Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/historyoftammany00myeruoft
THE HISTORY OF TAMMANY HALL
by
GUSTAVUS MYERS
Author of “A History of Public Franchises
in New York City,” etc., etc.
Second Edition
Revised and Enlarged
[Illustration]
New York
Boni & Liveright, Inc.
1917
Copyright, 1917.
By Boni & Liveright, Inc.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1901)
In most men’s minds a certain spell of wonder attaches to the career
and character of the Tammany Society and Tammany Hall. The long
continuance of this dual power; its control of the city, infrequently
interrupted, throughout the century; the nature of its principles, the
method of its practices and the character of its personnel--all these
combine to furnish a spectacle which exerts over the general mind a
peculiar and strong fascination.
It was under the sway of this mood that I began the investigation which
has resulted in this volume. I had no thought, on beginning, to carry
the work so far: I sought merely to satisfy my curiosity regarding the
more important particulars of Tammany’s history. But I soon learned
that what I sought was not easily to be obtained. The few narratives
already published were generally found to be either extravagant
panegyrics, printed under the patronage of the Tammany Society, or else
partisan attacks, violent in style and untruthful in statement. Usually
both were characterized by their paucity of real information no less
than by the number of their palpable errors of fact.
Turning from these, I determined to find the facts for myself.
My search led me first through the files of all the available
newspapers from 1789 to the present time, and thence--for origins and
contributory causes--through publications as far back as 1788; thence
through State and city histories, and a great number of biographies,
sketches, essays, political pamphlets and broadsides. The fragmentary
matter gleaned from these sources was found to be extremely valuable
in helping to form the continuous thread of a narrative, and in
determining contemporary spirit; but the statements and conclusions,
particularly with regard to the character and conduct of public men,
were generally contradictory and inconclusive. Realizing this, I began
the last phase of my search--a task that has led me through numberless
dreary pages of the Minutes and Documents of the Common Council (which
for the years previous to 1881 exist only in manuscript), Journals and
Documents of the Senate and Assembly, including the reports of various
legislative committees; Congressional and Executive Records, Treasury
Reports, Records of the Police, Common Pleas, Superior and Supreme
Courts; Minutes of the Oyer and Terminer; Grand Jury Presentments,
and Records of the Board of Supervisors. Finally, I have had the good
fortune, in developing the story of the middle and later periods,
of having secured many valuable interviews with a number of men who
actively participated in the stirring events of thirty, forty and even
fifty years ago.
The purpose to write a book became fixed as my search progressed. The
work is finished, and the result is now to be given to the public. What
I have sought to produce is a narrative history--plain, compact and
impartial. I have sought to avoid an indulgence, on the one hand, in
political speculation, and on the other, in moralizing platitudes. Such
deductions and generalizations as from time to time I have made, seem
to me necessary in elucidating the narrative; without them the story
would prove to the reader a mere chronology of unrelated facts.
If my narrative furnishes a sad story for the leaders and chieftains
of the Tammany Society and the Tammany Hall political organization,
the fault is not mine, but that of a multitude of incontestible public
records. It was in no partizan spirit that I began the work, and in
none that I now conclude it. I have always been an independent in
politics; and I have even voted, when there seemed to me ample reason
for doing so, a Tammany ticket. I have tried to set down nothing in
malice, nor with such exceptions as are obviously necessary with
regard to living men, to extenuate anything whatever. Those who may be
tempted to consider my work partial and partizan, on account of the
showing that it makes of Tammany corruption and inefficiency, will do
well to read carefully the pages relating to the Whigs and to some
other opponents of Tammany Hall.
* * * * *
The records show that a succession of prominent Tammany leaders were
involved in some theft or swindle, public or private. These peculations
or frauds ranged, in point of time, from 1799 and 1805-6 to the later
decades; in the matter of persons, from the founder of the Tammany
Society to some of the subsequent “bosses,” and in gradation of amount,
from the petty thousands taken by Mooney, Stagg and Page, in the first
decade of the century, to the $1,220,000 taken by Swartwout in 1830-38
and the undetermined millions taken by Wood and Tweed in the fifties,
sixties and first two years of the seventies. From nearly the beginning
of its active political career, Tammany leaders, with generally brief
interruptions, thus continued to abstract money from the city, the
State and the nation--the interruptions to the practice generally
coinciding with the periods when Tammany in those years was deprived of
political power.
