Second Course: Chicago Bites Back

Continued from Part 2.

“The World’s Fair cannot help but open the eyes of our Western Natives to our superiority.”
—Ward McAllister

Would Chicago frappé its wine too much? Certainly not with the rising temperatures caused by Ward McAllister’s sanctimonious sermon on proper entertaining during the 1893 World’s Fair. Chicago newspapers launched a vigorous counterattack in the days following the publication of McAllister’s interview in the New York World on April 9, 1893.

Crude society in the Wild West

“There may be somewhere in the United States a bigger donkey than Ward McAllister,” wrote the Chicago Tribune (Apr. 11, 1893) “but if so his name and whereabouts are unknown.” The paper offered this commentary on the imminent mixing of New York and Chicago societies:

“The London Lancet, an authority in its line, has examined analytically and microscopically the drinking water of Chicago and has informed the Englishmen that they need not be afraid to associate with it. Ward McAllister, also an authority in his specialty, has made an investigation of the society people of this city, and unhesitatingly tells the fashionable persons of New York that they can visit Chicago and associate with its wealthier inhabitants—but with them alone—without fear of bad treatment or of contamination. As the result of his study of the question Mr. McAllister tells those who look up to him as guide, philosopher, and friend that material advantages may be reaped by them if they will cultivate the society, crude though it may be, of the remote Wild West.”

Calling him “this singular personage” the Chicago Inter Ocean [Apr. 11, 1893] dismissed McAllister, writing that “Chicago feels a trifle independent in social matters and isn’t nearly as concerned about Gotham as Gotham seems to think.”

“Good heavens, Mr. McAllister, did you get the impression that the World’s Fair is to be held for the benefit of New York society? Did your ‘careful study’ of the situation lead you to infer that distinguished visitors from abroad, representatives of the real aristocracy, whose grandfathers did not skin muskrats, or steer ferryboats, or carry picks, or dicker in the market place, would be less awesome to plain everyday Chicagoans, than the ‘cultivated’ grandchildren of those delightfully stupid but thrifty folk at whom Washington Irving [1] laughed so pleasantly and so infectiously? Do you think that princes, and potentates, and whatnots, with pedigrees as long as your arm and whose infantile ablutions were made in tubs of champagne, will have to take back seats to New York descendants of Peter Tontgivadam? Or do you imagine that the Van what-you-may-call family will be invited to step in and do Chicago’s entertaining for her?”

Despite the reprimand, the Inter Ocean did extend their hope that McAllister and his social set “will come out here and have a good time.” McAllister’s attendance at the Fair would remain to be seen.

The Premier of Cadsville

A few days later, the Inter Ocean [Apr. 13, 1893] offered this sharp rebuke of New York’s pugnacious pundit and his pecunious party:

“One difference between New York and Chicago is that New York has, while Chicago has not, a fussy and vulgar coterie of folk who ought to live by themselves in a suburb that ought to be called Cadsville. Of such coterie and suburb Ward McAllister well might be premier. Mr. McAllister may not know it, but it is the merest matter of fact, that the Princes and Dukes and Marquises, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, and Esquires of high degree whom the fussy vulgar of America regard with admiration, do not discourse among themselves concerning the frapping of wines and the order of serving a chaud froid. It is their lackey that bother themselves about these things. Mr. McAllister’s ‘400’ assimilate more to the manners of the gentlemen in livery … Imitation always is ignoble. And the vulgar fussy, or the fussy vulgar, of McAllister’s acquaintance are imitators altogether.”

The Inter Ocean’s also asserted that “hospitality is not … the mere filling of a visitor’s belly or the tickling of his palate with properly frappéd champagne, but is that plus ministering to his spirit by music, conversation, and artistic surroundings.” At the time of McCallister’s death two years later, several obituaries noted his reputation for caring little or nothing about theater, opera, and other cultural offerings.

