CARL SODERSTROM, SR. BEGINS POLITICAL LIFE

The Son Rises

January 3, 1951 was a celebratory date for Reuben G. Soderstrom. For 16 years he had served as LaSalle County’s representative in the Illinois General Assembly, fighting the battle for workers’ rights. Over the years he’d fought the good fight, passing a slew of labor bills that transformed the world of work. From ending injunction abuse to instituting workplace protections; from creating funds for the old, sick, and unemployed to affirming the entitlement of all workers to such benefits; from establishing the principle of weekly rest to persevering against any and all attempts to compel laborers to serve against their will. Through it all Reub had built a legacy that reverberated throughout the halls of Springfield and touched workers around the state.

Now, that legacy took new form in the inauguration of his son, Carl W. Soderstrom, as a House Representative for Reuben’s own 39th District. Reub took deep satisfaction in his son’s accomplishment; as he proudly proclaimed at the Illinois State Federation Conference later that year:

Friends, there is nothing in our lives that gives us more satisfaction than to see our children take our places as they grow. This happens to be a proud moment… My son now occupies a seat in the Illinois House of Representatives. He and I have a father and son combination in the capitol building, and he supported all of the legislation that the Illinois State Federation of Labor wanted in the last session. He just about ran his legs off for his dad during that session.[1]

The moment was as daunting for Carl as it was exciting for Reub. Joining his father on the convention platform, the younger Soderstrom told the delegates:

While I was sitting over there as a member of the House… I was trying to think how in the world am I going to fill these big shoes, you know, that my dad had… so I did my level best… I just want to assure you that as long as I am a member of the legislature, labor is going to have a loyal and staunch friend there.[2]

Carl didn’t waste any time proving that friendship. He soon began making headlines by introducing a host of new bills to help those who worked for a living. On February 6th he introduced legislation to increase the ceiling on old age pensions from $65 to $78 per month.[3] He also brought forth two bills for new building projects: a new bridge over the Illinois River at Peru and a new viaduct and bottom road for the Shipping Port Bridge at LaSalle.[4] Two weeks after that he introduced a bill to place all state employees on a 40-hour work week, with overtime and time-off provisions.[5] That proved only the beginning; over the course of the legislative session, Carl sponsored or co-sponsored bills amending the Workmen’s Compensation and Occupational Disease Acts, the Prevailing Wage Act, and more.[6] By late March, there were 38 bills pending in the Illinois legislature backed by the ISFL affecting roughly 70% of Illinois residents.[7]

The Lion of Labor

While Carl played an important role in introducing legislation, there was no doubt that Reuben remained the “Lion of Labor” in the legislative world. He began the year with a succinct open letter to Governor Adlai Stevenson, detailing exactly what he expected to see from him:

With the 1951 session of the Illinois General Assembly upon us, you are undoubtedly beginning to think about the message which you, as Governor, are called upon to deliver on the opening day. There will, of course, be a labor section in this historical 1951 Governor’s Address, and the men and women of the Illinois State federation of Labor will deeply appreciate it if you will kindly mention specifically, and urge the enactment of, the following legislative proposals…[8]

Reuben then began to detail each and every legislative act on which he—and his 800,000 members—expected the Governor’s support. Over the next several months, Reuben personally appeared before legislative committees to argue for the passage of pro-labor bills. When multiple committees were in session, Reub would send in his stead his two most trusted allies, ISFL Attorney Dan Carmell and Secretary-Treasurer Stanley Johnson. Reub also worked the press, making sure labor bills were covered in the news. The tactic worked; papers throughout the state chronicled the legislative struggle and kept pressure on legislators.