My search has shown me the absurdity of the pretense that any vital
distinction exists between the Tammany Society and the Tammany Hall
political organization. Tammany members industriously propagate this
pretense, but it has neither a historic nor an actual basis. From
1805, the date of the apparent separation of the organization from
the society, the Sachems of the latter have ruled the policies of
the former. Repeatedly, as in 1828, 1838, 1853, and 1857, they have
determined the “regularity” of contending factions in the organization,
and have shut the hall to members of the faction against which they
have decided. The Sachems have at all times been the leaders in the
political body, and the control of the society in every year that
Tammany has held control of the city, has determined the division of
plunder for the ensuing year. The Tammany Society and the Tammany
political organization constitute a dual power--but, unlike Ormuzd and
Ahrimanes, a duality working by identical means for an identical end.
The records show that Tammany was thus, from the beginning, an evil
force in politics. Its characteristics were formed by its first great
leader, Aaron Burr, and his chief lieutenant, Matthew L. Davis; and
whatever is distinctive of Tammany methods and policies in 1900 is,
for the most part, but the development of features initiated by these
two men one hundred years ago. It is curious to recall, on looking
back to the time when my researches began, the abundant evidences of
misapprehension regarding Tammany’s earlier history. “No especial
discredit attached to Tammany Hall before Tweed’s time,” wrote, in
effect, Mr. E. L. Godkin in an essay published a few years ago. State
Senator Fassett, in 1890, made a similar statement in his report on
the investigation of conditions in New York City. “Down to the time,”
he says, “that the Tammany ‘ring,’ under the leadership of William
M. Tweed, took possession of the government of New York City … the
office [of Alderman] was held in credit and esteem.” The exact reverse
of both statements is true; and abundant proof of my contention, I
believe, will be found in the pages of this book. Another instance may
be given--though the opinion expressed, instead of being founded upon
misapprehension, may charitably be set down as one of misjudgment. “I
was a Sachem of Tammany,” said a one-time noted politician recently,
before the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, “in
the days when it was _an honor to be a Sachem_.” The precise time he
did not specify; and it would be difficult to identify it from the
description he has given. Certainly, since 1805, the office of Sachem
has been one ill calculated, of itself, to bring particular honor to
the incumbent.
It would be dishonest to pretend for a moment that Tammany has been
alone in its evil-doing; it has been simply the most ingenious and the
most pretentious; and its practices have a historic continuity and
persistence not shared by any of its rivals. The Whigs, for instance,
sought in every possible way to outdo Tammany in election frauds; they
stuffed ballot boxes, colonized voters, employed rowdies and thugs at
the polls and distributed thousands of deceptive ballots for the use
of their opponents. In fiscal frauds, likewise, they left a record
well-nigh equaling that of Tammany. The Native Americans imitated
both Whigs and Tammany men, and the Republicans have given instances
at Albany of a wholesale venality unapproached in the history of
legislative bodies. Among the few exceptions, during the earlier half
of the century, to the general prostitution of civic ideals, was the
career of the Workingmen’s party (1829-31) and of its successor, the
Equal Rights party (1834-38). The principles of both these parties were
far in advance of their time; and though the effect tended somewhat to
the temporary heightening of political standards, a reaction followed,
which again brought in a long period of fraud and corruption.
But shameful as this record is, it is one which, viewed in the light
of present practises and present ideals, gives the basis for a robust
faith in the future. The hiding of vice and the employment of indirect
methods in cheating and plundering, are themselves an evidence of the
existence of moral standards; and it is unquestionable that Tammany
to-day outwardly conforms to ethical demands which would have been
scoffed at a half century ago. No one can read the details of political
history without acknowledging a growing betterment in political methods.
“Hardly a man [before the Civil War] could be found,” says Jesse Macy
in his recent _History of Political Parties in the United States_,
“who felt himself too virtuous to go into politics. The sensitively
moral were not repelled by political methods which to-day are regarded
as disgraceful.” And further along he says: “It is easy to forget
that, from the very nature of moral progress, it often happens that
intelligent moral leaders of one generation will in all good conscience
say and do things which only the conscious hypocrite or the knave of a
later generation can do.” Pessimism as to political progress secures no
support from real research.
It may be asked, and with some show of reason, how it has been possible
for New York City to achieve its present rank in population, in wealth,
in commerce and in transportation facilities; how it has acquired
its splendid libraries, its magnificent buildings, its museums, its
parks, its benevolent institutions, in the face of this continued
dominancy of corruption, violence and fraud. The answer is simple: the
city has grown _despite_ these adverse influences. The harbor of New
York is one factor; the Erie Canal (constructed notwithstanding the
opposition of the dominant political party of the city) is another; the
tremendous growth of the nation, and the thousand external influences
that determined the location of the nation’s metropolis, are yet other
factors. The city has grown to magnificence and world-wide influence;
but it has paid dear tribute for every forward step it has taken.
