cities thrive if they serve a special political or economic need. A city’s wealth and population increase as long as the special circumstance remains. A city becomes a lesser place, settles back into relative obscurity, when circumstances change. Some, like Rome, rise, fall and rise again. Some like Nineveh, rise, fall and are heard of no more.
In this country the larger towns of the colonial period – Boston, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore – came into being and grew because they provided safe harbor for the ships that brought goods and colonists to the New World and carried back to Europe our furs and produce. New York continued to grow because it had a harbor and great river, the Hudson, that could carry its commerce hundreds of miles into the hinterland. Newport did not grow because all it had was a landlocked harbor.
Cleveland was founded as another small trading village on Lake Erie. We began to grow because of the decision to make the village the northern terminus of the Ohio Canal. The canal brought the produce of the hinterland to our port and these goods were then shipped on the lakes eastward to the Erie Canal and to the established cities along the eastern seaboard.
In 1840, shortly after the Ohio Canal was opened, there were 17,000 people in our town. We became a city through a second stoke of good fortune: Iron ore was discovered in the Lake Superior region. Because of the canal, this city was the logical place to marry the ore brought by ships from the Messabi Range, the coal brought by barge from the mines of southern Ohio, West Virginia and western Pennsylvania and the limestone brought by wagon and railroad from the Indiana quarries. Here investors built the great blast furnaces that supplied America the steel it needed for industrial expansion. From 1840 to 1870 our population increased tenfold. It is claimed that from 1880 to 1930 we were the fastest growing city in America. By 1930 Cleveland had become America’s sixth city. There was nothing magical about our growth, or really planned. It is a matter of historical accident: the siting of the canal, the discovery of iron ore and the ease of transportation here, the basic materials from which steel is produced.
There is an old Yiddish saying that when a man is wealthy his opinions are always significant and his singing voice is of operatic quality. During the years of rapid growth no one complained about the weather. For most of this period our symphony orchestra was a provincial organization and our art museum was either non-existent or a fledgling operation; yet, no one complained about the lack of cultural amenities. Our ball club wasn’t much better than it is today, but no one was quoted as saying that the town’s future depended on winning a pennant. There was then no domed stadium and no youth culture. Yet, young people of ambition and talent came. They came because there was opportunity here.
Those who believe that the solution to our current faltering status lies in a public relations program to reshape our tarnished image or in the reviving of downtown are barking up the wrong tree. We all welcome the city’s cultural resurgence – that Playhouse Square is being developed and that there is a new Play House – but, ultimately, the future of this city does not depend on entertainment or excitement, but upon economics. In real life people ask about the necessities – employment and opportunity – before they ask about lifestyle or leisure-time amenities.
We grew because we served the nation’s economy. We fell on hard times when the country no longer needed our services or products. Fifty years ago the nation and the world needed the goods we provided. Today the world no longer needs these goods in such quantity, and we can no longer produce our projects at competitive prices.
Once upon a time the steel we forged could be shipped across the country and outsell all competition. Today steel can be brought to west coast ports from Asia and to east coast ports from Europe and sold more cheaply than steel made here. The Steel Age is over and so is the age of the assembly-line factories that used our machine tools. This is the age of electronics and robotics, and these are not the goods in which we specialize.
Cleveland grew steadily until the Depression when, like the rest of the country, it suffered. Unlike many other areas we did not recover our élan after the Depression and World War II. It is not hard to know why. We were a city for the Steel Age. America was entering the High Tech Age. We lacked the plant, the scientific know-how and, sadly, the will to develop new products and new markets. The new age was beginning and the leaders in Cleveland preferred to believe that little had changed. We played the ostrich with predictably disastrous results. The numbers are sobering. The human cost they represented far more so. There were some 300,000 blue-collar jobs in the area by 1970. By 1971 this number had been reduced to 275,000 and by 1983 to 210,000. One in four factory jobs available 15 years ago no longer exists.
Cleveland lacks the two special circumstances that have made for the prosperity of certain American cities in the post-war era: government and advanced technologic research. This has been a time of expanding government bureaucracies and of the transformation of our information and control systems. Silicon Valley is the symbol of the new economy. We are a city of blast furnaces and steel sheds, not sophisticated laboratories.
The years between 1980 and 1982 were a time of national economic stringency, but the number of jobs available in the United States still grew by slightly under 1 percent. In the same period Cleveland lost 50,000 jobs between 1982 and 1984; when there was resurgence in employment levels, Cleveland lost another 30,000 jobs. The census for metropolitan Cleveland indicates that between 1970 and 1980, 168,000 people left the area and that the exodus continues at about the rate of 10,000 a year.
These facts should give pause to anyone who still believes that Cleveland will again become what Cleveland was a half-century ago. The numbers are sometimes rationalized as the result of the elderly leaving for warmer climates and a falling birth rate. These are factors, but the heart of the exodus has been our children. Our young, excited by new ideas, believe that another market will offer more opportunity or that their professional careers will be enhanced if they settle elsewhere.
Why has this happened to Cleveland?
Labor blames management. Management did not reinvest in new plant and equipment or research. When local corporations expanded into electronics, they generally built plants elsewhere. Management blames high labor costs and low labor productivity. Both groups are right, but in the final analysis, whatever the mistakes our political, business and labor leaders make, these alone do not account for Cleveland’s slide. Had there been fewer mistakes this town would still be suffering a serious economic downturn. We no longer are in the right place with the right stuff. (My emphasis.)
Our inability to adjust to a new set of circumstances is the inevitable result of a prevailing state of mind that can only be called provincial. Over the years Cleveland has been comfortable, conservative and self-satisfied. Clevelanders believed, because they wanted to believe, that what was would always be. Those who raised question were politely heard but not listened to. The city fathers set little value on new ideas, or indeed, on the mind. Business did not encourage research. Our universities were kept on meager rations. I know of no other major American city which has such a meager academic base.
A vignette: In the mid-1880s, John D. Rockefeller, then in the first flush of his success, went to see the town’s patriarch, Samuel Mather. He wanted to talk to Mather about Western Reserve College. Rockefeller believed that his hometown should have a great university. He knew that Mather was proud of Western Reserve and each year made up from his own pocketbook any small deficit. But Western Reserve College was small potatoes and Rockefeller proposed that the leadership of Cleveland pool its resources and turn the school into a first-line university. Mr. Mather was satisfied with Western Reserve Academy. It was just fine for Cleveland. He and those close to him sent their sons and their grandsons to Yale for a real education. He listened to Rockefeller, thanked him for his interest and suggested that he might take his dream somewhere else. John D. took his advice and in 1890 gave the first million dollars to the University of Chicago, a grant that set that university on its way to become what Western Reserve University is not – one of the first-rank universities in the country.
The same attitude of provincial self-satisfaction was to be found among our public officials. At the turn of the century we were certainly the dominate political force in the state; yet, when Ohio’s public university system began to expand, no one had the vision to propose establishing a major urban university in Cleveland whose research facilities would concern themselves with the problems of the city, its people and its industry. Again, in the 1950s, during the second period of major expansion by the state university system, Cleveland showed little interest. I am told that at first the town fathers actually opposed the establishment of Cleveland State University. They came around, of course, but ours is still one of the branches with the least research potential and fewest laboratories. Even today much of what it does is limited to the retraining of those who came out of our city schools and to the training of those who will occupy third-level jobs in the electronic and computer world. Change is in the air. Our universities are struggling to come of age, but a half century, at least, has been lost because Cleveland did not prize one of God’s most precious gifts – the mind.
Some argue that those who ran Cleveland limited their academic community because they did not want an intelligentsia to develop here. Academics and writers have a well-known propensity for promoting disturbing economic and political ideas. The comfortable and complacent do not want their attitudes questioned, but Cleveland’s lack of interest in ideas extended beyond political conservatism. Our leaders do not subsidize research and development in their corporations or in the university. Case was not heavily funded for basic research. Instead, it was encouraged to provide the training for mechanical and electrical engineers, the middle-level people needed by the corporations. It is only in the years of economic decline that our business leadership has begun to provide money for the research that ultimately creates new business opportunities and provides new employment.
Cleveland did not, however, fall behind in one area of technology: medical research. If the city fathers believed that the Steel Age would last forever, that real education took place back East and that it was wise and proper for them to look for investment opportunities elsewhere, they still lived here and the made sure that first-rate health care was available. Our hospitals have been well-financed. Medical research has been promoted. Such research was valuable and non-controversial, and the results of this continuing investment are clear. The medical field has been the one bright spot in an otherwise gloomy economic picture. Our hospitals are renowned worldwide. The research being done here is state-of-the-art. Recently the medical industry has come on straitened times, be even so, the gains are there and it is not hard to see what might have happened in other areas had our investment in ideas and idea people been significant and sustained.
Cleveland majored in conventional decency rather than in critical thinking. Our town has a well deserved reputation in the areas of social welfare and private philanthropy. Social work here has been of a high order. Until World War II the city had one of the finest public school systems in the country. We were concerned with the three Rs, but research goes beyond the three Rs. We never made the leap of intellect and investment that is required when you accept the fact that the pace of change in our world is such that yesterday is the distant past and tomorrow will be a different world.
We have fallen lengths and decades behind cities whose leaders invested money, time and human resources in preparing for the 21st Century. They broke new ground and laid foundations for change. We stayed with the familiar. As long as the economy depended upon machines and those who could tinker with machines, Cleveland did well. But when it was no longer a question of having competent mechanics retool for the next year’s production but a question of devising entirely new means of production, we could no longer compete. To a large extent, we still cannot.
In recent years Cleveland’s industrial leadership seems to have come awake to our mind and research gap, but the CEOs of the major corporations no longer have the power to singlehandedly make over the economy. In the High Tech Age, the factory that employs thousands of people is no longer the dominate force. Three out of every four jobs that have been created over the past decade have developed in businesses that are either brand new or employ fewer than 100 people. Those who lead old-time production line corporations struggle not to fall further and further behind and are an unlikely source of jobs.
Another problem has been that for decades the major banks were not eager to support bright, young outsiders who had drive and an idea but little ready cash. We all know people who went to our banks, were turned down, left town and set up successful businesses elsewhere. The officers of our lending institutions preached free enterprise and entrepreneurship, but most of their loans were to the stable, old-line corporations. For all their praise of capitalism, they were not risk takers. New business formation here has lagged behind that in most other cities. The birth of new business in Cleveland over the past three decades has been about 25 percent lower than the rate of new-business birth in other second-tier cities. Despite a new openness at the banks, we continue to trail. Catch-up takes a long time.