Most importantly, Reuben ensured that all in the sometimes fractious Illinois labor movement spoke with one voice. He worked closely and well with Frank Annunzio, the governor’s Secretary of Labor, despite the fact that Annunzio was a CIO man and his Assistant, Fern Rauch, was a political opponent within the ISFL. In 1951, Reub set aside these personal and political differences, striking a more conciliatory tone with the CIO and calling explicitly for unity. “We must work together as a team to meet the common problems. Cooperation, not antagonism, is the key to achievement,” he told the union faithful that year in his Labor Day Message.[9] All this made Reub the central, if largely self-effacing, figure in Illinois Labor politics. In a state known for bombastic labor leaders of regional and national stature, Reuben was “in the forefront of the legislative fight.”[10] Through it all, Soderstrom constructed an agenda that was not only protective but positive. In the words of Illinois House Speaker Warren L. Wood:

One of the reasons why organized labor has the regard that it has in the legislative halls, I think, is because… the program of labor is a positive program. You are for things. I have enjoyed, and I mean that word sincerely, a very pleasant relationship with organized labor… With your president it has been on a personal basis, because he was my colleague in my very first term, and that personal relationship… continues right down to the present, because at this time his son is again a representative from the Ottawa district.[11]

Through this collaborative, affirmative, and personal approach, Reuben and labor won an impressive string of early victories. On April 25, the House passed his bill creating a 40-hour week for state employees by a vote of 102-17. Soderstrom’s success came despite strong opposition from Democratic House spokesman Paul Powell, who considered the price of fair wages and hours for state workers too costly.[12] Wins on old-age pension increases soon followed.[13] As summer approached, it appeared as though labor might perform a clean sweep of its sponsored legislation.

Then the hits came. The State Employee Wages and Hours Bill, which Carl had passed through the House by an overwhelming majority, was killed by the Senate Committee on Efficiency and Economy, denying the legislation a vote in the Senate.[14] Bills proposing sick benefits for wage-earners also failed, as did legislation allowing unions to enter a contractual relationship with public bodies.[15] The biggest shock, however, came on June 9 when lawyers for the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association backed out of concessions they’d made just the week before on Workmen’s Compensation, declaring they would now only support increases to the minimum and maximum benefits, doing nothing for large amounts of workers who came in between.[16]

The move was dangerous. For years, labor’s largest gains were made through the “agreed process,” a mechanism invented by Reuben where representatives of the ISFL met with representatives of the IMA to hammer out agreed legislation before it was introduced to the General Assembly. The agreed bills process had allowed the two organizations to work together and find just levels of care for agreed protections like workman’s compensation and unemployment insurance, even as they fought each other bitterly on other issues. If the IMA carried through on their threat to end the process and take the fight directly to the legislature, it would turn every labor-management negotiation into a political affair, effectively ending incremental benefit increases.

Reuben would have none of it. He brought in the heat, directing Attorney Dan Carmell’s office to summon lawyers for the United Mine Workers, Progressive Mine Workers, and the CIO to Springfield along with the IMA’s Harlan Hackbert. As soon as they arrived, the lawyers “placed them in the hands of R.G. Soderstrom,” who wasted no time silencing any hint of backtracking from the June 1 agreement. They had a deal, Reuben said, and they were going to seal it then and there. When manufacturers’ representative Harlan demurred that the current agreement could allow some workers to receive benefits higher than their average weekly raise, the labor lawyers responded by adding language that expressly forbid such a scenario. Reub then immediately called in State Representative Robert Allison, who was given confirmation by all (including the chastened IMA representative) that the agreed legislation called for a 13.3% increase across the board, not just at the margins. Allison in turn advanced the bills to the second reading.[17] When the legislation passed shortly thereafter, Reuben praised it in the press as the “outstanding labor achievement” of the 1951 General Assembly.[18] He had willed it across the finish line.

The success made front page news. By the close of the legislative session Reub had reaffirmed his status as the preeminent voice in Illinois Labor. All but eight of the labor-backed bills put forward that session became law.[19] It was a lengthy list, covering everything from care for the aged and injured to health care and workplace safety. It also included a litany of profession-specific legislation. Whether it was a bill correcting firemen’s arbitration, increasing teacher retirement benefits, or improving standards in the barber trade, the ISFL worked with individual unions to pass legislation that would have a meaningful, positive impact on their industry.

The attention did not go unnoticed. Several unions that year wrote to Soderstrom, thanking him for the role he played. James McGuire, President of the Chicago Fireman’s Association, told Reub “The Firemen of the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois will be forever grateful to you, and your Secretary, Stanley Johnson, for the support and advice that was given to us so freely during this past session.”[20] George Bynum of the Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists likewise wrote “I want to personally thank you on behalf of this local union, and all of the barbers in the state of Illinois…It is most gratifying to us now that our lot has been greatly improved, in spite of all opposition offered during the past session of the 67th General Assembly.”[21] It was this specific, targeted, and responsive lobbying on behalf of individual unions and professions that made Soderstrom and his philosophy of change through legislation so popular with Illinois workers.