Imagination fails at picturing the metropolis that might have been,
could the city throughout the century have been guided and controlled
in the light of present-day civic ideals.
* * * * *
The difficulties of securing the publication of this work by any
of the regular publishing houses proved insurmountable. Two of the
best known firms wrote that they could not encourage me to submit
the manuscript to them for consideration. Four others considered its
publication “inadvisable,” though their readers had returned favorable
recommendations. One other declined it without giving reasons. More
recently, when the offer of certain responsible persons who had
read the manuscript, to guarantee the expense of its publication,
was made to a certain house, the firm replied: “… we should hardly
feel warranted in locking horns with Tammany Hall.…” It was thought
that perhaps an out-of-town house might issue it, but here again
declinations were forthcoming. Finally it was decided to attempt
its publication by private subscription. To this end I solicited
individual advances to a publication fund, from a number of the city’s
public-spirited citizens. The appearance of the work at this time is
due to the kindly interests of these men.
Acknowledgments for the courtesies tendered me, and for material aid
rendered in the project of issuing the work, are due to a number
of persons: To the public-spirited citizens of different political
faiths, who, while familiar with the scope of the work, contributed the
funds for its publication without insisting upon a censorship of the
manuscript or its alteration in any way for political purposes; and
particularly to Mr. James B. Reynolds, Mr. James W. Pryor and Milo R.
Maltbie, Ph. D.
GUSTAVUS MYERS.
New York City, January, 1901.
FOREWORD TO THE NEW EDITION (1917)
Since the original publication of this work, a large number of
inquiries have appeared in the _Publisher’s Weekly_ and have come
from other quarters requesting information as to where copies of The
_History of Tammany Hall_ could be obtained. For the last ten years
this work has been in continuous demand but unavailable. For reasons
fully set forth in the preface to that issue, the edition of 1901 was
brought out in the face of difficulties. Not the least of these was
the self-expressed dread of certain publishing houses to bring out
a work which (as some of them frankly admitted in their letters of
declination) might bring reprisals to them in some unexplained form or
other.
Hence to all intents and purposes, that edition was in the nature of a
restricted private edition. Denied the usual and almost indispensable
publication and distribution facilities by the publishing houses, the
work necessarily was subject to obvious disadvantages, and, so far as
circulation went, practically took rank as a suppressed book--not, it
is true, suppressed by any particular agency, but by the circumstances
of the case.
In 1913 Mr. Edward Kellogg Baird, a public-spirited attorney in New
York City, kindly undertook, in behalf of the author (who was absent in
another country at the time) to see whether some one of the publishing
houses would not bring out a new edition of _The History of Tammany
Hall_, brought down to date. In his letters to these publishers,
Mr. Baird pointed out that there never had been any lack of general
interest in this work, and referred to the extremely large number of
reviews in important publications in many countries treating the book
at length and commending its purpose and scope. Mr. Baird also called
the attention of publishers to the fact that the book was recognized
as the only authority on the subject; that it had been tested by
time; that there had never been a libel suit arising from any of the
statements made therein; and that, therefore, there could be no valid
objection on the part of any publisher that publication of further
editions would lead to any legal trouble.
With such possible objections thus disposed of in advance, Mr.
Baird confidently expected that he would find at least one of
the old-established publishers who would not be deterred by such
considerations as influenced them to refuse publication in 1901. But
the replies were virtually repetitions of those received twelve years
previously. One of the first replies, dated February 24, 1913, from the
senior member of a New York publishing house, read as follows:
“For the very same reason that the author of _The History of Tammany
Hall_ was unable to obtain a publisher for the original edition,
leads us to decide unfavorably so far as we are concerned. The policy
of publishing the book was the first question raised by one of my
partners, before he had a chance even to read the preface, and we as
a firm have decided that the objection is too strong to permit us to
bring the book out over our imprint. I am sorry that we must be so
cowardly, for the book itself is worthy of reissue, and I personally
should be glad to see it published by my firm.…”
At about the same time, the head of another prominent and older New
York publishing house--a citizen, by the way, who had served as foreman
of a noted grand jury exposing Tammany corruption--wrote this reply:
“I have given due consideration, with my partners, to the suggestion
you are so kind to submit to us in regard to the publication of a new
edition of _The History of Tammany Hall_ brought down to date.… I must
report that our judgment is adverse to the desirability of reissuing
such a book with the imprint of our house. I should be individually
interested in obtaining a copy for my own library in case you may be
able to secure for the work a satisfactory arrangement with some other
house.”