Cleveland’s business leadership has become aware of the need for research and development and of the need to stake bright young men and women who have ideas and are willing to risk their best efforts to make these successful; but even as we come alive to the importance of the inquiring mind and the risk takers of the academy and the research laboratory, we must recognize that Cleveland has a special albatross about its neck; Cleveland is not a city. There are over 30 self-governing districts in Cuyahoga County. There are over 100 self-governing communities in the metropolitan area. What we call Cleveland is an accumulation of competing fiefdoms.
This sad situation is also a result of our parochial outlook and our unwillingness to look ahead. It is easier to let each group draw into itself than to work out ways to adjust competing needs and interests. The result is a diminished city. There were 970,000 residents of the city in 1945; there are 520,000 today (My note: Try 396,815 as of 2010). Only one in four Clevelanders live within the metropolitan area. The economic gap and the gap of understanding between the suburbs and the city and between suburb and suburb has widened, not narrowed, over the years.
Those who live here lack of shared agenda because we have allowed each area to go its own way and seek its special advantage. Some of our fiefdoms are run simply for the benefit of their traffic courts. Others are run for the benefit of white or black power groups. Some exist to protect the genteel ways of an America that no longer exists. Each is prepared to put obstacles in the way of community planning when a proposal threatens its attitudes or interests.
Do you remember those small groups of white and blacks that used to meet on the High Level Bridge to signify that we were really one city? Their tiny numbers, the very fact that their actions were seen as symbolic, underscored how far we have moved away from each other. To be sure, Clevelanders meet together in non-political forums where we profess infinite good will and talk of shared goals, but the talk rarely leads to decisive actions. Why? We lack a political area where our needs are necessarily brought forward and brokered. We lack a political structure that would force us to adjust our interests and develop an agenda to which we could commit ourselves, and until such a structure is in place we will not be able to marshal the shared purpose.
When suburbanites look at the problem of the city, they tend to focus on the long-range economic problems: how to create jobs and prosperity. Any who live in the city have no work in the city or outside it. Their problem is not how we can, over a 5-year period, establish X number of new businesses that will provide X number of new jobs, but how to keep body and soul together; how to provide food, clothing and shelter for their families. We do not see the immediacy of their needs. They do not see the wisdom of our plans, and inevitably we frustrate each other’s hopes. The suburbs mumble about their particular concerns and the community stumbles into a future for which it cannot plan.
In 1924 the citizens of Lakewood and West Park voted on a proposal to annex their communities to the city of Cleveland. That proposal was defeated soundly. Since then every proposal to create countywide government has failed and failed badly. Yet it should be clear to all that only when we succeed in becoming citizens of a single community will we be able to do much about our economy and our future.
Because the city’s concerns stop at the borders, its ability to handle the future stops at its borders. The same is, of course, true of the suburbs. In Columbus the city grew by annexing to itself the farm land on which the commercial parks and the new suburbs were built. In Cleveland we went the other way; today you could do some large-scale farming within the city limits.
Will we confront this structural challenge and create metropolitan government? I see little reason to believe that we will. Our history has, if anything, intensified racial and class polarization. If we become a unified city, every group and municipality will lose some precious advantage. I can’t imagine the citizens of Moreland Hills wanting to throw in their lot with the citizens of Hough. Many minorities would lose their power base. The suburbs would no longer be able to provide services tailored to the middle class and would have to bear an expensive welfare load. Yet, until we unite politically we will be unable to address effectively the needs of Cleveland tomorrow. We simply cannot plan constructively so long as members of our many councils are able to thwart well-intentioned proposals.
Recent years have been better years for this city. There has been significant construction downtown. The highway system is in place. We have created regional transport, regional hospitals, and a regional sewage system. But big buildings downtown do not guarantee the city’s future. Big buildings can be empty buildings, as some of them are. Regional transport can mean empty buses. The future of Cleveland rests first on a revived economy. A revived economy depends upon bright people and new ideas. People do not get ideas out of the air. Ideas begin in our schools, universities and laboratories. High-quality education is costly. The future for Cleveland cannot be bought cheaply.
A meaningful future depends upon a new recognition of where a city’s strength lies. It’s nice that our suburbs are famous for their green lawns and lovely homes. It’s nice that everybody agrees that Cleveland is a wonderful place to raise children. It’s a wonderful place to raise children if you don’t want your children to live near you when they become adults. As things stand now, they will make their futures elsewhere. Our suburbs are the result of yesterday’s prosperity. Employment and political unity must be today’s goals if we are to have a satisfying future.
Unfortunately, we did not prepare in the fat years for a time when we no longer could take advantage of the circumstances that had made us prosperous. Those who study such things say that if the American economy stays healthy and the formation of new businesses in Cleveland continues at its present rate, we will be fortunate if in 1990 we have the same number of jobs we had in 1970.
Our future is to be a second-tier city. I do not find that such a discouraging prospect. A prosperous city of two million can be a satisfying place and can provide many amenities. But before we can feel sure even of a second-tier status, we must develop a new economic base and a renewed concern for community. We need to reevaluate our attitudes toward the mind. It is tragic that one in two who enter the city schools never graduate.
Of those who graduate – the best – who enroll in Cleveland State University, 51 percent need remedial work in mathematics; 62 percent need remedial work in English. Half the city’s children do not graduate from high school. More than half who graduate are not prepared for this world. Is this any way to prepare for the 21st Century?
When the rabbis were asked “who is the happy man?” they answered, “the person who is happy with his own lot.” The question that Clevelanders must ask is whether we can be happy even if we are not now, and will not become again, one of the premier cities in the country. The answer seems to me obvious. We can. But even the modest hope will escape us unless we put behind us the stand-patism that has characterized our past. We must put our minds and imaginations to work in planning for an economy and a community suited to the world of tomorrow.
Black Lynching in the Promised Land: Mob Violence in Ohio 1876-1916 by Marilyn K. Howard
The link is here
If that does not work, try this
The purpose of this study is threefold. First, I wanted to tell the story of a long forgotten part of Ohio’s history–the lynching of black men by white mobs. Second, I wanted to ascertain if the theory developed by historian Roberta Senechal de la Roche was correct: that the components of a lynching could be broken down and labeled, and that by doing so, it could be predicted whether a lynching was going to occur. The latter part of the aforementioned statement is important, for lynching is a premeditated crime. If the components of a particular lynching are known, perhaps that lynching can be averted. Third, I wanted to verify if the passage of the anti-lynching law of 1896–the so-called “Smith law,” named after Harry C. Smith, a black newspaper owner and Republican state legislator from Cleveland, Ohio–was the reason that lynchings of black men tapered off and ceased altogether after 1916. Finally, I wanted to see if there was a definitive reason for which black men were lynched, be it sexual, economic, or racial.
Accordingly, I examined twelve lynchings and thirteen incidents in which lynchings were averted. I also looked at a legal execution–the victim had nearly been lynched before his execution by the state could be carried out–and an incident in which a lynching was reported but found to be the hanging of an iron statue made in the likeness of a black man.
de la Roche’s theory turned out to be correct. In each of the twenty-three incidents, at least two of her four variables were present. Second, it was impossible to ascertain with any certainty if the Smith law was responsible for the decline and eventual demise of the lynchings of black men in Ohio. In fact, three men were lynched after the Smith law was passed. Third, there is no definitive reason for why black men were lynched in Ohio, although accusations of sexual assault played a powerful role. Four of the men who were lynched had been accused of or charged with murder, five had been charged with sexual assault, one had been charged with assault, one had been charged with a murder and an assault, and one with robbery. Of the ten men who escaped being lynched, five had been accused of sexual assault, three had been accused of assault, and the last man was a white county sheriff who was nearly lynched for protecting a black man accused of sexual assault.
There was a common thread running through all but one of the incidents: The men who were lynched or escaped being lynched were all black, and except in one case, the mobs were white. Clearly mob in Ohio contained a strong racial element, although it could not be verified with any great certainty if it was the sole motive in any of the incidents.
Ohio’s Most Historic Battlefields Cleveland.com 1/31/2017
The link is here
THE BLACK FREEDOM MOVEMENT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING IN URBAN PARKS IN CLEVELAND, OHIO, 1945-1977
BY STEPHANIE L. SEAWELL
Univ of IL 2014
The link is here
If that link does not work, try this
Approaches to Black Power: African American Grassroots Political Struggle in Cleveland, Ohio, 1960-1966
David M. Swiderski University of Mass. 9/2013
The link is here
If that link doesnt work, try this
“Freedom’s Forum” The City Club 1912-1962 by Dr. Thomas F. Campbell
Long out-of-print book written about the Cleveland City Club’s first 50 years.
A wonderful description of the people who helped to create The Citadel of Free Speech.
Courtesy of Mrs. Marguerite Campbell and the City Club
pdf file about 5 mg
Philanthropy in Cleveland: A Shared Legacy in a Diverse Community
by Dr. John J. Grabowski
Cleveland has many landmarks, both contemporary and historic. Of these, Euclid Avenue occupies a significant place in the history and public memory of Cleveland. Many citizens know that it was once “Millionaires Row” and that it was recognized as one of the finest residential avenues in the nation. They lament that its grandeur is gone. “Why did they tear down all those fabulous houses” is a common plaint. Yet, some Clevelanders recognize that Euclid Avenue lives on – its legacy exemplified in the museums, colleges, hospitals, and service agencies that its residents’ fortunes helped create.
The ability to make that connection often leads to discussion of another aspect of the city that is common currency – the recognition that its history of altruism and philanthropy is of national consequence. There is no argument about the fact that the community pioneered concepts such as unified fund raising and the community trust, and that now, even in the face of demographic decline, it remains able to support a not-for-profit cultural, educational, medical, and social service infrastructure envied by many larger communities. This raises perhaps the most critical questions: where did the tradition of altruism arise, why did it become so predominant in the city, and, most importantly, how has it survived demographic and economic changes?
Cleveland as New England — Stewardship
Old Stone (First Presbyterian) Church symbolizes the starting point – indeed the seed – of philanthropy in Cleveland. The founders and early settlers of the city were largely Congregationalists or Presbyterians, many of whom had roots traceable to Puritan New England and to the concept of stewardship embedded in that deep history. Stewardship implied care of one’s community, which in New England and early Cleveland was generally a homogeneous group of co-religionists. As Cleveland expanded beyond its New England roots, the concept was generally extended to the broader community. An important example of this can be found in the history of the Severance Family, a story particularly well told in Diana Tittle’s book, The Severances: an American Odyssey from Puritan Massachusetts to Ohio’s Western Reserve, and Beyond. The family’s (including that of the Longs and Walworths who would marry into it after settlement in Cleveland) “stewardship” began as typically Puritan and then moved well beyond, from helping establish the city’s first library in 1811 to the building of Severance Hall, the home of the Cleveland Orchestra in 1931.