Reuben Opposes Racial Discrimination

While many of the bills Reuben supported dealt with specific unions or targeted issues, others had to do with basic fairness and equality in the workplace. Most important of these were House Bills 50 and 67, which dealt with gender pay equality and fair employment for workers of color, respectively. Reuben had long been a supporter of equal pay legislation; he had helped pass an earlier, weaker version of the law and had argued for stronger legislation (which would actually provide recourse for those discriminated against) in the last General Assembly. Unfortunately, Republican resistance to the bill remained incredibly high, and conservative legislators did all they could to bottle up the bill. In April, Republicans on the House Committee on Industrial Affairs voted in overwhelming numbers to recommend against the legislation (Carl Soderstrom was one of only five Republicans to vote in favor of the bill).[22] When the bill came to the full house in June, Republicans killed the bill by abstention; while the majority of those voting cast lots in favor of the bill by a margin of 64 to 39, supporters couldn’t reach the constitutionally mandated number of “yes” votes.[23]

The struggle to end discrimination proved even more problematic. Publicly, organized business was against discrimination in employment. That year the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce produced a slide film entitled “It’s Good Business” that sought to convince its membership that adopting non-discriminatory hiring practices was not only morally just but also smart business. Reuben was actually featured in the film, making the case for management to end discrimination on the conditions of race, color, or creed. When the film was screened that April in the Grand Ballroom of the Leland Hotel, Soderstrom was sent a cordial invitation from Chamber Executive Vice President Ormond F. Lyman.[24]

Still, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and other manufacturing organizations vehemently opposed the bill proposed by the Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC). Unsurprisingly, the most reactionary testimony against the bill in the General Assembly came from the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association. As the Illinois Fair Employment Committee detailed in their FEPC News:

The low-point (in any sense) of the opponents’ testimony was plumbed by R. David Clark, General Counsel of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, when he irresponsibly attempted to distort and misrepresent the conciliation and persuasion features of the bill, provided for the protection of the employer, into a Nazi inquisitorial process, in utter and complete disregard of the actual provisions of the bill.[25]

Sadly, irresponsible language from the IMA comparing the FEPC to Nazis was only the tip of the iceberg. A deep, vitriolic well of racial hatred lay behind opposition to equality. Reuben received a bitter taste of such venom in letters from individuals and groups such as Joh Fleck, Chairman of “Americans for Republican Action,” who wrote a host of public officials in a near rage:

Re. the ballyhoo for FEPC. In the days of the Old Testament it was a miracle if an ass spoke. How times have changed…There is a N****r in the woodpile somewhere…Abraham Lincoln had the power but he did not have the right to free the slaves. And, if he did, what article, section, or clause in our Federal Constitution gave him the right? Moreover, the Negro has never been constitutionally made a citizen, and he has no right to vote, be a juror or be on any public payroll whatsoever…A carbon copy is being mailed (to) the President, Chief Justice, Council of State Governments, Governors, Senators, et al. I need not tell them that the jawbone of an ass (blatherskite, demagogue, dupe, fool or idiot) is just as dangerous as a weapon today as in the days of Samson.[26]

Despite such hate-filled antagonism, Reuben and others continued to speak out, aggressively arguing for the adoption of the FEPC bill. On April 5, Soderstrom was one of the key speakers before the Senate Committee of Industrial Affairs, arguing forcefully for FEPC passage. Testifying after Edith Sampson, US Delegate to the United Nations, Reub reiterated some of the points he had made previously in support of racial equality, appealing to the legislators:

Minorities want to belong. They want the same rights we possess—the right to work and be useful, the right to economic security, the right to freedom from want for their families, and—most important of all—the right to participate on equal terms in our common life...There is some discrimination in the labor movement but I am happy to report there is less of it there than in any other section of society. Honest labor is working hard to eliminate it and if the American Federation of Labor in Illinois had its way, there wouldn’t be any of it. S.B. No. 67 prohibits discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry, and the eight hundred thousand members of the Illinois State Federation of Labor will deeply appreciate it if you…vote to report out, favorably, this justifiable proposal.[27]

