Today in Chicago History: Wingfoot Air Express dirigible catches fire and crashes in the Loop, killing 13 people
Is an important event missing from this date? Email us.
Weather records (from the National Weather Service, Chicago)
1919: For most of the day, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.'s Wingfoot Air Express airship cruised above the city. The powerful hum of its engines and a serene shadow were the only indicators of its passage as it flew from the South Side to Grant Park and as far north as Diversey Parkway.
At about 5 p.m., the blimp hurtled through a lobby skylight of the Illinois Trust & Savings Bank at 231 S. LaSalle St., killing 13 people and injuring 27. It was America's first recorded commercial aviation disaster.
1924 Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb's attorney Clarence Darrow entered a plea of guilty on his clients' behalf. By entering guilty pleas, Darrow didn't have to persuade 12 jurors to spare his clients the hangman's noose. In a trial's sentencing phase, the judge has the ultimate say.
Vintage Chicago Tribune: Leopold and LoebAfter the evidence had been presented, Darrow addressed the judge, speaking for 12 hours over two days. Darrow's eloquent plea had the desired effect. Leopold and Loeb were sentenced to life in prison.
1952: The Democratic National Convention opened in Chicago at the International Amphitheatre. Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson was chosen as the party's nominee.
Stevenson, who did not seek the presidential nomination, was drafted on the third ballot. Although he was a reluctant candidate, he pledged a hard-fighting campaign.
Vintage Chicago Tribune: Tradition of acceptance speeches at political conventions began in Chicago'I have no feeling of exultation, nor sense of triumph,' Stevenson said outside the home of William McCormick Blair at 1416 Astor St. 'I shall ask my God to give me courage in this great undertaking.'
Eisenhower won the 1952 election on Nov. 4, 1952, bringing the Republican Party its first White House victory in 24 years.
Vintage Chicago Tribune: Soldier Field's century of concerts, car races, circuses and contests1956: The Grand National 100-mile race, considered the first NASCAR cup series race held in Chicago, was witnessed by 14,402 fans who saw Fireball Roberts win by a car length over Jim Pascal, who was ahead until Roberts passed him on the 194th of 200 laps.
1980: Twelve-year-old Walter Polovchak, who said he did not want to go back home to Ukraine when his family returned to the then-Soviet Union, was granted political asylum in Chicago.
Polovchak was dubbed the 'the littlest defector' by the media during a yearslong court battle between his parents and the U.S. government that raised complex questions about personal freedoms, parental rights and government overreach.
2002: Pyewacket, owned by Walt Disney's grandnephew Roy P. Disney, set a record finish time of 23 hours, 30 minutes, 24 seconds in the Race to Mackinac. It bested the 1987 record of 25:50:44 by Dick Jennings' Santa Cruz 70, Pied Piper. Pyewacket, named after the cat in the film 'Bell, Book and Candle,' retained the record in the race until 2024.
Subscribe to the free Vintage Chicago Tribune newsletter, join our Chicagoland history Facebook group, stay current with Today in Chicago History and follow us on Instagram for more from Chicago's past.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
17 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Wildfire smoke choked Chicago's air last week. We need bipartisan action on climate change.