Stewardship, however, was a concept not limited to these specific Protestant denominations. Rebecca Rouse, a Baptist who came to Cleveland with her husband, Benjamin, in 1830, was involved in a number of philanthropic activities that extended beyond that denomination, including the establishment of the Cleveland Protestant Orphan Asylum in 1852. During the Civil War, she organized local women into the Soldiers Aid Society, a branch of the US Sanitary Commission. It provided a variety of services to soldiers, ranging from sending blankets to the front to taking care of the wounded and invalided. Interestingly, her granddaughter, Adella Prentiss Hughes, would go on to form the Musical Arts Association in 1915 which would establish the Cleveland Orchestra in 1918, an ensemble that would then move to a new home, Severance Hall.
Cleveland’s growth and industrialization would challenge the manner in which this founding principle of the community’s philanthropic impulse was used in several ways. First was the manner in which a concept that had been applicable in small communities, or segments of those communities, might function in a growing city. In 1810, a year before the library was established, the community consisted of approximately 57 individuals. In 1830, the year of the Rouses’ arrival, its population was 1,075 and in 1850, two years before the orphan asylum opened, it stood at 17,034 and that of neighboring Ohio City at 6,375. By 1866, the year after the Civil War, it was 67,500.
That growing population posed another challenge to the concept of stewardship. It was, by 1860, over 40% foreign born and comprised not only of various Protestant denominations, but of Catholics and Jews as well. The city these communities now shared was no longer the large New England mercantile town of the 1840s, but one moving toward an industrial future that would be characterized by increasing social differences based on wealth, belief, and ethnicity, and one in which social issues, such as poverty, disease, industrial injury, equitable educational opportunity, and environmental degradation would become increasingly evident.
The Multiple Manifestations of Stewardship in Gilded Age Cleveland.
Between 1850 and 1890, Cleveland citizens established nearly sixty new charitably supported agencies, ranging from orphanages, to hospitals and old age homes to new educational institutions (see the excellent timeline of Cleveland philanthropy on the Western Reserve Historical Society website) —
A review of the list of these organizations reveals several significant things about charity in the early part of the industrial era. First, the concept of stewardship continued, albeit often in a parochialized manner wherein the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish communities created parallel agencies, including hospitals, orphanages, aid societies, and old age homes. Secondly, this division in and of itself argues that one cannot simply define stewardship as a Protestant concept. Whether defined as Tzedakah in the Jewish community or more broadly as charity for Catholics and other Christians, each of the new groups settling in Cleveland came to rely on their traditions to care for community needs.
The division of Cleveland’s philanthropic agencies along religious, and often within subordinate ethnicities or denominations, was representative both of prejudices as well as identity-based needs. There was a strong Protestant-Catholic rift in nineteenth century America and it was reflected in Cleveland. Among both Catholics and Jews there was a concern about proselytization in Protestant-directed agencies and of cultural issues. Would an observant Jew in a Protestant hospital be able to eat meals that were Kosher? Indeed, this issue would eventually bifurcate agencies within the Jewish community itself. Prejudice was, however, a strong ancillary force behind the creation of ethnic specific agencies. The inability of Jews to practice in “mainstream” hospitals led, in part, to the establishment of Mt. Sinai Hospital, which opened in 1916. The most visible divide in social service and philanthropic agencies would be demarcated by race. The opening of the Home for Aged Colored People (now Eliza Bryant Village) in 1897 would be the first visible manifestation of this. It would come at a time when a growing African-American population would find itself confronting hardening racial attitudes in a city once known for its relative tolerance. Michael Metsner’s thesis, “‘Save the Young People” The Generation Politics of Racial Solidarity in Black Cleveland, 1906-1911,” provides an excellent review of a community dealing with the city’s move toward defacto institutional segregation.
This “division” of stewardship in Gilded Age Cleveland extended far beyond the major institutions that have come, historically, to represent philanthropy in Cleveland. Within almost every church and synagogue or temple there existed multiple charitable and aid agencies, focused both on the needs of congregants as well as on broader charitable endeavors, such as missions. Within each of the growing immigrant communities there existed similar aid societies, some religiously affiliated, some more secular. Many of these took the form of fraternal or sororal insurance agencies that provided death and burial benefits for members. While not solely charitable, they often contributed to immigrant or religiously-related causes. With the exception of Laura Tuennerman-Kaplan’s book, Helping Others, Helping Ourselves, there has been little historical exploration of this area. Some of these insular organizations would come to have considerable impact. The St. Andrew Scottish Benevolent Society (1846) would establish the Scottish Old Folks Home. The First Catholic Slovak Union, founded in Cleveland as a regional organization in 1890, would come to encompass units throughout the US and Canada.
While Gilded Age Cleveland saw a multiplicity of philanthropic endeavors, it also witnessed two factors that hinted at consolidation of effort and, importantly, the beginning of a tradition of stewardship that moved beyond a particular religious community or group. The harbinger of consolidation was the creation of the Charity Organization Society in 1881. In 1887 it would merge with the Bethel Union which had been established as a branch of the Western Seamen’s Friend Society, established in 1830 and one of the community’s oldest charitable endeavors. The organization that emerged, Bethel Associated Charities, was unlike the Bethel Union, which was evangelical in outlook. It was fully non-sectarian and focused on rationalizing charitable aid in the growing community. As such it set an important precedent for those attributes which would make the city’s philanthropic community nationally notable in the twentieth century.
This move toward rationalization was paralleled by an expansion of philanthropy because of the great wealth accumulated by some Clevelanders in the years after the Civil War. This essentially marks the period in which the Euclid Avenue cultural legacy began to be built. Not only were the “gifts” larger, but they were far less likely to be confined to or by the donor’s religious affiliation. There are multiple stories illustrative of this, many of which link to the Avenue.
If we travel on Euclid Avenue to the intersection with East 40th Street, the southwest corner (a site now occupied by the Northeast Regional Sewer District) is where John D. Rockefeller’s town home once stood. Rockefeller came to the Cleveland area (settling with his family in Strongsville) in 1853. An ardent member of the Baptist church, he believed strongly in the concept of stewardship and began giving to the church when, in 1855, as a young clerk in a local commissions firm he received his first earnings. Eventually, when he became wealthy, he became the target of a multitude of requests for assistance and would hire someone to assist in their evaluation. That, in the long term, would lead to the creation of the Rockefeller Foundation. Importantly, throughout this period, roughly from the 1870s on, the meticulous records of his donations go well beyond the Baptist community. His donations to African American organizations were significant (perhaps the most notable being the funding that insured the growth and future of Spelman College in Atlanta). Although Cleveland-legend likes to believe that he left the city with little, agencies ranging from social settlements such as Hiram House and Alta House, and cultural agencies such as the Western Reserve Historical Society all benefited from his wealth. Certainly his largest educational donation went to create the University of Chicago, but there remains a Rockefeller Building on the CWRU campus and not far away is Rockefeller Park – his gift to the city for its 1896 centennial.
That park links to Wade Park, a gift to the city by Rockefeller’s across-the-street neighbor (northwest corner of Euclid and E. 40th), Jeptha Homer Wade who made his fortune as one of the founders of Western Union. The institutions that surround Wade Oval in University Circle, most particularly the Cleveland Museum of Art, benefited from his and from his grandson’s, Jeptha H. Wade II, donations of both monies and collections.
If we move west from the Rockefeller-Wade corner to East 22nd Street, we find the Mather Mansion on the Cleveland State University campus. One of the last to be built on the street and one of the very few remaining it is perhaps the best symbol of the continuity and expansion of the puritan concept of stewardship for Samuel Mather was descended from the Puritan Mathers of New England. An iron ore baron, Mather conceived his community to be the entire city. So did his wife, Flora Stone Mather, the daughter of Amasa Stone who came to Cleveland in 1851 and made his fortune building railroads. The family’s philanthropy is, perhaps, most evident in and around the campus of Case Western Reserve University. Stone would provide a half million dollars to promote the move of Western Reserve College from Hudson to Cleveland in the 1880s. Its mens’ college would be named Adelbert, after Stone’s son who died while a student at Yale. Its womens’ college came to be named after his daughter in honor of her support. (Gladys Haddad’s Flora Stone Mather: Daughter of Cleveland’s Euclid Avenue & Ohio’s Western Reserve is an excellent chronicle of her life and philanthropic activities) Nearby, the Mather Pavilion at University Hospitals honors Samuel for his support of Lakeside Hospital and his advocacy of its move to the University Circle area in the mid 1920s.
One of the major questions that surrounds the philanthropy of Gilded Age millionaires such as Mather, Rockefeller, and Wade centers on motivation. What, beyond the concept of stewardship, would have motivated them to give such enormous gifts? Certainly they had money to give, for (except during the Civil War) there was no federal tax on income until 1913 and then, until 1917 there was no deduction available for charitable gifts. Arguments as to motivation sometimes center on guilt or charity as a means to secure eternal salvation. Then too, their donations could shape institutions that would help mold the community as they might like it, one in which their values became those of the city. There is also the matter of the social status one could gain through charitable activities — to be a “pillar of the community” was and is a measure of rank. Whatever the motivation, the benevolence of families such as these set a model for community support for other people of means that was pivotal in creating the cultural, educational, and medical foundations of contemporary Cleveland.
Rationalizing Philanthropy – Progressive Era Cleveland.
The current image of Cleveland as a model of philanthropy is not so much based on the amount of annual contributions as it is to the innovations the community applied to charitable activity from the 1890s through the 1920s. These innovations were in concert with many ideas about rationalizing, organizing and improving industrial production and society during the progressive period. Indeed, it was the rationalization of industry that, in large part, built the fortunes that could be allocated toward philanthropic projects and provided the model as to how they might be administered.
The city’s philanthropic needs grew geometrically during the period 1890-1920, driven by a rapidly growing population and the lack of anything resembling the social safety net of contemporary times. In these years the population more than doubled, rising from 261,353 to 796,841. Largely driven by immigration and migration, this increase left sections of the inner city severely overcrowded.
The main philanthropic response was the social settlement house, an agency based upon the actual residence of the social workers within a particular neighborhood where they offered education programs, built playgrounds, and assisted residents in dealing with political issues, poor housing conditions, and the travails of being a newcomer to the city. Established largely by young, middle class individuals imbued with the spirit of Social Gospel, the settlement movement began in England and found its way to the US before the end of the 1880s. It arrived in Cleveland in the mid-1890s with the establishment of Hiram House and Goodrich House (now Goodrich-Gannett). By 1910, there were eight major settlements in the city, including Alta House, the Rainey Institute, the Council Educational Alliance (now the JCC), and East End Neighborhood House. By the early 1920s, four more, including Merrick House, Karamu (founded as Playhouse Settlement), West Side Community House, and University Settlement had been established.