Something better than pigs

In the “Chappie Chat” column of the Chicago Times, Gussie Gander feigned relief that Mr. McAllister thought Chicago would succeed in convincing their guests from New York “that we are something better than pigs and other cattle, and at least know enough to abstain from wearing a silk hat with a sack coat and eating soup out of the ends of our spoons.” The sarcasm continued:

“I look with a good deal of disfavor upon the practice indulged in by some of you and by certain ignorant newspapers of poking fun at Mr. McAllister, for, don’t you know, I think that we western people of aristocratic connections and lineage ought to be sincerely grateful to the gentleman who voluntarily undertakes the task of teaching us what to do in order not to be considered vulgar. Wealth is all well enough in its way, but without a certain amount of breeding together with it what value would wealth have? I suppose that most of us will readily confess that New York is a little bit ahead of us in the point of civilization—as far ahead, perhaps, as Paris and London are of New York—and for that reason we western aristocrats ought, I think, to feel profoundly grateful to Mr. McAllister for coming forward at this critical juncture and giving us gratuitous hints upon how to behave.”

Gander also included a tongue-in-cheek list of questions that applicants for admission into high society should answer. Despite his standing, McAllister took the bait and provided his own responses (See Part 4 of this series.)

A head butler to some rich people

“He is not to be judged as other men are,” wrote the Chicago Evening Post [Apr. 10, 1893]. “He is not a man, at all. He is a sort of head butler to some rich people in New York … Whence is follows, as the day the night, that he has also grown arrogant, dictatorial even. It is a fat chuff and talks loud.” The Post unleashed more scorn on Mr. McAllister:

“The most insignificant atom in all creation has its uses. A foolish little dirty wisp of straw may show which way the wind blows. The bristle of a pig may be utilized for scrubbing purposes. And although it is hard to see at first what possible cause so infinitesimal a molecule as that tiny bit of dried up, grayish matter known as the brain of Ward McAllister may subserve, certain it is that even that apparently worthless bit of sponge may point a moral and disfigure—not adorn—a tale to some purpose. At the sight of the great prince of bottle washers and menu makers our scorn will vanish, and we shall be lisping cringingly, as I heard a Chicago belle murmur to a New Yorker the other day, ‘I am afraid you find us very crude after New York.’ That is the way to invite contempt. If we run to Ward McAllister or after him and vie with each other in filling his jaded maw with the best our chefs afford, we shall be as bad as he.”

The Chicago Herald ran this facetious want ad on its editorial page:

“BUTLER—Good place wanted for experienced butler; accustomed to icing wines, looking after orders at restaurants, giving hints about correct things in coaching parties, dressing for dinner, balls in attic ballrooms, etc.; good wages expected, also liberal tips. Gents or ladies needing such, apply to Ward McAllister, New York city.”

Miscellaneous popinjay culture

The Chicago press also took focused aim at specific statements in Ward McAllister’s entertainment manifesto. (Unless otherwise noted, the quotes below all come from the April 11, 1893, issues of various Chicago newspapers.)

McAllister: “There are really a great many fine people in Chicago.

“This in itself explodes the old idea that Chicago people go barefoot, live in trees and dine on raw turnip,” quipped the Chicago Record.

McAllister: “A number of our young men have already begun to make investigations as to the wealth and beauty of the Chicago women …”

“Are the latter delighted to hear this?” asked the Chicago Tribune, while the Record said: “Let ’em come, by all means; we, on our part, will guarantee to be careful to see they are returned uninjured.”

McAllister: “I have personal knowledge that the society women of Chicago are well dressed and cultivated.”

The Inter Ocean pointed out that McAllister had “neglected to explain how they were cultivated or what sort of soil is best adapted to their better cultivation,” writing that

“In short, we learn from the perusal of a column of words spoken by the New York oracle that ‘cultivated society’ is one in which the entertainment of the stomach is perfectly understood. He was careful to omit from his remarks any references to culture and refinement, for, of course, he knew that the way in which champagne is cooled, or beef is served, or a dish is prepared, has nothing whatever to do with those things, while it has everything to do with ‘cultivated society.’”

“Eligible Maidens Abound in This Fair City” read a headline in the Chicago Journal. The paper warned Gotham suitors, however, that—although many of the Western girls have wealth—“fortune hunters find them possessed of a keen instinct and plenty of common sense.”