This past Thursday should have been a beautiful day, a day to throw open the windows and putter in the garden, long-awaited relief from an oppressive heat wave. But because of the unhealthy air blowing down from Canada, we had to stay indoors with the windows closed. I can't remember when I've felt so sad. We know these wildfires are a symptom of climate change, and yet we can't seem to take the problem seriously enough to solve it. I feel powerless as a left-of-center American with a Democratic Party in shambles, so I am begging my Republican friends and neighbors as sincerely as I know how: Would you please advocate with your leaders at the national level to take climate change seriously and help us solve this problem? We have the tools to solve it; we just need our leaders to know that we care about having clean air to breathe, not just I read about the lack of on-duty leadership in Texas' Hill Country on July 4, I am reminded of the debacle in Uvalde, Texas, a few years ago. I recall numerous law enforcement officers having guns drawn while surrounding the elementary school where a lone gunman was killing students and teachers. It appeared that no one was in charge that day, so there was a long delay in the school rescue. Just like in Uvalde, no one appeared to be in charge in the early hours when the National Weather Service issued a strong warning of impending flooding on July 4. Texans have a saying: 'Don't mess with Texas.' They're right. The state is making enough of mess on its published on Wednesday attacking the editorial on Texas tax cuts cite a lot of statistics as to why Illinois is a better place to live than Texas. They say more and higher taxes are a small price to pay for better schools, more doctors, better mental health support, abortion access, and on and on. But they fail to mention one small but significant statistic — the number of folks moving out of Illinois and the number moving to Texas. You would think that with the impact of climate change, especially all those triple-digit feels-like temperatures, the migration would be in the other good letters in response to the Texas tax cut editorial. Very good journalism. I really like how several perspectives were presented concerning an issue that not many people pay close enough attention to. I'm personally of the opinion that spending cuts are vital to reduce budget deficits, but I can appreciate pumping the brakes on trying to copy everything about is it that many taxpayer-funded government entities are blaming budget shortages on federal pandemic aid ending? This includes Chicago, Illinois, the CTA, Chicago Public Schools and even grant-funded organizations. Wasn't the objective of COVID-19 aid to help during an economic shutdown? Hasn't the shutdown been over for quite a while? May I suggest the Tribune conduct an investigation as to why these entities are having budget shortages in their 2025-26 fiscal years due to the expiration of pandemic aid? My hypothesis is that their operating budgets became bloated with funding that was supposed to be temporary. Consider all the hiring the past few years by these same entities. But I will leave that to the investigation that I hope the Tribune will launch to help the hardworking, taxpaying people of this state to understand.A July 24 editorial ('Chicago's Joffrey Ballet pirouettes to stability and growth') rightly celebrates the Joffrey Ballet's financial strength — a welcome story in a sector too often defined by scarcity. Chicago is home to another dance company rewriting the rules of dance through a very different, yet equally forward-looking, model — Hubbard Street Dance Chicago. Of the roughly 30 dance companies in the U.S. with budgets over $5 million, 25 are ballet companies. Just five are contemporary or modern — and all but one of those are based in New York. By that measure, Hubbard Street is the only major contemporary dance company in the country not based in New York. And we're the only dance company in Chicago that pays our dancers full-time, year-round salaries with benefits. While ballet companies often achieve stability through beloved titles such as 'The Nutcracker' or 'Alice in Wonderland,' Hubbard Street pursues a different path. Under the leadership of artistic director Linda-Denise Fisher-Harrell, our work reflects a bold and wide-ranging aesthetic, guided by purpose and rooted in emotional immediacy. It's a commitment to provoking thought, stirring feeling and exploring how dance can help us see the world — and ourselves — differently. Our approach doesn't rely on the tried and true but instead reflects an artistic vision unafraid to break conventions and share new perspectives — and it's paying off. Last season, single ticket sales grew by 39%, exceeding prepandemic levels. Subscriptions continue to rise. Individual giving increased by 20%. Our success has been shaped by partnerships — with Steppenwolf, the Harris Theater, the Museum of Contemporary Art and now Water Tower Place, where we're helping reimagine the Magnificent Mile. We're doing it all on a budget a fraction the size of our peers'. There's a lot of talk about how the performing arts model is broken. The Joffrey shows that's not always the case. So does Hubbard Street. We're forging a model distinct from ballet — not better, not lesser, but different — and one that's resonating with today's audiences and built for where dance is headed.I was glad to see Edward Keegan's column about Milwaukee's mass timber high-rise on July 27 ('Milwaukee is building contemporary timber towers. What about Chicago?'), especially the question at the end: 'Why hasn't Chicago embraced this more sustainable way to build tall buildings yet?' Indeed, why not a greater embrace, and for buildings? Part of the reason is that most architects and critics don't think and talk about the integral relationship between appearance and sustainability, as if it's an optional add-on for whatever look the architect had in mind. For instance, while Keegan devotes column space to discussion of inset balconies and podium to tower expression, he doesn't mention that Neutral's building is pursuing Phius and Living Building Challenge Core certifications, truly remarkable achievements. Yes, the embodied carbon of wood versus steel and/or concrete is mentioned, but the operational energy of a Phius-certified building is equally newsworthy. I'm sure many of us, architects and nonarchitects alike, would have appreciated a better understanding of how the building achieves such performance. Similar to our energy benchmarking in Chicago, our discourse on architecture should deepen understanding of our buildings' climate and environmental impacts — mere fashion is no longer sufficient.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