While the settlements derived from what might be called inspired youthful altruism, they soon became exemplars of a more rational approach to social needs. They used designated staff to visit neighborhood homes and assess family needs – this being an early form of casework. They created playgrounds and gymnasia where structured recreation was offered to neighborhood youth, and they focused on education as a means to better the lives of the residents in the areas they served.
That this number of agencies began with what was often a personal or group impulse or dream and then prospered – often creating substantial staff infrastructures – indicates that funders were convinced by their mission. That certainly was true, but as individual requests from increasing numbers of agencies came to the “usual and customary” funders, the issue was raised as to whether the stewards of the community, or the community as a whole, were responsible for the community’s philanthropic needs. That led to one of Cleveland’s major innovations – unified, community fund drives.
While the first step taken in this direction was, as noted earlier, the creation of the Charity Organization Society in 1881, the seminal moment took place within the city’s Chamber of Commerce in 1900. The Chamber epitomized the modernization of business practice and was increasingly an advocate of progressive urban reform measures. In 1900 it responded to a growing concern among donors as to the worthiness of the many charitable institutions that were soliciting their support. It created a Committee on Benevolent Institutions in that year, which surveyed and ascertained the legitimacy of local charities and then made that information available to the public. One of the members of the committee was Martin A. Marks, a prominent businessman in the city’s Jewish community.
Marks and several other Jewish businessmen of German and Hungarian background then took the ordering of charity to a new level. In 1903 they created the Federation for Jewish Charities (today’s Jewish Community Federation). The Federation went a step beyond the vetting process initiated by the Chamber’s committee. They centralized the solicitation of funds for agencies in the Jewish community. Organizations affiliated with the Federation agreed to cease soliciting funds on their own. That responsibility and the oversight of the allocation of the funds raised in unified community effort fell to the Federation.
Together with Samuel Mather, Marks advocated for a similar program for all charities in Cleveland. This occurred in 1913 with the establishment of the Federation for Charity and Philanthropy. Its first unified campaign was fully non-sectarian and reached out to a large number of potential donors. By doing so, it greatly exceeded the funds that had been raised individually by the member organizations in the past. Its technique was copied nationally for Victory Chest drives during World War I and was the precedent for the Community Chest drive of 1919 in Cleveland, which is the parent of today’s United Way campaigns.
In the same year as the city’s first Community Chest drive, the Catholic Church established its own general solicitation under the auspices of the Catholic Charities Corporation, thus providing the city with a triad of unified fund-raising initiatives.
The following year, another philanthropic innovation, perhaps the most noteworthy of all, was put in place. For centuries, wealthy individuals had left or given funds to be held in trust or as foundations to support what they considered worthy causes at the time. With time, the need for funds for a specific purpose would lessen or disappear. Frederick H. Goff, a banker and lawyer, was concerned about this “dead hand of the past.” His response was to create the Cleveland Foundation, a community trust in which individuals or organizations could bequeath fund for designated or non-designated purposes. Whenever a designated purpose no longer remained viable, the funds could be repurposed. Earnings from the funds in trust were then to be allocated by a distribution committee (created by public and private nomination) as appropriate to their designated purpose or, if undesignated, to what they believed were critical contemporary needs of the community.
While Cleveland pioneered in rationalizing charitable funding in the Progressive era, it also was at the forefront of another trend – the formal training of social workers. The rise of casework, recreational theory, and institutional management dictated that a progressive era social worker had to have an organized skill set to accompany her or his altruist impulse. In 1915, Western Reserve University created the School of Applied Social Sciences (today’s Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences) to train social workers. It was one of the first such schools in the nation to be affiliated with a university. Many of its early students would get their field training with organizations such as Associated Charities or the many settlement houses in the city.
These innovations and events served to add luster to Cleveland’s growing national reputation as a modern, progressive city, a reputation that began to flourish under the mayoralty of Tom Johnson and which truly blossomed in the 1910s, particularly under the leadership of Newton D. Baker. They also served as models for other similar entities in other cities. By 1920, Cleveland was not only the fifth largest city in the nation, but it had a model of organized charity and philanthropy was widely studied and emulated.
Public Sector Philanthropy
During the 1920s, Cleveland’s well organized system of private philanthropy serving private cultural and social service institutions met almost all of the city’s needs. Yet, there was a public system in place. The city had erected a poorhouse in 1827. That was replaced by a city infirmary in 1855, the predecessor of today’s Metro-General Hospital. During times of economic depression (in the 1870s, 1890s, and just after World War I) the city provided “outdoor” relief to the unemployed. That consisted of coats, groceries and coal for heating. Most notably, but often not recognized, the city oversaw education – both through the public school system and the Cleveland Public Library which was established in 1869. Yet, excepting the library and school system, these efforts paled in comparison with private social service agencies and, indeed, during those times when outdoor relief was necessary, it was criticized for attracting paupers to the city.
This status quo would be challenged and changed by the Great Depression. At the depth of the depression in 1933, unemployment in the city reached 30%. Private agencies were unable to cope with the situation. Need had risen and donations withered. Even the wealthiest Clevelanders found themselves not as wealthy as before. When Samuel Mather, possibly the richest man in Ohio, died in 1931 his bequests could not be paid because the value of his stock investments had dropped. The drop of value in John L. Severance’s investments meant it took longer for him and, later his estate, to pay his pledges for the construction of Severance Hall.
The crisis was extreme and in August 1933 the staff of all private relief agencies became employees of the Cuyahoga County Relief Administration because Federal relief funds could no longer be allocated to private organizations. The hard-pressed private agencies had been distributing public funds (from the city) for two years prior to being absorbed into the county system. The experience of the Depression provided important precedents. In 1948 Cuyahoga County established a welfare department, todays division of Health and Human Services.
Public sector involvement in areas that had been once the purview of private philanthropy went well beyond direct relief. Federal programs such as the WPA created work opportunities that not only provided employment, but changed the city’s landscape. WPA funds helped support an enormous expansion of the Cultural Gardens. They were central to building part of the Shoreway as well as improvements to numerous parks. The WPA also supported artists whose murals still adorn public buildings. It also funded theater and opera as well as the Federal Writers Project, an agency which produced several important book manuscripts on Cleveland’s history and an invaluable index to the city’s press for the period 1818-1877. The Historic American Buildings Survey created detailed drawings of structures that today aid restorationists or provide the only record available of buildings that have been subsequently razed.
To some, this Federal intrusion into the arts was unacceptable. But it set a precedent for the creation of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts in the 1960s, just as the provision of state and federal funds for human needs during the Depression created the basis of the public-private social service system today. The creation of Cuyahoga County Arts and Culture in 2006 is an important localized “echo” of tax-funded public assistance for the arts and humanities.
Continuities and Conclusions
World War II provided an antidote for Cleveland’s economic woes. While the programs of the WPA were immensely helpful in providing jobs and diminishing unemployment, the buildup to the war and the war itself revivified the city’s industries. With nearly full employment and new in-migration coming to fill war work positions, the city prospered as did its private philanthropic and cultural agencies.
Between 1946 and 1955 over 50 new philanthropic or charitable agencies were established. Of these 34 were either foundations or trusts. Many of these bore the names of famous old families – Swetland, Bolton, Gund, Bicknell, Ireland, Humphrey, Eaton, Ingalls, and Mather among them. This development was spurred by a tax law change in 1949 which was favorable to their establishment. By century’s end, over 40 additional family foundations had come into being.
The establishment of these foundations was significant in that they represented the continuity of the tradition of community stewardship, albeit in a new twentieth century guise. More significant was the fact that they represented the diversity of that stewardship. Foundations bearing family names such as Gries, Mandel, Horwitz, Wuliger, Gerson, Rosenthal, Murphy, O’Neill, McBride, Veccio and Bruening evidenced the entry of Jews and Catholics as major players in community stewardship. Even though some of their foundations focused on Jewish or Catholic needs, all were open for fund requests for broader community needs.
This diversification of family trusts has also been reflected by the creation of new community foundations. The United Black Fund, established in 1981 has become a major funder for initiatives in the city’s African-American community joining other groups such as the Cleveland chapter of the Links as well as traditional African-American sororities in supporting the black community and representing it to the general community. The Third Federal Foundation, created in 2007, has its origins in Third Federal Savings and Loan, an institution with deep roots in the city’s Polish community. Its grants have helped revitalize the Broadway neighborhood, supported secondary education, and have given the Polish-American community a new prominence in regional philanthropy.
The growth of the foundation sector was propitious because it paralleled a huge expansion of local cultural and charitable agencies in the period after the mid-1960s. Many of the cultural agencies rose because of the availability of Federal NEH or NEA funds during this period as did entities such as public radio and television. Foundation funds were critical start-up additions to their operations and when Federal funds diminished, often provided the lifeline that allowed for their continuity. However, in some instances, such as the Cleveland Ballet, rescue proved impossible.
Certainly the creation of new family and corporate foundations has been the central factor in Cleveland’s most recent philanthropic history, as has been the diversification of the membership of the boards of many cultural and charitable institutions. They no longer so much represent the city, but the region, and within the region, a changing demography, one driven by new migration and immigrations streams from Asia, South Asia, and Mexico and South America. But, there are other aspects of that history that are of considerable consequence, particularly given the challenges that have faced the city in the years since 1960.
Chief among these is the decline of the city – both in terms of population and in its economy. Cleveland’s population peaked at 914,808 in 1950. Sixty years later, it stood at 396,815 making it the 45th largest city in the nation. Like other Great Lakes industrial cities, it has lost virtually all its heavy industrial base, but light industries in and around the city still thrive. Nevertheless, twenty-first century Cleveland has one of the highest poverty rates in the United States. There also remains a palpable racial divide that encompasses not only black and white, but sometimes new “minorities” who have come to the city and region in the years since the 1960s when a new immigration law replaced its heavily racialized predecessor. Yet, to look only at the city is to ignore another major change that has occurred since the halcyon days of the Progressive era. Cleveland is now part of a region ( the appearance of which could first be sensed during the Progressive era), and although regional governance remains a chimera, economic linkages, charitable reach, and social issues transcend municipal borders.
The city and northeastern Ohio’s ability to confront these issues rests largely on a partnership that has linked philanthropy directly to public policy. Led by the Cleveland Foundation, other foundations, families and corporate funders have increasingly supported initiatives seen as critical to the revitalization of neighborhoods, educational opportunity, and programs that build skills and entrepreneurial opportunity. In doing so they have not neglected the cultural agencies that are the community’s gems. Here they have both supported facility growth, and programs that help the arts reach new audiences and become fiscally more responsible.