McAllister: “There is a great deal of wealth in Chicago…”

The Chicago Tribune saw it another way: “Closer relations may lead to the purchase for matrimonial purposes of a number of poor but socially talented New York young men by Chicago heiresses. The impoverished nobility of Europe hunt for New York so may the poor nobility of Gotham find wealthy wives here.”

McAllister: “Chicago is moving in the right direction and should be encouraged in every way.”

“There is hope for us,” concluded the Chicago Record sarcastically. “New York s’ciety through its chief flunky deigns to commend. We may yet even be allowed to hobnob with the flunky. Who knows? Let those who are interested in miscellaneous popinjay culture take heart and hold up their chin.”

McAllister: “One great gain in the visit of New Yorkers to Chicago will be the reinvigoration of Newport.”

The Chicago Times observed that his self-serving manifesto “may sound a little patronizing at first, but on careful study the document resolves itself into a bid for Chicago patronage for Newport.”

McAllister: “I do not think that New York society persons will be inclined to hold aloof from the social element of Chicago.”

“Dear condescending creatures!” wrote the Inter Ocean about New Yorkers. “How unutterably nice of them to entertain such a spirit of concession toward a people that is a century newer than themselves!”

McAllister: “There are plenty of big houses there and a good deal of emulation among the various millionaires to gain a favorable position in the eyes of society of the East.”

“Cannot Mr. McAllister be persuaded to give their names, so that their fellow citizens may look upon them with increased pride?” asked the Tribune.

McAllister: “The fact that a man has been brought up in the West does not mean that he is not capable of becoming a society man.”

The Inter Ocean offered this riposte: “Think of that, Mr. Buffalo Bill and thank your lucky stars that the society built on the trade in skins and pelts is open to you if you only get enough out of the Wild West!” “Those Chicagoans who have hitherto considered their case hopeless because they grew up out here may take courage,” advised the Tribune. “Though born aliens to New York society they may be naturalized into it.”

McAllister: “I see that the newly-elected Mayor of Chicago has announced that visitors to the Fair need not fear lack of hospitality … it is not quantity but quality that the society people here want.”

“Good! I say, good!” wrote Gussie Gander in the Chicago Times. “Now we know exactly where we stand. It is true that we have more quantity than quality hereabouts, from the McAllisterian standpoint, but of course we will inaugurate a sifting process in lots of time to prevent any chance of Ward or his friends being compelled to sully themselves by associating with any but the most select class of people.”

If the new Chicago mayor Carter Harrison “will go ahead and do his best to make the hospitality include as many as possible of the ‘whole human race,’” wrote the Decatur (IL) Daily Review, “he may succeed in winning the thanks of all but the ‘400.’ And Harrison happens to be just the man to make no mistake in a matter of this kind.”

“What is hospitality, pray, Mr. McAllister?” asked the Chicago Times. “Get thee to the Bedouins and learn the definition of a word whose significance is as unknown in thy New York as is that of charity.”

The mayor will not frappé his wine too much

McAllister: “I should suggest that the Chicago society people import a number of fine French chefs. I should also advise that they do not frappé their wine too much.”

McAllister’s advice on chilling champagne popped more than a few corks around town. “The ‘really fine people’ of this city,” retorted the Chicago Tribune, “will heed his note of warning to keep track of the neck of the champagne bottle free from ice, but they have little time left in which to order a batch of chefs. They will do the best they can, however, to show that they are deserving of Mr. McAllister’s commendation and of the honor of entertaining real society people from New York.”

