Chicago convention history is hardly conventional

Smithsonian Institution National Portrait Gallery

     I had two scene-setters in the Sunday paper. The first, posted Sunday, was on how the Democratic National Convention might affect the city's battered reputation. This is the second, a quickstep through Chicago's convention history.

     The nation was falling apart. The agricultural South, having forced the United States at its birth into a devil’s bargain, had no intention of abandoning the highly profitable ancient evil. They invoked God, the Bible, science and common sense when explaining why slavery had to continue forever.
     But the North could no longer accept Southern sheriffs infiltrating their cities, seizing free Blacks and dragging them back to bondage. The 1860 election was seen as a crossroads. Not in liberating the South — that wasn’t even on the table, initially — but determining the future of the unfinished West.
     Would the seven territories between Missouri and the Pacific allow slavery? Would the South get the respect they craved? The Democrats, meeting in Charleston, couldn’t even settle on a consensus candidate: the party ended up nominating two different candidates at two different conventions. Their confusion seemed an opportunity for the new Republican Party, formed out of the ashes of the Revolutionary War era Whigs.
     Where should Republicans hold their convention? Chicago had a burgeoning industrial city, with a population of 110,000 — making it the country’s ninth-largest, not half the size of Baltimore. No big shakes. So why here? And no, not because of Abraham Lincoln. He wasn’t even a consideration; had he been, the convention might have ended up elsewhere.
     Part of Chicago’s allure was that it wasn’t an Eastern city. Holding the convention on the coast would “run a big chance of losing the West.” Plus, then as now, Chicago was good at receiving guests.

Hotel rooms and railroads

     “Essentially Chicago had the infrastructure in 1860 in terms of railroads and hotel rooms,” said Ed Achorn, author of “The Lincoln Miracle: Inside the Republican Convention That Changed History.”
     “Illinois was also a vital swing state in the election, and the convention would help promote the party. But the site also appealed to the executive committee of the Republican National Committee because members believed it was neutral ground. No serious candidate in their view came from Illinois. William Seward, Edward Bates, Salmon Chase, and Simon Cameron were deemed the big contenders. Lincoln was considered a veep possibility at best.”
     Chicago wasn’t really neutral ground. Lincoln’s homegrown forces knew the political terrain very well. While Seward’s New York supporters were parading a brass band around the Wigwam, the impressive log convention hall built where Lake and Wacker meet today, Lincoln’s team filled the balcony reserved for spectators.
     Chicago would host 24 more Democratic and Republican national conventions, including three years when both parties held their conventions here. Most — 22 — were in the century between 1860 and 1960, when the city held its last Republican Convention and nominated Richard M. Nixon for the first time. We’ve held only three since, counting the 2024 Democratic National Convention, commencing here Aug. 19.

To continue reading, click here.