1. "Devil In The White City"
Posted by Susan on Sep-4th-03 at 3:15 AM

Awhile ago, Jim had posted the name of this book about H.H. Holmes and his murders at the World's Fair.  I just recently got this book from the library and have just started reading it, already there is a mention of Lizzie in the book!!!  Don't know if there is more?  There is an interesting passage just before the mention:

"In the time of the fair the rate at which men and women killed one another rose sharply throughout the nation but especially in Chicago, where police found themselves without the manpower or expertise to manage the volume.  In the first six months of 1892 the city experienced nearly eight hundred violent deaths."

"But things were changing.  Everywhere one looked the boundary between the moral and the wicked seemed to be degrading.  Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued in favor of divorce.  Clarence Darrow advocated free love.  A young woman named Borden killed her parents."

Has anyone else read this?  I'm curious what you think of it. 

An obvious error from a lack of research! Did Clarence Darrow really advocate "free love" or merely divorces? Another mistake?
Perhaps if this crime was never solved it would be more popular, like Jack the Ripper. Didn't Herman Mudgett (name?) have a higher body count?

The reason for the increased murder rate in Chicago or other big city was the great number of strangers and transients (like 1930s Cleveland and the Torso Murders). People come and go, and are not missed, not even by their family. Small towns do not have this problem, one reason they are safer. Until an increased number of people move in, and bring crime in their wake. Its an interesting physical phenomenon.

*People come and go and are not missed*, sounds like crime is merely an opportunity, based on moving populations.
I don't think more people moving in and out makes more criminals out of people, but rather the same criminals have more victims to choose from.

Yes, most/much crime is based on oppotunity. THAT is why they tell you not to go walking in certain parts of your city (?) or deserted parks at night. And I didn't even mention hitch-hiking!

Just walking in the dark is dangerous, as Stephen King found out.

I mean, it sounded like you were saying that if an opportunity presented, most anyone would commit a crime.
I was restating what it sounded like you were saying, to show my understanding was that the same criminals would have more opportunity because of more victims to choose from.

Susan,  I believe Lizzie is mentioned twice in The Devil In The White City.  I read it in July and found it to be fascinating and terrifying.  Holmes and his house of horrors is placed in direct contrast to the beauty and charm of the World's Columbian Exposition and the result is a snapshot of a moment in time. 

Don't you love how they juxtapose the architect, Daniel Hudson Burnham's life alongside Henry H. Holmes'?  You get a view into fairly normal Victorian life during 1892 and a frightening look into a depraved mind, its terribly fascinating!  I'm almost halfway through the book and don't want to put it down. 

Can you possible believe that "most people are honest", or, that the right situation can tempt most everyone? Example: if you were to find a $20 bill in the parking lot, would you turn it in to the police?

I once found a $5 bill, and turned it in. When I told my coworkers about it, one asked what denomination. I said $1; then went back to claim it before leaving. My lesson learned is to simply keep it, as most people would. What can YOU say about this? And your own examples? (I'll bet you weren't that lucky.)

Yes, the contrast between Burnham and Holmes is remarkable.  One was a creator and a positive spirit.  The other was a warped, evil monster.  I, too, hated to stop reading and I have to say that the concluding chapters are probably the most interesting.  With Holmes, there is certainly no question as to whodunit.

The menus that are included are amazing!  All that food that was eaten in one sitting, wow! 

I think I found an error and its about the Bordens:

"In taking stock of 1891, the Chicago Tribune reported that 5,906 people had been murdered in America, nearly 40 percent more than in 1890.  The increase included Mr. and Mrs. Borden of Fall River, Massachusetts."  They died in 1892, why would their deaths be attributed to 1891?

Theres other amazing stuff in the book, how they used the first, crude version of a spray painter to whitewash the buildings at the fair.  The first zipper made its debut at the fair.  The first automatic dishwasher too.  Aunt Jemima's pancakes and Juicy Fruit gum.  Really cool to find stuff like that out, especially since we have so many of thes products still in use today! 

More sloppy research? The "40% rise", if accurate, could be attributed to the depression of that year?
Is crime going up now due to the Bush Depression?
The AFCE said "road, pipes, and wires" are in worst shape that two years ago. Would this neglect and deferred maintenance count as "murder" when people die from it? (Just asking opinions.)
...
Back in the late 1970s a columnist said you could tell when there was a recession by the number of cars being driven with one headlight out. Afterwards comes more "deferred maintenance", and more accidents. The accident rate has gone up in the last 2 years or so.
The last 7+ quarters of recession add up to a depression. (Don't mistake this for another Great Depression, which lasted about 21 years, from about 1929 to 1950, the first year when civilian production met 1928 standards. Or so I remember from a newspaper.)