Perhaps the best way to conclude this essay, and literally see how philanthropy has shaped the city in the past and continues to do so in the present, is to return to Euclid Avenue. Doing so also allows one to see how the traditions of stewardship and “progressive” philanthropic effort have evolved to reflect the twenty-first century city they serve.
Our trip ends at University Circle. Here names from the old Millionaires Row abound on the buildings of Case Western Reserve University, University Hospitals, area museums, and even the landscape. These names – Mather, Hanna, Harkness, Bolton, Humphrey, Rockefeller, and Wade – are hallmarks of the community’s philanthropic past. But they share company with names that testify to the inheritance of the tradition they helped start. Seidman, Veale, Shafran, Smith, Dively, Wolstein, Lewis, and Mandel are among the new names in the Circle and in regional campuses of some of the institutions such as Ahuja is in UH’s medical center in Beachwood. What this rather short journey indicates is that the tradition of philanthropy in Cleveland is intact and that its inheritance and continuity is not dependent upon race, religion or ethnicity, but rather on the commonality of stewardship and the multiple factors that engender stewardship within human society. That philanthropy is particularly special in Cleveland and northeastern Ohio is, in part, related to this diversity of stewardship, but more so to the progressive stamp that the city placed upon it in the early decades of the Twentieth Century.
Dr. John J. Grabowski holds a joint position as the Krieger-Mueller Historian and Vice President for Collections at the Western Reserve Historical Society and the Krieger-Mueller Associate Professor of Applied History at Case Western Reserve University. He has been with the Society in various positions in its library and museum since 1969. In addition to teaching at CWRU he serves as the editor of The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History and The Dictionary of Cleveland Biography, both of which are available on-line on the World Wide Web (http://ech.cwru.edu). He has also taught at Cleveland State University, Kent State University, and Cuyahoga Community College. During the 1996-1997 and 2004-2005 academic years he served as a senior Fulbright lecturer at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Dr. Grabowski received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in history from Case Western Reserve University. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.
Charles Brush home on Euclid Avenue and His Windmill (Library of Congress)
A Time of Transition and Challenge: Cleveland in the Gilded Age
Prologue: Innocents Abroad
by Dr. John Gabowski
The five months between June and November 1867 were one of the high points in the lives of Emily and Solon Severance of Cleveland. They, along with six other Clevelanders were part of a group of seventy-five who traveled to the Holy Land aboard the ship Quaker City. One of their fellow passengers was Samuel Clemens, better known by his pen name as Mark Twain. Clemens would become a close friend of the Severances and immortalize their trip in his book Innocents Abroad published 1n 1869.[i]
While that volume chronicled an adventure that became part of the Severance’s lives, a subsequent work by Clemens would give the name to the period in which they matured and prospered. The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today, written jointly by Clemens and Charles Warner in 1873 was a biting satire of a nation whose focus had, in the years just after the Civil War, turned to the accumulation and display of wealth to a degree where it was a detriment to individual and national character. More importantly, the book title became the name of a distinct period of United States history and area of historical studies, which focuses on the years from 1870 to the turn of the twentieth century. It was a period in which enormous industrial and urban growth challenged the verities of American democracy. The rise of great individual fortunes raised concerns about the divisions of class in a supposed classless society, but at the same time served as an example of opportunity. One of the most popular books or the era, Acres of Diamonds by Baptist minister Russell Conwell in 1890 encouraged visions of individual opportunity. Conversely, the invention of new systems of industrial management and control, including monopolies and trusts during the Gilded Age, acted as barriers to individual initiatives and stymied opportunity. Yet, they hinted at more rational and inexpensive ways of producing goods. Perhaps most of all, the visual manifestations of wealth epitomized by grand houses, estates, and examples of conspicuous consumption were hugely publicized and envied. But many saw them merely as gilding on a society that was becoming increasingly divided by income and class as well as by an evolving ethos that seemed to lack a humane moral core.
Certainly, the Severances, whose lives did not come to epitomize the excesses of the period, saw the Gilded Age’s effects in their hometown. The Cleveland into which Solon (1834) was born was small (a population of 1075 in 1830 and 6,071 in 1840), rather homogeneous, and primarily mercantile. His wife, Emily, had been born in Kinsman, Ohio, and had come to Cleveland in the 1850s. When they disembarked from the Quaker City they returned to a city with over 70,000 inhabitants, most of whom were recent arrivals and nearly half of whom were of foreign birth.[ii] More importantly, they returned to a city made prosperous by the recent Civil War and rapidly gaining more wealth through a variety of new and expanding industrial enterprises. As they lived out their lives during the coming decades they observed a city transformed but also challenged by the creation of great fortunes and the temptations of easy wealth; the inadequacies of existing political systems; and the polarization of capital and labor. Having seen the Holy Land, they were now to witness a city undergoing its “urban adolescence.”
The Fortunes of War
Often lost in the popular understanding of the Civil War is the role that conflict had in making some in the victorious North immensely wealthy. Like other major conflicts that followed, government spending for the implements and accoutrements of battle spurred industrial innovation and production — and the interest paid on the government bonds issued to fund that spending proved an added bonus to investors — at least to those on the victorious side. It was the Civil War that propelled Cleveland into its industrial age and its version of the Gilded Age.[iii]
This is not to say that the city’s industrial period began in 1861. Rather the fact that it was developing an industrial infrastructure in the years before the War served to allow it to turn those assets to the needs of conflict. Several examples are particularly salient.
By the beginning of the War Cleveland was already a railroad hub, with tracks reaching west to Chicago, southwest to Cincinnati, southeast to Pittsburgh and east to New York. Clevelanders, such as Amasa Stone and John H. Devereux, who had built and invested in the roads emanating from the city, prospered, as did local bond and stock holders for the lines, with wartime demands for traffic. During the War Devereux, holding the rank of General, served as the superintendent for US Military Railroads in Virginia.
This activity had consequences for local industry allied with the rail industry. The Cleveland Rolling Mills, established by John and David Jones in 1857, initially prospered by re-rolling worn iron rails for the growing railroad network in Ohio, a need which only increased during the war at which time Scottish immigrant, Henry Chisholm, who had joined the Jones in 1857, became the manager of the mills. After the War he was one of the area’s wealthiest men.
The central role of rail transport during the War was complemented by the telegraph and here too Cleveland benefited because Jeptha Homer Wade, one of the founders of Western Union, had taken up residence in the city in the 1850s. The wires of Western Union were key to coordinating troop movements by rail, bringing news of the conflict to the public and allowing President Lincoln a real-time connection to events taking place on battlefields.
If any Clevelander was to become a symbol for the wealth of the Gilded Age, it was John D. Rockefeller and here too, the Civil War was critical. Rockefeller and his commission house partner, Maurice Clark saw their profits for the sale of grain, meat, and produce rise from $4,000 in 1860 to $17,000 at the end of 1861, a time when the government was their primary customer.[iv]
It is impossible to ascertain how the profits made by these individuals and others were used during and after the war. One possibility is investment in government bonds issued to finance the conflict. Bonds paying 6% interest and maturing in 20 years could be purchased for as little as $50.00 (still a considerable sum, given that a private in the Union Army earned but $13 per month[v]). But the bonds had attractions for those who could afford them. They could be purchased with the greenback paper currency issued during the conflict but the interest was payable in gold. Jay Cooke, a financier born in Sandusky, conceived and carried out the sales — $500,000,000 worth of bonds were sold. If all went to maturity, investors would have realized $30,000,000 sometime in the 1880s. How much of this came to finance Cleveland’s Gilded Age cannot clearly be determined.[vi]
Profit and good investments were not the only good fortune that came to Cleveland and northeastern Ohio because of the Civil War. They were complemented by enduring political relations that would link Cleveland intimately to national politics and policy for the next four decades. The city’s strong backing of Lincoln, and the state’s role as one of the major contributors to the conflict did not go unnoticed during or after the War. But there were more intimate links that would be beneficial during and afterwards . While Jay Cooke of Sandusky sold bonds to fund the Union cause, Salmon Chase of Cincinnati served as Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury. After the war four Ohioans who had served in the Union Army, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, and William McKinley, occupied the Presidency. For sixteen years in the Gilded Age, Cleveland and Ohio had a friend in the White House . Yet, there was a cost to this. Ten thousand men (two thirds of the eligible population) from Cuyahoga County served : 1,700 died in the war and another 2,000 left service wounded or disabled. Victory and sacrifice were powerful talismans in Gilded Age Cleveland.[vii]
Urban Adolescence
Perhaps the best available study of Cleveland during the Gilded Age is James Beaumont Whipple’s “Cleveland in Conflict: A Study in Urban Adolescence, 1876-1900” which was completed at Western Reserve University in 1951.[viii] Very much a linear and non-interpretive study of the city, the dissertation’s equating of Cleveland’s Gilded Age with adolescence is truly apt. The city grew rapidly during the period, but was largely absent of any true control or full understanding of the changes it was experiencing.
Numbers provide a sense of scale for the change. In 1870 Cleveland’s population stood at 92,829. A decade later it was 160,146. By 1890 it had risen to 261,353 and by century’s end it stood at 381,786 making it the seventh largest city in the nation.[ix]
Those increases came about largely by in-migration both from Europe and the surrounding countryside, but also because of the physical expansion of the city. Annexation of neighboring communities and townships such as Newburgh, Glennville, Linndale and East Cleveland, in part or whole, increased the size of the city from 7.325 square miles in 1860 to 34.34 square miles at the beginning of the new century.[x] Essentially, in terms of both population and physical size Cleveland had expanded by a four plus factor in the last four decades of the nineteenth century.
The expansion was driven by the city’s industrial economic potential which hinged on its centrality to markets in the east and the expansion of settlement in the west of the United States; its rail and water transport systems; and its access to abundant natural resources such as coal, iron ore, crude oil, timber, clay, and limestone. It was a perfect place to be for those imbued the get-ahead, get rich attitude of the Gilded Age as well as for tens of thousands of job seekers in what was rapidly becoming a highly mobile global labor proletariat.