The Chicago Evening Journal advised that “Ward McAllister will get along in Chicago all right until he tells some ‘levee’ saloon-keeper [2] that there is too much froth on his beer, and then he will go back to New York in fragments. We are used to freaks, but we must draw the line somewhere.” The Journal also snapped back:

“The mayor will not frappé his wine too much. He will frappé it just enough so the guests can blow the foam off the tops of the glasses without a vulgar exhibition of lung and lip power. His ham sandwiches, sinkers and Irish quail, better known in the Bridgeport vernacular as pigs’ feet, will be triumphs of the gastronomic art.” [Dedmon 223]

“Probably by the time the Fair is over,” wrote the Journal, “the Chicago snobocracy will have secured their French chefs and will have learned how to not frappé their champagne too much—these being the cardinal points in the first gospel lesson promulgated by this social John the Baptist …”

Chicago Times columnist Gussie Gander mockingly announced: “We boys, don’t you know, have some of us had the beastly vulgar habit of drinking champagne that cost only the beggarly sum of $4 a bottle … The sight of still wine at $10 a bottle! Great heavens! How our eyes would bulge out at the spectacle! The mere idea of such astounding prodigality is enough to give some of us young millionaires a rush of blood to the head, isn’t it?”

The Chicago Dispatch succinctly affirmed: “We never frappé it as much as New York City frappés her hospitality.”

Getting tired of this society business

Most Chicagoans, of course, did not need to worry about how to frappé their wine. McAllister’s snobbish advice about French chefs and iced champagne had been directed squarely at Chicago’s aristocrats. While a battle raged in the newspapers of the Empire City and the Exposition City, members of their respective societies stayed silent. Well, mostly silent. (See the final installment of this series for how New York’s 400 rebuked Mr. McAllister.) Two important figures in Chicago did speak out.

Chicago society’s own major domo tried to stay above the fray. In terms of social standing, Mr. Hobart C. Chatfield-Taylor was viewed by some as the “Ward McAllister” of Chicago, though with a far milder temperament and restrained voice. Chatfield-Taylor reported that McAllister’s interview in the New York World had left him “completely dumfounded.” He explained to that paper: “I am getting tired of this society business, and I don’t want to get any further reputation in that direction. No; I won’t talk about it.” [“Chicagoans Rage”]

He did, however, pen this letter to the editor of the New York World, printed in their April 16, 1893, issue:

“In order to dignify Mr. McAllister’s article with an answer one must take it seriously, and to do that would be to acknowledge the density of one’s sense of humor. So it would seem that for the reputation of Chicago, as well as that of the article’s author, the less said about it the better. With renewed thanks for your consideration, believe me, yours faithfully, H. C. Chatfield-Taylor, Chicago, Ill., April 12.”

Another recognized leader of Chicago society was Ellen Henrotin, Vice President of the World’s Congress Auxiliary of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition and wife of one of the founders of the Chicago Stock Exchange. Unlike Mr. Chatfield-Taylor, she offered a vigorous rebuke of the New York society leader, but her McAllisterian opinions about the importance of birth, background, and breeding hardly distinguish her from her target!

“Chicago’s business-men are nearly picked men of the Nation. They are with few exceptions descended from the best stock on this continent, old Puritan families. Most of them are college graduates and the lavish manner in which these men have poured out money, not only for higher learning, but for the primary education of the young people of their city, betokens no passive interest in the matters of refinement and culture, on which the East so prides itself. … The standards of taste and good breeding is not, fortunately, that of the young men held up as representatives of New York’s 400, who ‘are already beginning to make investigations as to the wealth and beauty (education and good breeding being left entirely out of consideration) of Chicago women.’ Some of the best-known leaders of social life are neither young, rich, nor beautiful, but merely refined, gentle, and cultured. It is very difficult to secure entrance into the inner circles of Chicago society. The fact that a woman is a professional beauty or that a man has millions has little weight. … Whatever life in Chicago may or may not be, one fact is certain, the best of Chicago’s society will not submit to dictation from the alleged representatives of any other social center in America.” [“Talks from a Pulpit”]

One of the greatest social sensations of recent years

Newspapers across the country reported on how insulted Chicago felt and how best to respond to the slight.

McAllister’s commentary made the whole city of Chicago “froth at the mouth,” according to the Elmira (NY) Star Gazette. “The Society of Pork Packers Compare Themselves with the Four Hundred of the Metropolis,” read the headline of their article reporting on “a hurricane of indignation sweeping from Hyde Park to Evanston and from the lake front to Cicero.”

“Religious wars and race wars and civil wars have a reputation for ferociousness, but they don’t compare with a ‘society war,’ such as is just now being waged between the snobocracy of New York and the nabobery of Chicago,” submitted the Cincinnati Post.