(Message last edited Sep-8th-03  11:05 AM.)

What "depression" are you talking about? 



(Message last edited Sep-7th-03  9:10 AM.)

Finally got my computer back a few minutes ago.  Somehow Monday turned into Thursday --- and the problem is still not fixed -- I have to work around it, apparently.  But I'm just so happy to be back on-line. 

I'm using this particular heading because I want to thank Jim and Susan for their book recommend.  While my computer was out, I read The Devil in the White City and I loved it.  I agree with both their assessments.  It's a compelling read.  Juxtaposing the visionary minds responsible for the Chicago World's Fair with the frightening psychosis of the killer provides a unique way to view that period in time. It really brought the era to life for me. 

Hi Diana, welcome back to Lizzie land. 

Sounds like a "double feature". By combining the infamous HH Holmes with the Chicago Worlds Fair (?) you can get twice the readers.
I did browse this book; not enough time for it.

It did say 1893 was a Depression Year. I'm not up on that part of American History. Who won the Presidency in 1892? Did time on their hands contribute to the popularity of the Borden Trial?

Lots of people like to read about others in worse condition; human error or schadenfreude?
...
What are the estimates for his body count? Did he insure A to benefit B, then when B got the money for A's death did B then disappear?

(Message last edited Oct-9th-03  6:40 PM.)

Hi, Diana!  Even though your computer glitch isn't entirely fixed, good to see you back!  Glad you enjoyed the book, it gives you such a feel of what it was like to live in that era. 

The one in 1893, not before or after. They occurred about every 7 year or so (rought estimate). Why do they happen in Oct? Cash liquidity from selling harvested crops in older days. Or?

Yesterday I spent with my sisters who raved about this book, I have
to read it they said.  I just ordered it from Amazon, and came back to
this thread.  The "Bush Depression"? what is that?  I am living better
than I ever have since the Reagan years.  The "depression" was the
Clinton years in my opinion.  Not the forum for politics, sorry, but
can't let Rays get away with everything!

The Panic of 1893 was the second worst economic downturn in American history.  Only the Great Depresssion of the 1930's was worse and more prolonged.  The Panic of 1893 had its roots in the economic policies of Republican Benjamin Harrison who defeated Democratic Grover Cleveland who sought re-election in 1888.  Cleveland asked Congress for significant tariff reform in 1888 (and devoted his entire State of The Union message to lowering the tariff) because the high Republican supported tariffs of the late 19th Century resulted in artifically high prices for consumers and stunning profits for American manufacturers.  Cleveland won more popular votes in 1888 but Harrison had more electoral votes--sound familiar?

In any event, Harrison's policies depeleted the US Treasury and Cleveland returned in 1892 and soundly defeated him only to inherit a mess.  Cleveland left the nation with a huge financial suplus in 1889, and Harrison gave him--and the nation--a massive deficit by 1893.  Hundreds of banks failed and hundreds of thousands of people were thrown out of work.  There was no social safety net and when one lost a job, there was virtually no recourse except charity.  One individual, Jacob Coxey, led a march of hundreds and then thousands of unemployed from Ohio to DC in an effort to get Congress to provide some sort of relief for those who were out of work.  Viewed as a radical and possibly dangerous, Coxey's Army, as it was called, was carefully monitored.  In the end, Coxey and his followers were arrested for walking on the grass when they gathered in front of the Capitol Building.

The Panic extended for several years and was exacerbated by worker unrest and several violent strikes including the infamous Chicago Pullman Strike in 1894.  This strike, led by Pullman Palace Car Company workers who were being cheated by the "paternalistic" George Pullman (who lowered their wages and raised their rents in their required company housing--all while he was making huge profits) resulted in a violent strike.  Some homeless strikers even camped in the now empty World's Columbian Exposition buildings in Jackson Park and several of those buildings were burned during the strike.  President Cleveland broke the strike by using an injunction and sending in federal troops.  At one point, the nation was in such dire financial straits that President Cleveland secretly met with financier JP Morgan and asked him for a loan to keep the government alfoat.  Later, in 1894, when farmers in Texas petitioned Congress for free seeds for the spring planting, Cleveland vetoed the bill stating that "it is the duty of the people to support the government and not the duty of the government to support the people."  This was laissez faire government and when times were hard, they were hard beyond our comprehension today.