Its industrial base expanded far beyond the iron manufacturers of Civil War and pre-war era. By the 1870s, oil refining was the major industrial endeavor in the city while iron and steel came second. Those two core industries spun off ancillary enterprises — chemicals and then paint and varnishes derived followed from oil refining. Iron and steel catalyzed both a shipbuilding industry to produce vessels to carry iron ore and other commodities, as well as the production of devices such as the Brown-Hoist and Hulletts to unload ships carrying bulk commodities. Products manufactured from iron and steel included everything from fasteners to sewing machines as well as jail cells, park benches, carriage hardware, and a wide variety of forged, molded, and machined products. An expanding precision-based machine tool industry created the devices that created products from steel. The city also became a site for what are now termed “disruptive technologies” which challenged existing ways of providing power and producing goods. The most disruptive was, perhaps, electricity which was to provide a source of power that along with internal combustion, would end the age of steam. The companies that emerged from this era included Standard Oil, Sherwin-Williams, Glidden, Grasselli Chemical, Otis Steel, Warner and Swasey, American Shipbuilding, Wellman-Seaver Morgan, White Sewing Machine (and later White Motors), Van Dorn Iron, and Brush Electric, and iron ore “houses” such as Oglebay-Norton, Pickands Mather, and Cleveland Cliffs. Together they and other local industries would increase the value of manufactured goods in Cleveland from $27,049,012 in 1870 to $139,849,806 in 1900 while wage-based employment in the city rose from 10,063 to 58,810.[xi]
Seeing Wealth
The most visible symbol of achievement outside of the growing factory districts and the increasing pollution of the city’s air and water was Euclid Avenue where many of the city’s wealthy lived. Initially, known as the Buffalo Road, the street became a desired place of residence in the 1850s when wealthy merchants such as Williamsons, Binghams, Perrys, and others built substantial but not terribly ostentatious homes, along the avenue in the open lands east of Public Square. During the Gilded Age the number and size of homes along Euclid increased geometrically. Within four decades Euclid was lined with homes from what is now Playhouse Square to University Circle with the beginning of the street east of the Square given over by 1900 to the commerce that came in the wake of growth and expansion. The homes, particularly those sited on the north of the street, were outsized showplaces of wealth and power with lots that stretched north from Euclid to what is now Perkins Avenue in the section of the avenue between what is now E. 30th Street and East 55th. It was, to use the title of Jan Cigliano’s seminal history of the street, a “Showplace of America,” indeed one which was listed as a must-see attraction in Baedeker’s guide to the United States.[xii]
The enduring popular local mythology of the street tends to see it as the home of Cleveland’s establishment. But that view neglects the fact that a number of the residents were relative newcomers to the city as well as to wealth, and that it was their progeny who would become “establishment.” The street was, more correctly, a combination of older families whose prosperity dated from the 1830s, early industrialists and railroad entrepreneurs from the 1850s, and post-Civil War industrialists and businessmen. It was neither predominantly nouveau-riche or “old shoe,” but nevertheless its halcyon period was of the Gilded Age. Families like the Mathers , Paynes, Worthingtons, and Severances had histories in the city dating to before the Civil War and would eventually build homes on the Avenue, but others such as railroad builders Henry Devereux and Amasa Stone, whose daughter Flora would marry into the Mather family, were first-generation Clevelanders. This was also the case with Jeptha Wade, Henry Chisholm, and Sylvester Everett as well as John D. Rockefeller, whose house on the street did not fit the now mythical image of the man who owned it.
Rockefeller’s home stood at the southwest corner of Euclid and what is now E. 40th street — it was on the less desirable south side and while substantial it paled in comparison to the two Wade homes that stood across Euclid directly to the north and particularly in comparison to the huge home constructed by banker Sylvester Everett, diagonally across from the Rockefeller House. Nevertheless, Rockefeller’s Gilded Age career made marks on other parts of the street because those who partnered with him in establishing Standard Oil became immensely wealthy.
The creation and rise of Standard Oil is a textbook example of business and wealth in the Gilded Age, one which has its roots in Cleveland. In 1863 Rockefeller, along with many other Clevelanders, became interested in petroleum as a commodity — one which could be refined into kerosene and paraffin for lighting. Cleveland’s direct rail connection with the Pennsylvania oil fields made it an ideal center for dealing in the new commodity. Rockefeller’s consolidation of the industry — viewed both as rapacious and farsighted; his creation of a perfect example of a vertically-integrated company; and his creation of the modern trust have come to epitomize Gilded Age business practice. Those who joined with Rockefeller, including Clevelanders Harry Payne, Steven Harkness (who moved to the city), and Louis Severance became immensely wealthy because of that association. Another early partner, Samuel Andrews, an English immigrant who was Rockefeller’s “chemist,” also became wealthy and could have, had he remained a partner in the firm, become even wealthier. It was his Standard Oil fortune that financed perhaps the most spectacular home on Euclid.[xiii]
Andrews cashed out of Standard Oil in 1874 and began the construction of his home on Euclid (at the northeast corner of what is now E. 30th) in 1882. Completed three years later the house was immense; so much so that in a short period of time it proved to be unmanageable. Andrews lived there for only several years. His son Horace would later use the house periodically, but it stood largely vacant until demolished in 1923. It was and remains somewhat of a metaphor for the excesses of the Gilded Age.
Underneath the Gilding
Ironically, the years that bookend the construction period — 1882-1885 — of the Andrews House also mark two of the most noted local labor actions in Cleveland during the Gilded Age. And those strikes, in their turn, also relate to the immense fiscal instability of the era, for the period 1882-1885 marked one of the frequent economic recessions in the United States, one in which business contracted nearly 33%. While these contractions diminished or destroyed great fortunes their greatest impact was on the wage laborers in the industries of the age. In bad times wages were cut and workers released — released into a system that had no real social safety net outside of church and neighborhood-based charity and, in the hardest times, a modicum of “poor relief” from municipal governments.
In May 1881 Henry Chisholm the head of the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company died. A hands-on, shop-floor manager, he was beloved by his workers. Together they gathered funds to build his memorial in Lake View Cemetery. The following year the country entered into recession as railroad building waned. With the demand for iron and steel down, William Chisholm, Henry’s son and the then head of the Rolling Mill refused workers’ demands for a closed shop for members of the Amalgamated Iron and Steel Workers and a voice in setting wage scales. A strike ensued, one marked by violence as immigrant Polish and Czech strikebreakers were brought into the mill. The strike failed, but three years later those who had been strikebreakers went on strike because of another wage cut. It was violent, with strikers marching downtown from the mill neighborhood near Broadway and Harvard. Some carried the flags of socialism and anarchy. The “mob” forcibly closed other factories allied with the ownership of the Rolling Mills in order to cut off the owners’ sources of income. The violence of the strike made the national news and was depicted pictorially in Leslie’s Weekly.[xiv]
It was not the first, nor the last major labor action in Cleveland during the Gilded Age, a period both locally and nationally where the rights of workers in an evolving wage-labor economy were set against the perceived rights and substantial powers of owners, businesses, and monopolies. It was a time of not only dissention, but of fear.
Those fears came fully to the fore nationally during the great railroad strike of 1877. Its origins stemmed from deflation and wage cuts which followed the Panic of 1873 which was initiated by the collapse of Jay Cooke and Company. The Ohioan Cooke had been the genius of the Civil War bond promotion, but the panic proved his undoing. His banking house (perhaps the most noted in the nation) overspent its capital in promoting the development of the Northern Pacific Railroad. That, in turn triggered a fiscal crisis that lasted the better part of a decade and created an era of wage contraction. A series of wage cuts by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and then other lines sparked violent strikes which spread across the nation. Nationally, over one hundred people were killed in confrontations between police militias and workers. In Pittsburgh, shootings of workers led to the burning of the yards, depot and other properties of the Pennsylvania Railroad. The strike lasted forty-five days.
Cleveland, although a rail center, managed to escape the violence of the strike. Nevertheless, the national news added to local angst and fear which had initially been sparked by a coopers strike at Rockefeller’s Standard Oil works in April of the same year. Led, in part, by a Czech immigrant socialists Leopold Palda and Frank Skarda, the strikers, many of whom were immigrants themselves, also called for a general strike in the city, inviting all workers making less than a dollar a day to join them. The general strike didn’t take place, but that demand, and the railroad strike that followed created a fear of class warfare in the city and increased suspicions about the growing immigrant population. Memories of the Paris Commune of 1870 were not uncommon in American cities such a Cleveland during the labor unrest during the nation’s Centennial decade.[xv]
Those fears led to reflexive actions. In October 1877 a group of prominent Clevelanders organized an independent military unit, Troop A, to serve as a bulwark against possible labor violence. The following year leading citizens created the Cleveland Gatling Gun Battery. The Battery built an armory, complete with loopholes, on Carnegie Avenue as a last bastion defense against labor violence. Both organizations would evolve into social organizations for their members, and Troop A eventually became part of what would be the National Guard. With a more egalitarian membership it served in both World Wars. Both, however, did see “action” in several strikes including the Rolling Mill strike of 1885 and the streetcar strike in 1899.[xvi]
The angst of the era also found its way into a novel which would become a best seller in 1884. Published anonymously in 1883, The Breadwinners was a melodramatic but message-laden saga set in the mythical town of Buffland in which the wealthy residents of equally mythical Algonquin Avenue successfully fight off socialist labor unrest. Buffland was the pseudonym for Cleveland and Algonquin was a stand-in for Euclid Avenue. The author turned out to be John Hay, former secretary to Abraham Lincoln, son-in-law to Amasa Stone, and a resident, at the time, of Euclid Avenue. His views on the rights of labor were colored both by his own elitism and fears. They were not only clearly expressed in the novel, but in his personal communications as well.[xvii]
Contention between capital and labor continued through most of the Gilded Age in Cleveland, but the city managed to avoid events that paralleled in scale Chicago’s Haymarket Riot of 1886 and the Homestead Strike of 1892. Strikes continued on a smaller scale. In 1896 workers at the Brown Hoist Company took to the streets when their request for a nine-hour day (they worked a ten and a half holiday shift on Saturdays) and the reinstatement of several dismissed workers was met by a lockout by the management. [xviii] Three years later the city’s streetcar network came to a virtual halt during a labor action focused on better wages and working conditions. It turned violent and the state militia, as well as Troop A were called out to restore order.
One of the other issues in the streetcar strike was the recognition of their union. That was not achieved, but overall, the Gilded Age saw the growth of unions, mostly representing the crafts and trades, in the city. The Knights of Labor formed fifty assemblies in the city which encompassed both skilled and unskilled workers. The American Federation of Labor created the Cleveland Central Labor Union to compete with the Knights and established 26 locals between 1887 and 1891. In 1891, Max Hayes who came to epitomize the cause of labor in the city began, along with Henry Long, publishing The Cleveland Citizen. Moderately socialist in outlook and largely focused on skilled trades, the Citizen would go on to become the nation’s oldest labor newspaper. By century’s end the city had 100 labor unions as well as branches of the Socialist Labor Party which argued for a rearrangement of the entire economic system, a prospect which was seen as alien and a threat to private property. [xix] While Socialism never achieved a strong foothold in Cleveland it was a constant political undercurrent during the Gilded Age and into the early twentieth century. National party candidates such as Eugene Debs and local candidates like Charles Ruthenberg polled well — well enough to be perceived as a threat to American ideals and government, particularly at the municipal level in industrial cities like Cleveland.