The St. Paul Daily Globe described the fracas as “one of the greatest social sensations of recent years,” and comparing it to Rudyard Kipling’s similarly snarky comparison of English society with that of New York. The paper floated the suggestion that Mr. McAllister “has indulged in a clever bit of baiting to demonstrate and promote his own importance in the American social world.”

“What must Ward McAllister, with his opinion of Chicago, think of himself when he succeeds in disgusting her?” asked the Washington D.C. Evening Star. The Astoria (OR) Daily Morning Astorian described McAllister’s interview as “about as nauseating a production of that self-constituted authority on good (?) breeding has been guilty of since he removed the ‘dross’ from the ‘400’ and simmered the essence of New York society down to 150 in number.”

“The Chicago fair would not have had a proper sendoff without a patronizing word from Ward McAllister,” wrote the San Francisco Morning Call. “He has spoken, and the world may entertain itself.”

“Chicago is to be congratulated again,” wrote the Champaign (IL) Daily Gazette the day after McAllister’s first epistle:

“Ward McAllister expresses the opinion that the effect of the World’s Fair on Chicago people will be to finish and polish off a considerable number of them to such an extent that they may possibly be admitted to good society when they may happen hereafter to go to New York. He regrets that Chicago people have not been up to snuff, hitherto, in social matters.”

“Polite, erudite, cultured Chicago is greatly annoyed, greatly offended because Ward McAllister has presumed to assert that her society would profit by contact with visiting New Yorkers during the World’s Fair,” reported the Buffalo Enquirer, which continued:

“Chicago has risen to the occasion and with frigid, crushing sarcasm has insinuated in breezy Western metaphor that McAllister is an ass, an idiot, a cheap butler, a second-rate non compos, that his mind has been cultivated like a cholera bacillus under experimentation to the last stage of attenuation and that in every respect he is unworthy of the attention of people of education and refinement. … Chicago needs to sit at the feet of Ward McAllister notwithstanding her protestations. Chicago can still learn a few lessons from high-bred New York. Chicago can knock off a few the rough corners to her advantage and profit. Chicago needs a long pull at the flagon of culture, a strong spray from the atomizer of refinement before she will be sufficiently well barbered to criticize Ward and set in judgement upon him.”

A miracle of pretentious folly

Other newspapers also advised Chicago to heed McAllister’s advice with grace. About his “wonderful interview,” the Hartford (CT) Courant shared the opinion that “from one point of view it is a miracle of pretentious folly, from another it is merely the honest word of a man who feels that he is an expert, uttered for the benefit of those who are ignorantly trying to scale the social heights and need a guide.”

The Helena (MT) Independent on April 20, 1893, noted that “in Chicago there is a quiet impression that Ward McAllister should be packed to the neck in ice,” but four days later posited that “the sulphurous smell in Chicago newspapers indicates that Ward McAllister told more truth about the town than they are willing to admit.”

Infected with offensive snobbishness

Several news outlets recognized that this spat concerned only the blue-bloods of these two cities and called out the ugly aristocratic snobbery on display.

“McAllister has run with the swell set until he measures hospitality by the cost of the wine per bottle, and the cost of the gown per yard that the hostess wears,” wrote the Carson City (NV) Morning Appeal. “Hospitality is a varied thing and Ward McAllister in all his long years of service as lackey for the Gotham 400 has seen precious little of it.”

The Detroit Free Press wrote:

“Ward McAllister, the autocrat of Gotham’s 400, has spoken, and society of Chicago need not go out and hang itself because of the verdict he has rendered. He says that there are some really fine people in the breezy city, that its ladies and gentlemen in the social whirl possess a great deal of wealth, and that he knows some of its women to be well-dressed and cultivated. Of course they are not up to the standard of his own peculiar set, as the upper ten of Chicago will admit when the two have met at the World’s fair, but they are fair western product. The autocrat is not thoroughly pleased with Carter Harrison’s assurance that the hospitality of the city may be a little rough, but that it will be generous and genuine. This does not strike Mc. as just what he is looking for, and he modestly suggests that the wealthy Chicago people import a few French chefs, for it is quality and not quantity which he swells of Gotham will look for. If his advice be followed, he is of the opinion that the 400 will not hold aloof from society as represented in the big town on Lake Michigan, McAllister should be compelled to go there on a diet of sweitzer cheese and wienerwurst, with native beer as a throat cooler.”