An equally well-known New York publishing house sent this declination:
“We have looked over with interest _The History of Tammany Hall_, which
you were good enough to submit to us, but are sorry to say that after a
careful examination we are unable to persuade ourselves that we could
successfully undertake its publication.” The head of still another
old-established New York publishing house wrote, on March 4, 1913, a
long apologetic letter giving his reasons for not caring to undertake
the publication of the work, the principal of those reasons being the
plea that there was not sufficient prospect of gain “to compensate for
some of the unpleasantness its publishers would have to endure.” Yet
a year later a magazine published by this identical house contained a
laudatory reference to “Myers’s excellent _History of Tammany Hall_.”
On April 10, 1913, Mr. Baird wrote to a prominent Boston publishing
house. “Before offering the book,” Mr. Baird wrote in part, “I want to
tell you frankly that it has been turned down by other publishers, not
because of any lack of excellence or authenticity, but simply because,
as several of the publishers have frankly acknowledged, they ‘are
afraid of reprisals from Tammany Hall.’
“Your house has been suggested by a publisher as one which is probably
not so timid as some others, and as you are located out of town you are
therefore not subject to local influences, and I write to ask if you
would be interested in having the publication submitted to you.
“I might add that I have been lecturing on this subject at the City
Club and other prominent clubs in the city, and the subject itself
seemed to bring out record audiences wherever the lecture was given,
and it is because so many people have asked me where they can obtain
copies of Mr. Myers’s book, that I am prompted to endeavor to have a
reprint of it.”
The reply of the Boston publishing house was a curt declination.
Subsequently the following letter was received by the author from a
prominent New York City attorney:
“I have been endeavoring to purchase a copy of _The History of Tammany
Hall_ published by you, but as yet have been unable to find a copy in
any of the book stores. I shall appreciate it very much if you can tell
me where I can obtain a copy.
“You may be interested to know that a few months ago a number of
booksellers were given instructions to purchase and retire all
outstanding copies of the book. For whose account this order was given
I do not know. I am told by the booksellers that an advertisement for
the book resulted in their being able to purchase only a few copies.”
To the present publishers the author gives all due appreciation for
their unqualified recognition of the need of the publication of this
work.
GUSTAVUS MYERS.
March, 1917.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1901) v
FOREWORD TO THE NEW EDITION (1917) xiii
CHAPTER I
RESISTANCE TO ARISTOCRACY--1789-1798 1
CHAPTER II
AARON BURR AT THE HELM--1798-1802 11
CHAPTER III
TAMMANY QUARRELS WITH DE WITT CLINTON--1802-1809 17
CHAPTER IV
SLOW RECOVERY FROM DISASTER--1809-1815 29
CHAPTER V
TAMMANY IN ABSOLUTE CONTROL--1815-1817 37
CHAPTER VI
CLINTON MAINTAINS HIS SUPREMACY--1817-1820 47
CHAPTER VII
THE SUFFRAGE CONTEST--1820-1822 56
CHAPTER VIII
STRUGGLES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL FACTIONS--1822-1825 60
CHAPTER IX
THE JACKSON ELEMENT VICTORIOUS--1825-1828 69
CHAPTER X
THE WORKINGMEN’S PARTY--1829-1830 77
CHAPTER XI
TAMMANY AND THE BANK CONTEST--1831-1834 85
CHAPTER XII
THE EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY--1834-1837 94
CHAPTER XIII
TAMMANY “PURIFIED”--1837-1838 112
CHAPTER XIV
WHIG FAILURE RESTORES TAMMANY TO POWER--1838-1840 117
CHAPTER XV
RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE “GANGS”--1840-1846 128
CHAPTER XVI
“BARNBURNERS” AND “HUNKERS”--1846-1850 140
CHAPTER XVII
DEFEAT AND VICTORY--1850-1852 150
CHAPTER XVIII
“HARDSHELLS” AND “SOFTSHELLS”--1852-1858 161
CHAPTER XIX
A CHAPTER OF DISCLOSURES--1853-1854 167
CHAPTER XX
FERNANDO WOOD’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION--1854-1856 174
CHAPTER XXI
WOOD’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION--1856-1859 181
CHAPTER XXII
THE CIVIL WAR AND AFTER--1859-1867 194
CHAPTER XXIII
THE TWEED “RING”--1867-1870 211
CHAPTER XXIV
TWEED IN HIS GLORY--1870-1871 225
CHAPTER XXV
COLLAPSE AND DISPERSION OF THE “RING”--1871-1872 237
CHAPTER XXVI