Heartbreakingly, Soderstrom and his allies fell one vote shy of the 26 votes necessary to pass the bill in the Senate.[28] Reub sent letters to all Senators in a last ditch effort to find one last vote, but in the end his efforts were to no avail. Still, Reuben’s actions and words did not go unnoticed. The Jewish Labor Committee, which fought for the FEPC bill as protection against anti-Semitic discrimination, was particularly impressed. As Lillian Herstein of the JLC wrote to the labor leader in the days following his testimony, telling him:

I am literally bursting with pride about the very fine letter which you sent to the members of the Industrial Affairs Committee of the Illinois Senate concerning the Fair Employment Practice Commission bill and about your splendid performance at the hearing of the committee. I am not at all surprised because I know how genuine is your desire for fair employment practices. I know how forthright and eloquent you can be in any good cause…I am wondering whether there would be any objection to giving your letter wide circulation. Could I send copies of it to some of the labor papers who are very much interested in the bill and the position of the Illinois State Federation of Labor?[29]

Reuben was of course happy to see his letter circulate, telling her she was “free to make whatever use of the letter as you desire.”[30] He may have lost the fight for fairness that year, but Soderstrom at least furthered his reputation as an advocate for equality and deepened his alliances with like-minded institutions. His forceful defense of fair employment legislation helped define the fight against discrimination in Illinois, and solidified Reub’s reputation as a leading advocate for equality years before the Montgomery bus boycott sparked the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.

City Manager Struggle

Of all Reuben’s fights in the 67th General Assembly, none appeared more quixotic or proved more unpopular than his fight against the rise of the City Manager form of Government. Ever since the reform of civil service and increasingly since the 1930s, many good government advocates had supported a form of city management that transferred the administrative functions of government from the democratically elected mayor to a manager typically appointed by the city’s legislators or councilors. In 1951, City Manager supporters in the House introduced HB 213, a bill that would enable cities in Illinois to hold referendums on adoption of this form of government.

Reuben hated the idea. To him the idea of replacing an elected official with an appointed, less accountable manager was thoroughly anti-democratic. As he wrote in an essay that year:

It would be much better to devote some time to municipal affairs and make our democracy work on that level rather than to talk about and promote military, managerial, and other obnoxious set-ups... The Illinois State Federation of Labor has always felt that our form of government was worth preserving, worth defending, and worth retaining on the municipal level as well as on the state and national levels. The word “manager” is an industrial term. The city manager proposal is designed to establish industrial controls over municipal affairs…The managerial form would substitute industrial management for our democratic processes in city government.[31]

In private correspondence Reuben took an even harsher tone against attempts to allow City Managers. In a letter to Dan Kulie, President of the Village of Brookfield, Soderstrom stated:

“Manager” is an industrial term and while managers are necessary in private autocratic factory and production establishments they have no place in democratic public bodies whose business is to service all the people. H.B. No. 213 is an undemocratic and un-American proposal. Not to oppose it is a form of compromise with something evil…I would not want to provide the people with an opportunity to attain a fascist or soviet form of city government. Substitute the word “Soviet” for the word “city” in this city manager proposal and I think that you will understand why a referendum on things that are wrong should have no place in city government proposals…What we need in our country is more democracy in industry and not more industrial autocracy in city government.[32]

Soderstrom’s position, however, was a lonely one, at least if newspaper accounts are to be believed. Newspaper editorial boards across the state had become enamored of the City Manager and its promise of an efficient, patronage-free government. Soon the measure became a cause celebre, attracting countless articles in support. Of all the newspaper editorial boards in the state, however, none was more public in its support of the City Manager bill—or in its denunciation of Reuben—than The Daily Journal-Gazette. As it boasted in its own pages that summer:

Editorials published in this newspaper were reprinted in most of the 85 daily newspapers in the state and in the 600 weekly and semi-weekly papers. The 38 presentations we made were publicized in most cases before we appeared and in all instances on the days the speeches were made. The audiences, mostly civic clubs, numbered from 35 to 225 and in no instance was a disconcerting voice raised against our arguments for this permissive legislation. If we stepped on any political toes their owners suffered in silence.[33]