'Rage Against the Regime' protests planned against Trump
Tens of thousands of people are expected to gather nationwide on Saturday, Aug. 2 to ‒ as organizers have dubbed it ‒ 'Rage Against the Regime' of President Donald Trump. Organizers say the demonstrations, the latest in a series of peaceful summertime protests in hundreds of locations across the country, are meant to mobilize masses of people against the administration's actions. They are particularly concerned about aggressive immigration enforcement, dismantling of government programs and agencies from Medicaid to the National Weather Service, and attacks on democratic institutions, according to a news release. They also want to draw attention to the Trump administration's refusal to release more information about deceased child sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. The name of this day of protest is both a play on the name of the American rock band Rage Against the Machine, and an expression of public frustration. 'People don't know what to do with their rage,' Hunter Dunn, a national spokesperson for the 50501 protest group, which is organizing the rally, told USA TODAY. 'Let's give them something productive.' In June, people demonstrated in 2,100 locations as part of the 'No Kings' protests, scheduled to coincide with both President Donald Trump's 79th birthday and the military parade honoring the Army's 250th anniversary. They argued that the president was taking too much power for himself, directly contradicting the nation's original purpose, declaring independence from the King of England. On July 17, protesters took to the streets in 1,600 cities and towns for 'Good Trouble' demonstrations honoring the late Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a Democrat and former civil rights activist, who argued that people should get into "good trouble" by peacefully protesting social ills. Saturday is also Vice President JD Vance's 41st birthday, though Dunn said most organizers hadn't considered Vance in setting the date on the first Saturday of August. The White House referred questions about the protests to Vance's office. A spokesperson for Vance didn't immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment. The band Rage Against the Machine, which played from 1991 until disbanding in 2024, was known for its leftist politics, including anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian messages. USA TODAY reached out to the band for comment but did not get an immediate reply. In Kansas, 50501 event coordinator Scott McFarland said he had never heard of the band. He sees the protest he's organizing for outside the state Capitol in Topeka, as both an outlet for people to express their anger and to show them they aren't alone in what he called an autocratic society seeking to divide Americans. A Massachusetts protest is billed as a 'festival of nonviolent resistance." At Cambridge Common, near Harvard University, the festival includes music, ice cream and art, and also calls for action, including mutual aid to help immigrant rights and learning about boycotting, a a news release said. 'It starts at a very local and personal level, and then becomes a collective thing,' Samantha McGarry, a local volunteer, said. 'Over time, the hope is that it kind of weakens the pillars that are upholding an authoritarian regime using nonviolent measures.' Dunn, of 50501, said there are upwards of 400 "Rage Against the Regime" demonstrations planned ‒ far fewer than the 1,500 "Good Trouble" protests. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'Rage Against the Regime' protests planned against Trump admin
Vox
4 days ago
- Vox
5 reasons Democrats are in good shape — and 2 reasons they're in deep trouble
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. A delegate wears a donkey hat during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the United Center in Chicago, Illinois, on Aug. 22, 2024. Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images The Democratic Party's approval rating is at its lowest point in at least 35 years, according to a Wall Street Journal poll released last week. In that survey, 63 percent of voters expressed an unfavorable view of the Democrats, while just 33 percent voiced a positive one. By contrast, voters disapproved of Congressional Republicans by only 11 points. These dismal figures are broadly consistent with other recent polling: In RealClearPolitics's average of recent surveys, voters disapprove of the Democratic Party by a 59.3 to 36.3 margin. What's more, Democrats don't just have a lower favorability rating than Republicans, but also command less trust on the public's top issues. In the Journal's poll, voters disapproved of Trump's management of the economy, tariffs, inflation, foreign policy, and immigrant deportations. And yet, they said that they trusted Republicans to handle all of those matters better than Democrats would. Of the 10 issues raised in the survey, voters favored Democrats on only two — health care and vaccine policy. These grim data points have spurred some handwringing in blue America. But just how dire is the Democrats' predicament? Is the party temporarily tainted with the stink of last year's defeat — and poised to rally back into power, just as it did after losing in 2004 and 2016? Or is the better precedent for the party's current position 1981, when the party began a 12-year struggle to escape the shadow of a failed presidency? Only prophets can answer such questions with certainty. In my own view, though, two things are true: • The Democrats' putrid approval numbers paint a misleadingly bleak picture of its current standing. • The party is in much worse shape than it was eight years ago, and will likely struggle to secure full control of the federal government any time soon. Below, I'll detail five reasons for believing that first point, and two for accepting the second one. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. Why Democrats might not be in disarray 1. Disaffected, but loyal, Democrats are driving down their party's approval rating In the Journal's poll, the GOP's net-favorability rating is 19 points higher than the Democratic Party's. And yet, in that same survey, voters say that they would prefer a Democratic Congress to a Republican one by a 3-point margin. This seems odd. Voters disapprove of Democrats by a much larger margin than they disapprove of Republicans. Yet a plurality nonetheless say they would vote for the former party over the latter one. As polling analysts G. Elliott Morris and Mary Radcliffe observe, there is only one explanation for this: Unhappy — but loyal — Democratic voters are driving down their party's favorability rating. This interpretation is consistent with polling from YouGov and The Economist, which finds that only 74 percent of Democratic voters approve of congressional Democrats, while 22.6 percent disapprove. By contrast, 88.9 percent of Republican voters approve of their party's congressional causes, while just 8.3 percent disapprove. Partisans often disapprove of their own parties when they suffer defeat. Republicans had abysmal approval numbers in 2009, yet stomped to a historic midterm victory the following year. And that turnaround was not an aberration: According to Morris and Radcliffe, historically, there is no correlation between how well a party performs in favorability polls taken this far from Election Day and how well they ultimately do at the ballot box. It's unlikely that the Democrats' plummeting popularity is entirely attributable to the disaffection of its own base. The GOP's trust advantage on various issues suggests a broader problem. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party is (almost certainly) in better shape than its approval rating would suggest. 2. Trump is more unpopular than Biden was at this point in his presidency The president's approval rating is among the best predictors of an opposition party's midterm success. And Donald Trump has rapidly squandered the American public's goodwill. When Trump came into office, voters approved of him by an 11.6 margin, according to Nate Silver's polling average. Now, they disapprove of the president by 8.8 points. For context, at this point in Joe Biden's presidency, the public still approved of the Democrat by more than 7 points. And although Trump's approval is unlikely to collapse to the extraordinary degree that Biden's did, there's reason for thinking it will follow the same trajectory. Namely: 3. Americans will likely feel the full impact of Trump's tariffs next year Thus far, the economic impacts of Trump's tariffs have been fairly modest. Those duties have pushed up consumer prices and likely slowed economic growth. But they haven't triggered inflation akin to that which America witnessed in 2022, let alone a stagflationary crisis. This is partly because Trump walked back his most radical tariff proposals. Yet the president's trade restrictions remain extraordinarily expansive, outstripping what many deemed the worst-case scenario during campaign season. According to Yale's Budget Lab, America's average effective tariff rate sits at 20.2 percent, its highest level since 1911. And Trump's current tariffs are poised to cost US households an average of $2,700 in annual income. Americans are not yet paying the full price of Trump's trade policy. The US government has yet to begin collecting tariffs on many foreign countries. And American retailers loaded up on foreign goods earlier this year to get ahead of the president's trade duties. But as America ramps up its tariff collection regime — and companies draw down their inventories — consumer prices will rise. Preston Caldwell, chief US economist for Morningstar, recently told Vox that he expects inflation to peak in 2026, when voters will be heading to the polls. 4. Democrats dominated the most recent high-profile, swing-state election Since Trump's conquest of the GOP in 2016, Democrats have gained ground with highly politically engaged voters, and lost support among less-engaged ones. This trade didn't work out very well in the high-turnout environment of 2024. But the fact that Democratic voters are now disproportionately 'reliable' — which is to say, disproportionately likely to cast a ballot in every election — may help them in the 2026 midterms, when overall turnout is sure to be lower. And the results of this year's Supreme Court election in Wisconsin lend credence to this view. That contest was the one 2025 race that 1) pit a Democrat against a Republican, 2) took place in a swing state, and 3) galvanized national attention. And the Democrat won 10 points, outperforming her standing in the polls. 5. Democrats' best issue is gaining salience, while their worst issue is losing it Finally, the American electorate's top concerns have been shifting, in ways that are potentially beneficial for Democrats. For years, Republicans have enjoyed an advantage over Democrats on immigration. And the Journal's poll shows that voters still trust the GOP to better manage illegal immigration by a margin of 17 points. But Americans are also much less worried about that issue than they were a year ago. In Gallup's polling, the share of voters who say they worry 'a great deal' about illegal immigration has fallen from 48 percent in 2024 to 40 percent this April. A more recent Gallup survey showed that the percentage of Americans who want immigration reduced has fallen from 55 percent last year to 30 percent today. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who worry 'a great deal' about health care — perennially, one of the Democratic Party's strongest issues — rose from 51 percent to 59 percent in April. And that was before the GOP enacted sweeping cuts to Medicaid funding. Two causes for concern 1. Democrats are in much worse shape than they were in 2017. All this said, there's still reason to fear for the Democrats' future. For one thing, the party is much weaker than it was at this point in Trump's first term. Eight years ago, voters said they favored a Democratic Congress over a Republican one by roughly 8 points (compared to just 3 points today). Since 2018, the share of Americans who identify with the Democratic Party has also fallen sharply. Seven years ago, 50 percent of Americans said they supported (or leaned toward) the Democrats, while 42 percent said the same of Republicans, in Pew Research's polling. Today, 46 percent support the GOP while 45 percent back the Democrats. Opposition parties almost always gain House seats in midterm elections. And since the Republican House majority is small, Democrats are heavily favored to retake the chamber next year. But current polling suggests that the party's gains will be meager. And in 2028, for the first time in more than a decade, the Republican Party will not be led by Donald Trump. If the GOP retains its advantage on the economy — while shedding its exceptionally undisciplined and scandal-plagued standard-bearer — the party could become even more formidable. This is a very speculative concern, to be sure. But it's worth entertaining the possibility that Democrats' current position is more analogous to its predicament in 1981 — when Jimmy Carter's defeat was followed by 12 years of Republican presidential rule — than in 2017. The previous two times that Democrats lost control of the White House — in 2000 and 2016 — the party's outgoing president had been reasonably well-liked. Bill Clinton had earned a reputation for skillful economic management, thanks to the late 1990s economic expansion. Barack Obama was a singularly magnetic figure, and the US enjoyed relatively low unemployment and inflation in 2016. Both Clinton and Obama's successors won the popular vote in their respective elections, despite the fact that they each were conspicuously uncharismatic. Their losses could therefore be fairly easily dismissed as the consequence of easily reversible tactical errors. By contrast, presiding over post-COVID inflation rendered Biden historically unpopular while devastating the Democrats' credibility on economic management. Related The Democratic Party is ripe for a takeover 2. The party has long odds of winning the Senate anytime soon The Democrats' biggest political problem, however, lies in the Senate. The party's prospects for securing control of Congress's upper chamber — either next year, or in 2028 — look poor. Democrats need to gain four seats to win a Senate majority in 2026. Yet next year's map features no easy targets. The party's best pickup opportunity lies in Maine, a state that Kamala Harris won comfortably in 2024. But that state's incumbent Republican senator, Susan Collins, won reelection by 8.6 points in 2020, even as the national political environment leaned towards Democrats. Her defeat next year is far from assured. After defeating Collins, Democrats' next-best hope for growing their Senate caucus is winning the open seat in North Carolina, a state that backed Donald Trump all three times he was on the ballot, most recently by 3 points. If the party manages to beat Collins and win over the Tarheel State, they would still need to win races in Ohio and Iowa — or else, in places that are even more Republican — to eke out a bare majority in the Senate. Even winning control of the Senate by 2029 would require extraordinary electoral feats. The most plausible path here would involve Democrats beating Collins, winning a race in North Carolina, flipping a Wisconsin Senate seat in 2028, and taking back the presidency that same year (since the vice president breaks all ties in the Senate, Democrats would only need to flip three seats to boast a working majority in 2029, provided that they control the White House). And yet, this path only works if Democratic Senate incumbents also win reelection in every swing state race between now and 2029: Specifically, Democrats would need to win two races in Georgia, one in Pennsylvania, one in Michigan, and one in Arizona. This is conceivable. But it is not especially likely. The fundamental problem facing Democrats is that only 19 states voted for their party in each of the last three federal elections, while 25 US states backed Trump all three times. Put differently, the median US state is more right-wing than America as a whole. In practice, this means that — to win a Senate majority — Democrats don't merely need to beat Republicans nationally, but to do so by a hefty margin. For context, in 2018, Democrats won the House popular vote by 8.6 points and still lost Senate seats. In the US, midterms usually witness backlashes against the president's party. But Democrats need more than an ordinary midterm backlash to put themselves on pace to win the Senate by 2029. And without a Senate majority, Democrats that year would be unable to pass partisan legislation or appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, even if they did manage to win the presidency. Democrats might not need to become drastically more popular to win back the House. But to actually run the federal government, they likely need to make their party more broadly appealing than it was eight years ago. This makes their historically low approval rating more than a little alarming.