TAMMANY RISES FROM THE ASHES--1872-1874 250
CHAPTER XXVII
THE DICTATORSHIP OF JOHN KELLY--1874-1886 258
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE DICTATORSHIP OF RICHARD CROKER--1886-1897 267
CHAPTER XXIX
THE DICTATORSHIP OF RICHARD CROKER (_Concluded_)--1897-1901 284
CHAPTER XXX
TAMMANY UNDER ABSENTEE DIRECTION--1901-1902 290
CHAPTER XXXI
CHARLES F. MURPHY’S AUTOCRACY--1902-1903 299
CHAPTER XXXII
THE SWAY OF BRIBERY AND “HONEST GRAFT”--1903-1905 307
CHAPTER XXXIII
TAMMANY’S CONTROL UNDER LEADER MURPHY--1906-1909 324
CHAPTER XXXIV
ANOTHER ERA OF LEGISLATIVE CORRUPTION--1909-1911 342
CHAPTER XXXV
“CHIEF” MURPHY’S LEADERSHIP--FURTHER DETAILS 1912-1913 356
CHAPTER XXXVI
GOVERNOR SULZER’S IMPEACHMENT AND TAMMANY’S DEFEAT--1913-1914 375
CHAPTER XXXVII
TAMMANY’S PRESENT STATUS--1914-1917 392
HISTORY OF TAMMANY HALL
CHAPTER I
RESISTANCE TO ARISTOCRACY
1789-1798
The Society of St. Tammany, or Columbian Order, was founded on May
12, 1789, a fortnight later than the establishment of the National
Government, by William Mooney.[1] “His object,” says Judah Hammond,[2]
an early member of Tammany, “was to fill the country with institutions
designed, and men determined, to preserve the just balance of power.
His purpose was patriotic and purely republican. The constitution
provided by his care contained, among other things, a solemn
asseveration, which every member at his initiation was required to
repeat and subscribe to, that he would sustain the State institutions
and resist a consolidation of power in the general Government.”
Before the Revolution, societies variously known as the “Sons of
Liberty” and the “Sons of St. Tammany” had been formed to aid the cause
of independence. Tammany, or Tamanend, was an Indian chief, of whom
fanciful legends have been woven, but of whose real life little can
be told. Some maintain that he lived in the neighborhood of Scranton,
Pa., when William Penn arrived, and that he was present at the great
council under the elm tree. His name is said to have been on Penn’s
first treaty with the Indians, April 23, 1683. He is also described as
a great chief of the Delaware nation, and his wigwam is said to have
stood on the grounds now occupied by Princeton University. The fame of
his wisdom, benevolence and love of liberty spreading to the colonists,
they adopted his name for their patriotic lodges. When societies
sprang up bearing the names of St. George, St. Andrew or St. David and
proclaiming their fealty to King George, the Separatists dubbed Tammany
a saint in ridicule of the imported saints. The Revolution over, the
“Sons of Liberty” and the “Sons of St. Tammany” dissolved.
The controversy over the adoption of the Federal constitution had the
effect of re-uniting the patriotic lodges. The rich and influential
classes favored Hamilton’s design of a republic having a President and
a Senate chosen for life, and State governments elected by Congress.
Opposed to this attempt toward a highly centralized government were
the forces which afterward organized the Anti-Federalist party. Their
leader in New York was Governor George Clinton. The greater number of
the old members of the Liberty and Tammany societies, now familiarly
known as “Liberty boys,” belonged to this opposition.
During this agitation Hamilton managed to strengthen his party, by
causing to be removed, in 1787, the political disabilities bearing
upon the Tories. New York was noted for its Tories, more numerous in
proportion than in any other colony, since here, under the Crown,
offices were dispensed more liberally than elsewhere. In the heat of
the Revolutionary War and the times immediately following it, popular
indignation struck at them in severe laws. In all places held by the
patriot army a Tory refusing to renounce his allegiance to King George
ran considerable danger not only of mob visit, but of confiscation
of property, exile, imprisonment, or, in flagrant cases of adherence
to the enemy, death. From 1783 to 1787 the “Liberty boys” of the
Revolution, who formed the bulk of the middle and working classes,
governed New York City politics. In freeing the Tories from oppressive
laws, and opening political life to them, Hamilton at once secured
the support of a propertied class (for many of them had succeeded in
retaining their estates) numerous enough to form a balance of power and
to enable him to wrest the control of the city from the “Liberty boys.”