Noting a “polite condescension” in McAllister’s advice column, the San Francisco Chronicle [Apr. 11, 1893] surmised his intent:

“The leader of New York society may know all about giving a dinner or leading a german, but he has a great deal to learn about what constitutes good society. It is to be hoped that Chicago may never be infected with some of his social ideas, the most offensive of which is a snobbishness that stirs the gorge of a sensible man or woman. To get social culture at this price is to pay too dearly for it.”

There is nothing quite so harmless as Mr. McAllister

“Some idiots in what is called Chicago ‘society’ have taken offense at the criticisms of an ignoramus named Ward McAllister,” wrote the New York magazine Town Topics, identifying the Westerners “as silly and as ignorant as the fellow himself.” The magazine offered this deriding commentary on both the New York pundit and Chicago society:

“The Chicago idiots who have taken offense at McAllister’s criticisms are as silly and as ignorant as the fellow himself. Those persons talk about society and culture. For the most part they can speak but one language, and that imperfectly. … It would be safe to say that there are not ten young men and ten young women in the Chicago society which Ward McAllister criticizes, or in Ward McAllister’s four hundred, who know the history of their own country, who cold discuss intelligently the public questions of the day, or who have read understandingly five first-class books by American or English authors. The talk of men in this society is mostly about fast women and fast horses. The talk of the women is about one another and about dress, with a smattering of musical jargon, and about pictures and works of art of which they have not the least comprehension. Those people and their critics would be only subjects for the laughter of the judicious, but their antics, their talk, their actions are made the excuses for the preaching of destructive doctrines by cheap demagogues.” [reprinted in the Chicago Eagle Apr. 29, 1893]

“Mr. McAllister is in reality a bulb, a sort of boiled onion with the smell removed,” wrote Town Topics. “Anyone who has seen him kangarooing down 5th avenue at noontime, with dust on his shoulders and the expression of a fainting halibut in his eyes, will never get angry with him as Chicago has done. There is nothing quite so harmless as Mr. McAllister.” The magazine asserted that real rage over municipal misfortunes should be directed at dirty streets and crowded trains in their city, “not over this over-done canvas-back duck of society … I can only regret that Chicago should have lost its temper over remarks of an individual who was last year a clown and this year a mere odor.” [reprinted in the Chicago Eagle Jun. 3, 1893]

Town Topics also printed a facetious report about a gathering of fashionable Chicago families for an “indignation meeting” that allegedly would fill the nearly-4000-seat Auditorium Theater. The Midwest aristocrats would “formally protest against the recent utterances of Mr. Ward McAllister.” Following the lead of lost published in the Chicago Times, the Town Topics poked fun at Chicago society’s indignation with a description of an imagined five-hour meeting that would include debates on these burning questions:

“1. Shall a New York nobody be permitted to deprive a free citizen of his unalienable right to eat his fish with a knife?

2. Is a man who has made a million dollars honestly, in provisions, to he considered a nobody because he chooses to wear a red puff scarf with evening dress?

3. How much corned beef can a man eat at his own table without McAllister considering him a pig?

4. Shall we be forced to wash for full dress when going out to visit in demi-toilet?

5. Must we be forced to use costly wax on our ballroom floors, or does the usual axle-grease go?

6. Whoinhellis McAllister, anyhow?” [reprinted in the Chicago Eagle Jun. 3, 1893.]

Fake News

“If other astounding things had not come from the same source and been well authenticated,” wrote the Rutland (VT) Daily Herald, “this interview would be taken for an entertaining ‘fake’ devised by some bright newspaper man with a talent for imagining things.” The Chicago Dispatch disagreed, asserting that “Mr. McAllister is not a humorist. He is an ass—just a plain, common, every-day, mouse-colored ass.”