All, of course, but Reuben. Faced with his strong opposition, the paper did its best to isolate Soderstrom, casting him as their villain, as the sole impediment to passage of the bill that they admitted to spending “tremendous effort and expense” to support, writing:

The one, lone objector so far to raise his voice is President Reuben G. Soderstrom of the Illinois Federation of Labor…How un-democratic can one become? Soderstrom forgets, while he is making his speech, that he would deny the citizens of Illinois the right to hold elections for the type of government they might desire.[34]

It wasn’t long before other writers and editors joined in on the attack. An April column by Edwards Lindsay in the Southern Illinoisan was one example:

Reuben G. Soderstrom, president of the Illinois State Federation of Labor, has written a letter to members of the Illinois House opposing the ‘city-manger’ bill. This is not surprising, but it is too bad. It is not surprising because Mr. Soderstrom has been against every reform in government that has come up in the state the first half dozen times the proposals have been considered. He instinctively fears change. It is too bad because he has a good deal of influence.[35]

The State Register, so often a supporter of Reub, likewise opposed him on H.B. 213, albeit in a more respectful tone. As they stated in an article entitled “We Like Mr. Soderstrom. But –”:

The State Register, which so frequently agrees with him, believes that he is not following his usual course of sound judgment when urging the Illinois General Assembly to defeat the so-called “City Manager bill” now pending in the Legislature…To oppose the right of the people to express their convictions through referendum is, in our opinion, to strike at the very roots of our democratic form of government, of which we have long recognized Mr. Soderstrom as an able champion.[36]

Ultimately, the City Manager proposal won by overwhelming margins, passing by a count of 90 to 19 in the House and by unanimous vote in the Senate.[37]

So how and why did Soderstrom fight and lose so badly? It could be that the straightforward explanation—that he opposed HB 213 because he viewed it to be industrial and undemocratic while a majority of editors and legislators viewed it as the best way to defeat inefficiency and patronage— is the correct one. However, other factors may have well been at play. It is impossible to talk about city management in Illinois without talking about Chicago, and Chicago politics in 1951 were at a crisis point. Mayor Martin H. Kennelly, who originally ran as a business-friendly reformer in 1947, had managed to make enemies out of nearly everyone. Progressives opposed his discriminatory and segregationist housing policies. In the words of historian and author Thomas Dyja, “Kennelly fiddled as many of Chicago’s neighborhoods burned.”[38] At the same time, the Mayor had upset the city’s powerful “Gray Wolves,” the often corrupt city Aldermen who thrived on patronage, with half-hearted anti-racketeering efforts that left them wounded but still powerful. Even Jacob Arvey, the anticorruption-minded leader of the Chicago Democratic organization, called Kennelly “the most inept man I ever met.”[39]

This, then, was the context for the fight over what power a mayor should possess. Certainly, the corrupt Gray Wolves of Chicago would love nothing more than to have a manager, chosen at their discretion, take control over city administration. A city manager in Chicago would deliver the city straight into their eager hands. Reuben would not have been blind to this, even if he couldn’t make such an argument publicly—to do so would start a fight that would be counterproductive for organized labor. State legislators knew this, too, which is why the city of Chicago was specifically excluded from the 1951 City Manager Act. Still, everyone considered the bill a necessary first step to placing Chicago under the Aldermen’s control. As Reuben wrote in his opposition essay, “It is rumored that an attempt will be made to bring Chicago under the City Manager Act by amending the law in the 1953 session of the Illinois General Assembly.”[40] Of course, regional papers cared little for the fate of Chicago; as The Daily Journal-Gazette derisively commented, it didn’t matter that Chicago wasn’t included in the City Manager Act because it “probably should be a state of its own.”[41]

If the fight over the City Manager bill was really a proxy fight over control of Chicago, then Reuben’s opposition had more sense and urgency. Council control of Peoria may be benign, but such rule in Chicago would extinguish any hope of reform in the Second City; the City Manager Act of 1951, then, was not the end of the fight—it was only the beginning.