Trying to Govern Growth
Cleveland entered the Gilded Age with a city government structure dictated by the state and which perhaps would have functioned reasonably well in a small city. The General Municipal Corporation Act of 1852 essentially reduced the mayor to a figurehead with no real authority over a ward-based city council and more importantly, placed much decision making and spending power in the hands of the council and a series of administrative boards and commissions. The act also made previously appointive positions, such as the commissioner of waterworks and the police judge elective. Essentially, this created a system lacking in strong central direction and peppered with smaller power centers in the council and boards.
Cleveland’s leadership within this system echoed its New England ethos. The “best” citizens undertook civic duties as expected. Cleveland’s mayors during the period from 1870 to 1890 included Frederick W. Pelton (1870-1873), a banker; Charles Otis (1873-1874) head of Otis Steel; Nathan Perry Payne (1875-1876) coal merchant; William G. Rose (1877-1878, 1891-1892) a refiner and real estate investor who was independently wealthy by age 45; “Honest” John Farley (1883-1885, 1899-1901) a contractor, investor, and banker; Brenton D. Babcock (1887-1888) a coal merchant; and George Gardner (1885-1886, 1889-1890) commission house broker and banker. Many of these men had also served as council representatives or on some of the boards and commissions that truly wielded power in the Gilded Age city.[xx] One of the most noted figures to come out of Gilded Age Cleveland, Myron T. Herrick, began his political career as a city councilman (1885-1890) in Cleveland and would then go on to become governor of Ohio (1903-1905) and eventually ambassador to France (1912-1914, 1921-1929). Herrick’s political career was engendered largely by Marcus Hanna whose entry into politics was as an organizer at the ward level.
Despite the figurehead status of the mayor, two managed to navigate the city through its labor troubles. Rose played an important role in seeking accommodation between the owners and workers during the railroad strike of 1877 and Gardner ordered William Chisholm to restore wage cuts in order to end the 1885 Rolling Mill Strike, but only after threatening to use artillery against the strikers. But, others recognized the frustrations of the office. Otis and Payne refused second terms so they could return to manage their businesses and Babcock argued for moving to a Federal system in which the mayor would have true authority to work with council representatives in governing. That would occur in 1892 when, after four years of effort, the city’s leading citizens convinced Columbus to approve the change.
Even with the change the effort to deal with the urban infrastructure necessary to support the growth and gilt of Gilded Age Cleveland was an enormous task. Mayor Rensselaer Herrick gave some sense of that in 1881 when he commented that the Cuyahoga River was an “open sewer” running through the city[xxi]. On a bad day the residents of Euclid Avenue could easily sense the origins of their good fortune when lake winds blew the smoke from the Otis Steel mill on the lakeside at E. 33rd Street their way — the fact that many of the stone mansions turned black so quickly testified to the environmental degradation created during unregulated expansion during the era. Once known as the Forest City, Cleveland began to lose many of its trees to pollution during the era. The solution was to plant more resistant species such as sycamores. Over and over again, arguments against air pollution in the coal-powered city were seen as anti-growth. How could Cleveland compete with Pittsburgh if it hamstrung its industries with fines and regulations?
As the city grew in population and size the task of creating infrastructure became enormous. By 1880 Cleveland had over 1,200 roads, streets, lanes, alleys and “places,” many of which remained unpaved. Wood block streets had to be replaced with stone and stone eventually gave way to brick. But even by 1889, when the street network totaled 440 miles, less than two miles per year were being paved with brick. Similar needs related to expanding the water and sewer system, a project compounded by the need to continually construct water intakes further into the lake to find water unpolluted by industrial and human waste. [xxii]
Similarly, the increase in population dictated other changes. In 1866 the public schools enrolled 9,270 children. By 1900 the enrollment had risen to 58,105, but that number represented only 54.5 percent of the school age population.[xxiii] While the city had done reasonably well in erecting new school buildings it, like many other cities, found it difficult to foster education in an economy where the income of working children formed an important part of many family budgets. The need for family income often trumped an education beyond the elementary level.
As the city grew it became both an employer and more importantly the source of lucrative municipal contracts to create and maintain its expanding
infrastructure. In 1876 the city’s annual budget totaled slightly under $625,000. Nine years later it was over $3,000,000 and at the turn-of-the-
century, just below $7,000,000. By 1885 the municipal payroll was over $99,000 per month. Contractors found the city to be an excellent customer and made money by providing services ranging from the removal of nightsoil to street paving.[xxiv] The amount of money flowing through city hall was tempting. In 1886 treasurer Thomas Axworthy suddenly disappeared. He had fled to Canada after using public funds to make a series of private loans. The loss totaled over $500,000. His whereabouts were revealed in a letter he sent to the mayor some days after he vanished. He closed the letter as follows: “Good bye and God Bless Cleveland”.[xxv]
Perhaps the most valuable municipal “investments” of the era were the franchises awarded to private companies for running street railways and providing new modern utilities such as gas or electricity to residents and businesses. In many Gilded Age cities, such as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati, this process became a sort of “largess” (or to use the then contemporary term, “boodle”) distributed by a political machine, such as Tammany Hall in New York or Boss Cox in Cincinnati, in return for bribes, votes, or other favors. Cleveland lacked a true urban political machine of the Tammany type during this period. Ironically, it would develop a nascent one when it achieved a Federal structure of governance in 1892. The election of Robert E. McKisson as mayor with true authority and power in 1895 gave the city its first boss. By buying immigrant votes and rewarding” loyal” workers and councilmen, the “boy mayor” began to build an empire. He persisted despite the protests of good government organizations which represented evolving Progressive ideas of municipal management, but he came to grief when he challenged another type of boss, Mark Hanna, for a US Senatorial seat. Hanna won by a whisker and used his power as a national Republican kingmaker, along with pressure from the good governance groups, to ensure McKisson’s defeat in 1899.[xxvi]
Hanna knew the Gilded Age system better, perhaps, than any other local political leader and was able to manipulate it better than others because of his growing wealth. That wealth and personal acumen, along with Cleveland and Ohio’s close connections to Washington, allowed him to become one of the power brokers of the era. Although not a resident of Euclid Avenue (he was a west-sider, his home was in Clifton Park) Hanna had a profile similar to many of those who lived on the Avenue. He had been born in New Lisbon, Ohio, and came to Cleveland with his family in 1852 at the age of 15. After attending Central High school and a brief stint at Western Reserve College (then in Hudson) he worked at his parents’ wholesale grocery business. When he married he joined his in-law’s (the Rhodes) iron and coal business — commodities that built a number of local Gilded Age fortunes. He became head of the business in 1885 when his father-in-law died. The company, renamed M. A. Hanna and Company, which was run in conjunction with his brothers, provided him with the funds he needed to indulge in a prominent Gilded Age endeavor, political organizing.
Hanna’s political activities and his connections to the Republican monied elite in Cleveland and, later, in Ohio, and then nationally, helped him make Joseph Foraker governor in 1885; John Sherman a US Senator in 1892; and William McKinley President in 1896. After dispensing with Boy Mayor Robert McKisson’s challenge, he won appointment to the US Senate in 1897.[xxvii]
But there was another aspect of Hanna’s life that fit more neatly into the Gilded Age. Before he became the head of M. A. Hanna, he dabbled in street railways. While his political mechanizations of are integral and well recognized parts of Cleveland’s Gilded Age story his streetcar ventures are, perhaps, of more consequence in understanding the intersection between it and the city’s Progressive era. Hanna, like other entrepreneurs around the nation, understood that urban transportation in the expanding industrial metropolises of the US had a huge potential for profit. In the pre-automotive age the equation was simple — the end of the walking city dictated that people of almost all strata needed an easy way to get around town. Street railways, first horse-drawn and then electric, had a large clientele which needed to get from home to office or home to factory five and six days a week. To operate such a system one needed only to build it, but one could only build it after getting a franchise from the city government. That process, which was based on bids, could also involve bribes and other political power plays.
In 1879 Hanna, along with business partner Elias Simms, found himself bidding against a newcomer in the local franchise contests. Born to a wealthy family in Kentucky, Tom L. Johnson had run successful street railway franchises in Indianapolis and Detroit, Brooklyn, and St. Louis. Cleveland was his next target, but he lost the competition for a franchise (despite a low bid) to Simms-Hanna because of a technicality. No one really knows what role bribery may have played in the contest, but savvy local businessman courted local council men. Elias Simms once noted that all that local councilmen wanted was money and added that he constantly had to have his pocketbook at hand.[xxviii]
The Hanna-Johnson battle went on for three years in what has come to be called the Cleveland Railway Fight. Johnson eventually bested Hanna. The contest, however, brought him to Cleveland in 1879 where he later took up residence on Euclid Avenue. As a wealthy newcomer to the city and an entrepreneur of note, he was a perfect addition to the glitter of the Gilded Age, but though of the same class he and Hanna had no love for one another.
That animosity would spill over into their political views which were colored by their somewhat contrary personal visions of society. Johnson had a conversion experience. Inspired by the writings of Henry George, he went from an entrepreneurial plutocrat to a social reformer and anti-monopolist. He used his fortune to engineer a political career, first as a Democratic representative to Congress and later as a four-term mayor of Cleveland. He fully engaged himself in what he defined as “…the struggle of the people against Privilege.” [xxix] Gilded Age Johnson morphed into one of the most significant figures of the American Progressive era.
Hanna remained firmly locked into the mainstream of the Republican Party. He was part of the monied class in Cleveland who strongly opposed Johnson and who were particularly troubled by his advocacy of the municipal ownership of utilities, such as streetcars and the evolving electrical grid. It seemed to border on Socialism. When Myron T. Herrick, a close friend, whose career was closely linked to Hanna’s power ran against Johnson in the gubernatorial race of 1903, Hanna could easily cherish that triumph. The joy was short-lived. Hanna died early the next year and Herrick turned out to be a one-termer.