Arthur Brisbane, editor New York World, chided Chicago papers for their defensiveness while pouring another helping of condescending gravy to accompany McAllister’s second dish printed in their April 16, 1893, issue (and reprinted in the next installment of this series):

“Mr. McAllister says that Chicago does not know how to cool wine or lead an idle life of social joy as those things should be done, and Chicago is as excited as the tenement-house lady who was asked what she knew about mesmerism. She thought it hard that such a question should be put to her, a respectable woman and the mother of five children. Chicago naturally takes Mr. McAllister’s criticisms seriously, and Mr. McAllister, with ill-concealed triumph, proceeds this week to rub salt into the wounds so freshly made. …

It is not Chicago, properly speaking, which justifies Mr. McAllister’s remarks and renders them useful and timely. The real Chicago, which works and hustles and brags about the Fair, cares nothing about McAllister or what he says. But Chicago already harbors a few young people who try to forget the way in which their money was earned. In these, Chicago possesses the nucleus of such a society as has grown up in New York. At present Chicago is unquestionably behind New York from the social standpoint … Chicago will not be able to reach our plane in time for the opening of the World’s Fair no matter how hard it may try, but it may hope to do so eventually. All that is needed is plenty of money and an inclination to spend it in an ostentatious manner.

Those things form the basis of the society which Mr. McAllister is commonly and erroneously supposed to lead. It is the society that seeks in every way for notoriety, which schemes laboriously to get itself advertised in the daily newspapers, but it is, of course, entirely separate from the educated people who live in New York and make New York the best city to live in.”

Nothing can now stand in the way of the success

As the gates of the World’s Fair were about to open and European royalty soon to arrive on our shores, perhaps this entire kerfuffle was simply nervous energy before America’s big show.

“It is a little late in the day for New York to disparage the energy and capacity of Chicago as applied to the great Exposition,” offered the Martinsburg (WV) World. “It is time that all puerile jealousies should be laid aside, also the absurd patronizing indulged in by Ward McAllister …”

Rising above the fray, the Los Angeles Times wrote that:

“Nothing can now stand in the way of the success of the Columbian enterprise, for Ward McAllister has announced his entire approval, thinks that European society will hold out its princely fingertips to touch ours, and says earnestly: ‘Why, I know a man who has been to Europe eight times, but has never been west of the Hudson River. He is not going to Europe this year—but he is going to the fair.’ Such praise from the Prince of Snobs is praise indeed!”

The American humor magazine Puck, which temporarily relocated from New York to the Chicago fairgrounds during the summer of 1893, tried to calm the nerves of the World’s Fair City:

“We should like to disabuse the mind of Chicago, and of the West generally, of the idea that New York is not in sympathy with the Fair. It is partly Chicago’s obtuseness that makes this necessary. Chicago might be excused for attaching undue importance to the occasional belittling attempt of a New York paper, and for inferring a general lack of sympathy from the withdrawal of their products by a few New York manufacturers who saw that they could not all get the highest medal; but it can hardly be excused for taking Ward McAllister seriously. It is sad that any part of a nation so quick to see fun as ours, can be imposed on in this respect. Know, Oh Chicago! that Ward McAllister represents the ‘smart set’ of New York in the same degree that your citizen Michael McDonald represents the Chicago Board of Trade; and that said ‘smart set’ represents the real New York in the degree that a Chicago stock-yard represents Grecian architecture. You call Mr. McAllister many kinds of an ass; we grant you that, and more: he is the ideal ass, but to dismiss him thus is to do him as gross an injustice as would be done Falstaff by describing him simply as a coward and a drunkard. We have the highest respect for your energy, Chicago, but do learn to laugh at the right time. Of course, if you take Mr. McAllister seriously, he offends you with his vulgar twaddle about soup and society. Every man talks shop, and Mr. McAllister’s shop is his stomach. … You will thank the enterprising but irreverent New York World for giving you such a treat, and you ought to thank us for telling you how to enjoy it. … You are the most American city in the United States, and you alone could have done what has been done in Jackson Park. Your public-spirited energy is as wonderful as your growth. We doff our hats to you, and we shall not fail in a more substantial acknowledgment. But you have a hard tussle before you yet. You have got to protect your millions of visitors from extortion, disease and untimely death in flimsy buildings. Make sure that no more serious charge than being Western can be brought against you.”