The elevation to office of many of the hated, aristocratic supporters
of Great Britain inflamed the minds of the “Liberty boys” and their
followers, and made the chasm between the classes, already wide, yet
wider. The bitterest feeling cropped out. Hamilton, put upon the
defensive, took pains in his addresses to assure the people of the
baselessness of the accusation that he aimed to keep the rich families
in power. That result, however, had been partially assured by the
State constitution of 1777. Gaging sound citizenship by the ownership
of property, the draughtsmen of that instrument allowed only actual
residents having freeholds to the value of £100, free of all debts, to
vote for Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and State Senators, while a vote
for the humbler office of Assemblyman was given only to those having
freeholds of £20 in the county or paying forty shillings rent yearly.
Poor soldiers who had nobly sustained the Revolutionary cause were
justly embittered at being disqualified by reason of their poverty,
while full political power was given to the property-owning Tories.
“The inequality,” wrote one who lived in those days,
“was greatly added to by the social and business customs of
the times.… There was an aristocracy and a democracy whose
limits were as clearly marked by manner and dress as by legal
enactment.… The aristocracy controlled capital in trade,
monopolized banks and banking privileges, which they did not
hesitate to employ as a means of perpetuating their power.”
Dr. John W. Francis tells, in his _Reminiscences_, of the prevalence in
New York for years after the Revolution of a supercilious class that
missed no opportunity of sneering at the demand for political equality
made by the leather-breeched mechanic with his few shillings a day.
Permeated with democratic doctrines, the populace detested the landed
class. The founding of the Society of the Cincinnati was an additional
irritant. Formed by the officers of the Continental army before
disbandment, this society adopted one clause especially obnoxious
to the radicals. It provided that the eldest male descendant of an
original member should be entitled to wear the insignia of the order
and enjoy the privileges of the society, which, it was argued, would be
best perpetuated in that way. Jefferson saw a danger to the liberties
of the people in this provision, since it would tend to give rise to
a race of hereditary nobles, founded on the military, and breeding in
turn other subordinate orders. At Washington’s suggestion the clause
was modified, but an ugly feeling rankled in the public mind, due to
the existence of an active party supposedly bent on the establishment
of a disguised form of monarchy.
It was at such a juncture of movements and tendencies that the Society
of St. Tammany or Columbian Order was formed. The new organization
constituted a formal protest against aristocratic influences, and stood
for the widest democratization in political life.
As a contrast to the old-world distinctions of the Cincinnati and other
societies, the Tammany Society adopted aboriginal forms and usages.
The officers held Indian titles. The head, or president, chosen from
thirteen Sachems, corresponding to trustees, elected annually, was
styled Grand Sachem. In its early years the society had a custom, now
obsolete, of conferring the honorary office of Kitchi Okemaw, or Great
Grand Sachem, upon the President of the United States. Washington,
John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Jackson
were hailed successively as the Great Grand Sachems of Tammany. After
the Sachems came the Sagamore, or Master of Ceremonies, a Scribe, or
secretary, and a Wiskinskie,[3] or doorkeeper. Instead of using the
ordinary calendar designations, the society divided the year into
seasons and these into moons. Its notices bore reckoning from the
year Columbus discovered America, that of the Declaration of American
Independence and of its own organization. Instead of inscribing:
“New York, July, 1800,” there would appear: “Manhattan, Season of
Fruits, Seventh Moon, Year of Discovery three hundred and eighth; of
Independence twenty-fourth, and of the Institution the twelfth.” In
early times the society was divided into tribes, one for each of the
thirteen original States; there were the Eagle, Otter, Panther, Beaver,
Bear, Tortoise, Rattlesnake, Tiger, Fox, Deer, Buffalo, Raccoon and
Wolf tribes, which stood respectively for New York, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia. A new member of the Tammany Society had the choice of saying
to which of these tribes he cared to be attached. Frequently the
members dressed in Indian garb and carried papooses in their public
parades. They introduced the distinction between “long talks” and
“short talks” in their public addresses. The name “Wigwam” was given to
their meeting-place, and Barden’s Tavern was selected as their first
home.