DEVASTATING LOSS

Reuben’s Wife Jeanne Dies

On Tuesday, May 22, 1951, Jeanie Shaw Soderstrom, Reuben’s loving and faithful companion, died suddenly of a heart attack in their hometown of Streator.[42] Papers across the state, including the sometimes antagonistic The Daily Journal-Gazette, noted her passing with sadness. The June 2 edition of the ISFL Weekly News Letter shared in Reuben’s profound sadness, writing:

Labor in Illinois was joined by men of all political faiths, business, civic and industrial leaders in extending condolence to President Reuben G. Soderstrom in the loss of his beloved wife. Her sudden death was a distinct shock.

While staying in the background of her eminent husband, her faith, loyalty and understanding of a labor official’s absence from home the major portion of time, endeared her to her family and friends. Her companionship and encouragement to her husband when they were together was the basis for the closely knit relationship of the Soderstrom family.

We mourn the passing of the beloved helpmate of our President. We know the memory of her love and compassion will sustain the members of her family in the days ahead to continue their daily tasks – confident that in so doing, they will be doing what she would wish, and in which she had so ably assisted in the past.[43]

All across the state, letters offering sympathy and support came pouring in. One of the most touching came from John Walker, Reuben’s predecessor and mentor:

Dear Rube,

I just wish to convey to you my heartfelt sympathy on the death of your wife. No one can understand what that means, except those who have gone through that experience themselves. I went through it, about 11 years ago, and I feel her absence now just as much as I did when she passed. In fact, I honestly believe that it is more painful now than it was, at that time. When someone whom one loves, and loves you, passes on, and who is also one who cared for you, more than anyone can describe, in all of the intricate details of daily life, there is nothing that one can do to appease it. All one can do is to feel and hope that we will meet again, in a better world. If there is anything that I can do to help, let me know somehow, and you may be sure that if possible at all it will be done.[44]

Among those who sent notes of mourning to Reuben on the loss of his wife was Miss Halo Hibbard, longtime secretary and close confidant to the late, great Victor Olander. After the death of the powerful ISFL Secretary, Miss Hibbard had stayed on for a time, assisting Victor’s successors Earl McMahon and Stanley Johnson as they attempted to fill his shoes. By the close of 1950, however, Miss Hibbard had found her fill and on December 31, 1950, she left the Illinois State Federation of Labor after 32 years of faithful service for what Reuben described as “a retirement of southern sunshine and comfort which she so richly deserves.”[45] Upon hearing of Jeanne’s passing, Halo wrote to Reub as only a longtime friend and confidant could:

While there is little anyone can say at a time like this that helps very much, I do want you to know you have my heartfelt sympathy. Nothing can take from you the memory of a long and happy life together, of a lovable wife who was a splendid mother to your children, who brought up two as lovely young people as I have ever met. I wish there was something I could write that would ease your heartache just now, but I know how futile it is to try. But I do want you to know you have my deepest sympathy.[46]

Reuben did his best to carry on, to continue his daily routines and habits. He threw himself into his work, doubling down on the business of the legislative session. Still, friends like Luther German of the United Mine Workers could still see his pain. As he wrote to Reub at the session’s end:

Dear Rube,

The excitement, turmoil and worry of the Legislature is over and I know that more than ever your thoughts return to your beloved wife and the great sorrow the shock of her departure has brought unto you. Myriads have suffered likewise through the loss of loved ones and it is only by our loss that we can understand and sympathize to some degree in your bereavement.

Rube, I just want you to know that when I saw you in the closing days of the session “carrying on” with the same smile, courtesy and determination you always display, my heart went out to you and if you ever need my help or friendship in any manner or form it is yours.[47]

With his work at an end, Reuben finally allowed himself to grieve. He and his daughter left for some time away as soon as the session ended. He spent the next several weeks in mourning, allowing him to finally feel the loss of his helpmate, the mother of his children, his closest friend. Still, it was in Reub’s stoic nature to turn his loss into something useful. It is unsurprising, then, that shortly after his wife’s death Soderstrom was counseling others, like his friend Joe Ward. His advice to Joe gives the reader a window into how he was coping with his own loss:

Friend Ward,

I have been thinking a lot about you lately and I have wanted to see you personally to express my sympathy in the great loss which you have experienced. One who has had the same sadness and who is going through a similar sorrow knows how terrible you feel. I am sorry that I missed the services. I knew nothing about Mrs. Ward’s death and services until I returned home on Sunday from a busy weekend in Chicago.