Continued in Part 4.

NOTES

1. Washington Irving’s pseudonymous A History of New York, in full A History of New York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty by “Diedrich Knickerbocker” (1809; revised in 1812, 1819, and 1848) was intended as a burlesque of historiography.

2. Chicago’s vice-ridden “red-light district” around South Dearborn Street was known as the Levee. The brothels, saloons, and dance parlors of the Levee District experienced vigorous business during the 1893 World’s Fair.

---

SOURCES

“Again the McAllister” Rutland (VT) Daily Herald Apr. 14, 1893, p. 2.

“Chappie Chat” Chicago Times Apr. 11, 1893, p. 4.

“The Chicago Fair” San Francisco Morning Call Apr. 17, 1893, p. 4.

“Chicago Frothing at the Mouth Ferociously” Buffalo (NY) Enquirer Apr. 13, 1893, p. 4.

“Chicago is to be congratulated …” Champaign (IL) Daily Gazette Apr. 10, 1893, p. 4.

“Chicago Newspaper Comment” New York World Apr. 16, 1893, p. 25.

“Chicago will not relish …” San Francisco Chronicle Apr. 11, 1893, p. 6.

“Chicago will please …” Utica (NY) Observer Apr. 14, 1893, p. 4.

“Chicagoans Rage” Elmira (NY) Star Gazette Apr. 12, 1893, p. 4.

“Chicago’s Ward McAllister” New York World Apr. 16, 1893, p. 25.

“Criticism of a New Yorker” Galena (IL) Gazette Jun. 1, 1893, p. 1.

Dedmon, Emmett Fabulous Chicago. Random House, 1953.

“First Family Indignation” Chicago Eagle Jun. 3, 1893, p. 4.

“Freaks of Toadyism” Buffalo (NY) Commercial Apr. 13, 1893, p. 4.

“The Great Fair” Los Angeles Times Apr. 12, 1893, p. 9.

“In Chicago …” Helena (MT) Independent Apr. 20, 1893, p. 4.

“It is a little late …” Martinsburg (WV) World Apr. 21, 1893, p. 2.

“Just Think of It” Chicago Eagle Jun. 3, 1893, p. 4.

“A Little Talk to Chicago” Puck Apr. 26, 1893, p. 146.

“Major and Minor” Detroit Free Press Apr. 12, 1893, p. 4.

“McAllister Good Old Mac” Chicago Evening Post Apr. 10, 1893, p. 4.

“M’Allister on Chicago” Hartford (CT) Courant Apr. 13,1893, p. 4.

“The New Sir Andrew” Chicago Inter Ocean Apr. 11, 1893, p. 6.

“Real Life in This City” New York World Apr. 16, 1893, p. 4.

“Religious wars …” Cincinnati Post Apr. 14, 1893, p. 4.

“Rites of Hospitality” Carson City (NV) Morning Appeal Apr. 13, 1893, p. 2.

“Society in Chicago” Chicago Inter Ocean Apr. 13, 1893, p. 6.

“Still There Is Hope For Us” Chicago Record Apr. 11, 1893, p. 4.

“The sulphurous smell …” Helena (MT) Independent Apr. 24, 1893, p. 4.

“Talks from a Pulpit” Chicago Tribune May 24, 1893, p. 9.

“Ungrateful Chicago” St. Albans (VT) Daily Messenger Apr. 14, 1893, p. 2.

“Ward McAllister and Chicago Society” Chicago Eagle Apr. 29, 1893, p. 4.

“Ward McAllister on Chicago Society” Chicago Tribune Apr. 11, 1893, p. 4.

“What M’Allister Wants” Decatur (IL) Daily Review Apr. 11, 1893, p. 4.

“What must Ward McAllister …” Washington (DC) Evening Star Apr. 11, 1893, p. 4.