At the initiation of the Grand Sachem a song beginning, “Brothers, Our
Council Fire Shines Bright, et-hoh!” was sung, and at the initiation
of a member another song was sung, beginning:
“Sacred’s the ground where Freedom’s found,
And Virtue stamps her Name.”
The society contemplated founding a chain of Tammany societies over
the country, and accordingly designated itself as Tammany Society, No.
1. A number sprang into life, but only a few--those in Philadelphia,
Providence, Brooklyn and Lexington, Ky., continued for any time, and
even these disappeared about the year 1818 or a few years later.
The society showed its Indian ceremonies to advantage and gained
much prestige by aiding in the conciliation of the Creek Indians.
After useless attempts to make a treaty with them, the Government
undertook, as a last resort, in February, 1790, to influence Alexander
McGillivray, their half-breed chief, to visit New York, where he might
be induced to sign a treaty. To Col. Marinus Willett, a brave soldier
of the Revolution, and later Mayor of New York City, the mission
was intrusted. In July, 1790, Willett started North accompanied by
McGillivray and twenty-eight Creek chiefs and warriors. Upon their
arrival in New York, then the seat of the National Government, the
members of the Tammany Society, in full Indian costume, welcomed them.
One phase of the tale has it that the Creeks set up a wild whoop, at
whose terrifying sound the Tammany make-believe red-faces fled in
dismay. Another version tells that the Tammany Society and the military
escorted the Indians to Secretary Knox’s house, introduced them to
Washington and then led them to the Wigwam at Barden’s Tavern, where
seductive drink was served. On August 2 the Creeks were entertained at
a Tammany banquet. A treaty was signed on August 13.
In June of the same year Tammany had established, in the old City Hall,
a museum “for the preservation of Indian relics.” For a brief while
the society devoted itself with assiduity to this department, but the
practical men grew tired of it. On June 25, 1795, the museum was given
over to Gardiner Baker, its curator, on condition that it was to be
known for all time as the Tammany Museum and that each member of the
society and his family were to have entrance free. Baker dying, the
museum eventually passed into the hands of a professional museum-owner.
Tammany’s chief functions at first seem to have been the celebration
of its anniversary day, May 12; the Fourth of July and Evacuation Day.
The society’s parades were events in old New York. On May 12, 1789,
the day of organization, two marquees were built two miles above the
city, whither the Tammany brethren went to hold their banquet. Thirteen
discharges of cannon followed each toast. The first one read: “May
Honor, Virtue and Patriotism ever be the distinguishing characteristics
of the sons of St. Tammany.” John Pintard,[4] Tammany’s first Sagamore,
wrote an account[5] of the society’s celebration of May 12, 1791. “The
day,” he says,
“was ushered in by a Federal salute from the battery and
welcomed by a discharge of 13 guns from the brig Grand Sachem,
lying in the stream. The society assembled at the great Wigwam,
in Broad street, five hours after the rising of the sun, and
was conducted from there in an elegant procession to the brick
meeting house in Beekman street. Before them was borne the cap
of liberty; after following seven hunters in Tammanial dress,
then the great standard of the society, in the rear of which
was the Grand Sachem and other officers. On either side of
these were formed the members in tribes, each headed by its
standard bearers and Sachem in full dress. At the brick meeting
house an oration was delivered by their brother, Josiah Ogden
Hoffman, to the society and to a most respectable and crowded
audience. In the most brilliant and pathetic language he traced
the origin of the Columbian Order and the Society of the
Cincinnati. From the meeting house the procession proceeded (as
before) to Campbell’s grounds, where upwards of two hundred
people partook of a handsome and plentiful repast. The dinner
was honored by his Excellency [George Clinton] and many of the
most respectable citizens.”
The toasts, that now seem so quaint, mirror the spirit of the diners.
“The Grand Sachem of the Thirteen United Fires,” ran the first, “may
his declining sun be precious in the sight of the Great Spirit that
the mild luster of his departing beams may prove no less glorious than
the effulgence of the rising or transcendent splendor of his meridian
greatness.” The second: “The head men and chiefs of the Grand Council
of the Thirteen United Fires--may they convince our foes not only of
their courage to lift, prudence to direct and clemency to withhold the
hatchet, but of their power to inflict it in their country’s cause.”