Well, Joe, take things easy. After all these separations are temporary. Some sweet day you will be with her again in what good people believe to be a much better world.[48]

Jeanne was the only woman Reub had ever loved, and there could be no other.

Labor in Mourning and Tribute

Through her life, Jeanne had stayed with Reuben through all the years and miles they spent apart, anchoring him to Streator during his apprenticeships in Chicago, Madison, and St. Louis, and later during his years in Springfield and Chicago. She was his moment of clarity, accepting Reub’s proposal after the pain of his father’s death awakened him to his own mortality. She stood by his side for years, through the failed campaigns and threats of unemployment, long before he became a fixture in the statehouse. She struggled for over 20 years to raise a family and make a home while Reuben passed the better number of his days away from home as ISFL president, with more nights spent in the Eastgate and Leland Hotels of Chicago and Springfield than in Streator. She supported him in all his choices, even the ones that led him to turn down financially lucrative lobbying posts and those that put him (and possibly his family) in harm’s way. Reuben’s job as ISFL President was often grueling, unrewarding, and always requiring of sacrifice; Jeanne’s role as Reuben’s wife was doubly so.

At the ISFL convention of 1951, all of labor paid Jeanne long overdue credit for her sacrifice. As the convention began in Springfield that year, Reuben’s friend and counsel Father Donahue told those assembled:

In the last year your leader, Reuben Soderstrom, has faced a tremendous loss. Only a man as courageous as he could come back and carry on and give our state federation of labor the same dynamic service, the same enthusiasm he gave before that woman who inspired him since she has been sixteen years of age, gave to him…Ladies and gentlemen, out of respect for this great leader of ours, I wonder if you would rise and say a little prayer, say it in your own heart, in your own way, a silent prayer for her who inspired him to lead us.[49]

Father Donahue was indeed a personal friend to Reub and a priestly advocate for labor, but he was far from the first. That year one of his most prominent predecessors, Father Maguire, received special posthumous tribute as well. The Catholic priest and former president of St. Viator College was for years a legislative ally to then State Representative Reuben Soderstrom, a powerful advocate who helped Reub pass important lasting pro-worker legislation, including the Injunction Limitation Act, the One Day Rest in Seven Act, the Women’s Eight Hour Day Act, and more. Their friendship stretched back years; as ISFL Secretary Stanley Johnson reported:

[Father Maguire’s] ability and an honest ardor to help working people… coupled with the spiritual background of seeking nothing for himself, attracted Reuben Soderstrom’s attention one night in Streator, when he heard Father Maguire address an open forum meeting about the steel strike. As a result of that meeting… another great voice was added to labor’s triumvirate… In teaming up with [former ISFL President John] Walker, [former ISFL Secretary-Treasurer Victor] Olander and Soderstrom, a new twist was given to the Illinois State Federation of Labor’s legislative progress by this spiritual leader, philosopher and educator who joined forces with the state federation to achieve some measure of equity.[50]

Despite his early passing in 1940, Father Maguire’s influence and impact on the modern labor movement could not, in Reuben’s opinion, be overstated. So when in 1951 an opportunity came to pay tribute to his old friend, Soderstrom didn’t hesitate. As he wrote in a communication to all local unions in the state:

Recently…an opportunity has presented itself to recognize the effective and wonderful service of Father Maguire and at the same time to honor his memory. His Catholic Order of St. Viator is erecting a $500,000 Seminary Building at Arlington Heights, Illinois. Permission has been granted the membership of the Illinois State Federation of Labor to participate in the construction and dedication of the Chapel of this building to the memory of Father John W.R. Maguire. The Executive Board of the Illinois State Federation of Labor has started the list with a $10,000 contribution.[51]

It is likely that thoughts of legacy were playing an increasingly important role in Reuben’s thoughts. In the past three years he had lost both Jeanne and Victor, the two most important people in his world, both personally and professionally. Now in his 60s and with the world seemingly stabilizing after depression and war, some may have thought that Reuben’s boldest years were behind him. But after a very successful legislative year, he charged headlong into a great period of economic prosperity and union expansion. It’s astonishing to think he had nearly two more decades of leadership in front of him.

* * *