Despite the gulf that separated them, Hanna and Johnson shared one important desire — that was to find a way out of the chaos and contention of the Gilded Age. Albeit conservative, Hanna was seeking some accommodation between labor and capital in the latter part of his career. Absent that accommodation, the American system would remain open to the challenges of “foreign” systems of government and societal organization. Johnson, an astute businessman, also realized that the “system” was not working and that societal divisions were dangerous and damaging to society. His solution was to create a more complete and informed democracy and to expand and professionalize the responsibilities and management of government. His long-standing battle for municipal ownership of utilities may have echoed the demands of Leopold Palda, Charles Ruthenberg, and other area socialists, but it represented a vision of efficiency — efficiency that would lower prices and improve the ability of everyone to get to their job easily and heat and light their homes within the limits of a their budgets. In their own ways Hanna and Johnson sought ways to find a way to move out of adolescence into a maturity that would allow the new industrial, urban, polyglot America to survive in concert with the founding ideals of the nation. During the next two decades the more Progressive ideals of Johnson would prevail both locally and nationally and would make Cleveland an example of good governance and progressive thought, an accolade that would receive more national attention that those once lavished on the splendors of Euclid Avenue.
Epilogue
At the end of the nineteenth century, Solon and Emily Severance were residents of Euclid Avenue. Their home, near what is now E. 88st Street was close to the one which their nephew, John L. Severance built in 1891. Solon’s brother, who had made his fortune with Standard Oil, initially planned to build alongside Solon and Emily, but changed his mind[xxx]. But by this time the Avenue was in decline. The expansion of the downtown business district was making the western end of the street less tenable for residence and more valuable (and taxable) for commercial development. In other places air pollution and the encroachment of less exclusive neighborhoods on the borders of the Avenue lessened its appeal. Many of the families who had made their fortunes during the Gilded Age, and their next generations moved to newer exclusive developments — Wade Park, Cleveland Heights, and Shaker Heights — during the early decades of the twentieth century. Others retreated to what had been lakeside summer homes in Bratenahl or country estates in and around the Chagrin River Valley. By the 1920s Euclid Avenue had lost its luster or, if you will, its gilding. The demise of the grand street after a heyday that lasted only an average human lifetime is perhaps the most potent symbol of the chimerical nature of Gilded Age America and Cleveland — it was transient and ephemeral.
But, it was also real. The social and economic dislocations created during the era were painful and often resulted in violence and unknown numbers of very personal tragedies. The era’s challenge to conceptions of the United States as a Jeffersonian agrarian Eden was upsetting. It opened wider an existing rift between city and countryside, one which still remains apparent in maps of contemporary red and blue America. It also created an industrial aristocracy antithetical to early conceptions of the United States as a classless democracy.
Yet, for Cleveland it functioned as an adolescence that evolved into one of the most enviable Progressive maturities in the United States. The seeds of Progressivism in Cleveland can be found in many aspects of its Gilded Age experience. There was no abrupt transition from one era to another. The local Progressive era had begun over a decade before the close of the century. The continued service of “good” men in the office (albeit absent of much power) of mayor was significant. That involvement served as a model for good government organizations such as the Municipal Association of 1895 which counted many leading citizens among its members.[xxxi] Equally significant was the ability of local leadership to transfer aspects of rational corporate and business management to politics and the handling of social problems. Tom Johnson ran his administration as a business. The creation of the Charity Organization Society in 1881, which became Associated Charities in 1900, was the first stage in a movement toward a rational, secular approach to poverty and need in the city.[xxxii] In a similar manner the business-friendly Chamber of Commerce championed building codes and other reforms that brought some order to a community that had often expanded in a helter-skelter fashion.
Whether the motivations for change in the waning years of the Gilded Age represented altruism or enlightened self-interest or, indeed, a form of co-option, will always remain debatable. What cannot be debated is that many who saw the strife and inequality of that era, or who smelled and breathed the pollution within the city were either appalled, or frightened, or both. Lincoln Steffen’s statement that Tom Johnson was the best mayor of the best governed city in the United States is often quoted as testimony to Cleveland’s importance in the Progressive Era. The fact that he made that statement only some twenty years after city treasurer Thomas Axworthy fled to Canada after misusing city funds is not only a testimony to Johnson, but to a city that understood it had problems to solve. Enlightened self-interest and good intent have to be recognized as unified factors that propelled Cleveland’s transition to a community noted for good government, rationally organized charities, and cultural sophistication during the first two decades of the 1900s. It was a change that was both evolutionary and revolutionary.
While written accounts of the past tend to seem abstract and distant, there is a place in Cleveland where one can view the tangible synthesis of the Gilded and Progressive eras. It happens to be located on Euclid Avenue. It is University Circle. Those who are determined to relive the splendor of Gilded Age Euclid Avenue can do so by visiting the museums, educational, and cultural institutions whose foundations rest on the fortunes that came from Gilded Age Cleveland and which house collections of art, costume and decorative arts that once were graced Euclid Avenue mansions. Annually, curators purchase new materials for display and scholarship by using funds from acquisition endowments created by families, such as the Wades and Hannas, who built their fortunes in Gilded Age Cleveland. But, visitors need also to recognize that that the institutions and collections also represent a progressive mentality, one which saw them as benefitting the common good of the community. A good number of the institutions were built in the circle after 1900, in the city’s post adolescence.
Here too, one can debate motivation for such altruism, whether it Gilded or Progressive. Does it represent, for instance, the imposition of particular cultural tastes, on the broader community? But the fact that the Cleveland Museum of Art, for example, is not named after an individual, like the Frick or the Freer galleries is significant as is the fact that in its first decades it also embraced the cultures and arts of the city’s immigrant communities.[xxxiii] The product of multiple bequests, it is a “Cleveland” museum. Similarly, the city’s world-renowned orchestra is the Cleveland Orchestra, and the institutes of art and music are “Cleveland” as well. Of course, the Cleveland Orchestra plays in Severance Hall, but that ensemble’s long history of educational work says much about its purpose — it was to educate and benefit the entire community. Certainly, Samuel Clemens, who dearly loved children and who easily sensed the deceptions and vanities of his age, might be delighted to know that he, as Mark Twain, could — had he miraculously lived into the 1930s — join an auditorium filled with schoolchildren at a concert in a hall built by John L. Severance, the nephew of his traveling companions, Emily and Solon.
[1]Diana Tittle, The Severances: An American Odyssey, from Puritan Massachusetts to Ohio’s Western Reserve, and Beyond (Cleveland: Western Reserve Historical Society, 2010), 126-135. The Clevelanders accompanying Twain on the trip were Emily and Solon Severance, Timothy and Eliza Crocker, Solomon Sanford, Timothy S. Beckwith, and Mrs. Abel Fairbanks. William Ganson Rose, Cleveland: The Making of a City (Cleveland: World Publishing, 1950) also ( 344) lists William. A. Otis as a member of the group.
[2] Population statistics noted in this paragraph and elsewhere are from Van Tassel and Grabowski, The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, web-edition, http://ech.case.edu, specifically from the timeline 9http://ech.cwru.edu/timeline.html) and the immigration statistics chart (http://ech.cwru.edu/Resource/text/FBPCACC.html).
[3] “Civil War” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=CW1 Encyclopedia of Cleveland History.
[4] Ibid.
[5] See Albert A. Nofi, A Civil War Treasury (Cambridge: DaCapo Press, 1992), 381-383, for military pay scales during the War.
[6] James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 442-443 provides an excellent overview of the financing of the war. The possible impact of bond investments on Cleveland’s Gilded Age history is something that was explored by Dr. Edward J. Pershey when he was researching an exhibit on Cleveland in the Civil War for the Western Reserve Historical Society.
[7] “Civil War,” Encyclopedia of Cleveland History.
[8] James Beaumont Whipple. “Cleveland in Conflict: A Study in Urban Adolescence, 1876-1900”. (Ph.D. diss, Western Reserve University, 1951).
[9]“Timeline,” Encyclopedia of Cleveland History.
[10] Rose. 296 and 617.
[11] Rose, p. 376 and p. 617.
[12] Jan Cigliano, Showplace of America: Cleveland’s Euclid Avenue, 1850-1910, (Kent: Kent State University Press, 1991). This volume provides a solid social and economic history of Euclid Avenue and the families who resided there and serves to counter much of the local mythology that has come to encumber the history of the street.
[13] Grace Goulder Izant, John D. Rockefeller: The Cleveland Years, (Cleveland: Western Reserve Historical Society, 1973) provides an excellent overview of Rockefeller’s life in the city, including the period up to 1884 when he was a fulltime resident and the subsequent period after he had established residency in New York City, but continued to return (until 1915) to Cleveland annually. Ron Chernow, Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., (New York: Random House, 1998) adds nuance to the Izant volume and, importantly, outlines his business strategies and innovations.
[14] “Cleveland Rolling Mill Strikes” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=CRMS, Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. See also Henry B. Leonard, “Ethnic Cleavage and Industrial Conflict in Late Nineteenth Century America: The Cleveland Rolling Mill Strikes of 1882 and 1885,” Labor History 20:4 (Fall, 1979), 524-48.
[15] Whipple, 85-89. “Labor” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=L1Encyclopedia of Cleveland History
[16] “Labor,” Streetcar Strike of 1899” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=L1, Encyclopedia Whipple, 177-189.
[17] Whipple, 111-120. Full on-line text of The Breadwinners is available at Project Gutenberg.
[18] Whipple, 163-174
[19] “Labor” “Socialist Labor Party” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=SLP, “Ruthenberg, Charles,” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=RC4, Encyclopedia.
[20] Thomas F. Campbell and Edward M. Miggins (eds), The Birth of Modern Cleveland, 1865-1930 (Cleveland: Western Reserve Historical Society/Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1988), 298-299. Additional biographical information on mayors during this period was taken from their biographies in the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History.
[21] Carol Poh Miller and Robert Wheeler, Cleveland: A Concise History, 1796-1990, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 95. See Whipple, 259, for the full statement by the mayor.
[22] “Streets” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=S23 and “Water System” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=WS, Encyclopedia.
[23] “Cleveland Public Schools” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=CPS2, Encyclopedia for the 1866 figure; Campbell and Miggins, 356 for the 1900 attendance.
[24] Whipple, 337, 339, 343.
[25] Ibid., 346.
[26]Campbell and Miggins, 300-305.
[27] Marcus A. Hanna, http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=HMA, Encyclopedia.
[28] Tom L. Johnson, (Elizabeth Hauser, ed), My Story, (Kent: Kent State University Press, 1993), 17.
[29] Ibid., li
[30] Tittle, 236-237, Cigliano, 174-175
[31] Campbell and Miggins, 303-305. See also “Citizens’ League of Greater Cleveland” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=CLOGC, Encyclopedia.
[31] “Associated Charities” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=AC7 and “Philanthropy” http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=P6, Encyclopedia.
[32] Campbell and Miggins, 214-216.
Democratizing Cleveland: The Rise and Fall of Community Organizing in Cleveland, Ohio 1975-1985
by Randy Cunningham
The pdf is here
If above link does not work, try this
The lecture that supports this is here