Up to 1835, at least, toasts were an important feature in public
dinners, as they were supposed to disclose the sentiments, political or
otherwise, of the person or body from whom they came. In this fashion
the Tammany Society announced its instant sympathy with the French
Revolution in all its stages. On May 12, 1793, the sixth toast read:
“Success to the _Armies_ of France, and Wisdom, Concord and Firmness
to the Convention.” “The first sentence was hardly articulated,” a
newspaper[6] records, “when _as one_ the whole company _arose_ and gave
three cheers, continued by roars of applause for several minutes; the
toast was then given in whole and the applauses reiterated.”
At ten o’clock that morning, the same account relates, “the society
had assembled at Tammanial Hall, in Broad street, and marched to St.
Paul’s Church, where Brother Cadwallader D. Colden delivered to a
crowded and brilliant audience an animated talk on the excellence of
the Government and situation of the United States when contrasted
with those of despotic countries.” In the procession were about 400
members in civilian dress. From each hat flowed a bucktail--the symbol
of Liberty--and the standard and cap of Liberty were carried in front
of the line. From the church “the Tammanials went to their Hall, where
some 150 of them partook of an elegant dinner.”
Public feeling ran high in discussing the French Revolution, and there
were many personal collisions. The Tammany Society was in the vanguard
of the American sympathizers and bore the brunt of abuse. The pamphlets
and newspapers were filled with anonymous threats from both sides. “An
Oneida Chief” writes in the _New York Journal and Patriotic Register_,
June 8, 1793:
“A Hint to the Whigs of New York: To hear our Brethren of
France vilified (with all that low Scurrility of which their
enemies the English are so well stocked) in our streets and on
the wharves; nay, in our new and elegant Coffee House; but more
particularly in that den of ingrates, called Belvidere Club
House, where at this very moment _those enemies to liberty_ are
swallowing potent draughts to the destruction and _annihilation
of Liberty, Equality_ and the _Rights of Man_, is not to
be borne by freemen and I am fully of opinion that if some
method is not adopted to suppress such daring and presumptuous
insults, a band of determined Mohawks, Oneidas and Senekas will
take upon themselves that necessary duty.”
There is no record of the carrying out of this threat.
Despite its original composition of men of both parties, the Tammany
Society drifted year by year into being the principal upholder of
the doctrines of which Jefferson was the chief exponent. Toward the
end of Washington’s administration political feelings developed into
violent party divisions, and the Tammany Society became largely
Anti-Federalist, or Republican, the Federalist members either
withdrawing or being reduced to a harmless minority. It toasted the
Republican leaders vociferously to show the world its sympathies and
principles. On May 12, 1796, the glasses ascended to “Citizen” Thomas
Jefferson, whose name was received with three cheers, and to “Citizen”
Edward Livingston, for whom nine cheers were given. “The people,”
ran one toast, “may they ever at the risk of life and liberty support
their equal rights in opposition to Ambition, Tyranny, to Sophistry and
Deception, to Bribery and Corruption and to an enthusiastic fondness
and implicit confidence in their fellow-fallible mortals.”
Tammany had become, by 1796-97, a powerful and an extremely partizan
body. But it came near being snuffed out of existence in the last year
of Washington’s presidency. Judah Hammond writes that when Washington,
before the close of his second term,
“rebuked self-creative societies from an apprehension that
their ultimate tendency would be hostile to the public
tranquillity, the members of Tammany supposed their institution
to be included in the reproof, and they almost all forsook
it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few others continued
steadfast. At one anniversary they were reduced so low that
but three persons attended its festival.[7] From this time it
became a political institution and took ground with Thomas
Jefferson.”
To such straits was driven the society which, a short time after,
secured absolute control of New York City, and which has held that
grasp, with but few and brief intermissions, ever since. The contrast
between that sorry festival, with its trio of lonesome celebrators, and
the Tammany Society of a few years afterwards presents one of the most
striking pictures in American politics.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Mooney was an ex-soldier, who at this time kept a small upholstery
shop at 23 Nassau street. He was charged with having deserted the
American Army, September 16, 1776, and with joining the British forces
in New York, where for a year he wore the King’s uniform. The truth or
falsity of this charge cannot be ascertained.
[2] Hammond, _Political History of the State of New York_, Vol. I, p.
341.
[3] So spelled in all the earlier records. Later, the _s_ in the
penultimate syllable came to be dropped.
[4] John Pintard was one of the founders of the New York Historical
Society, the Academy of Design and other institutions. He was a very
rich man at one time, but subsequently failed in business.
[5] Dunlap’s _American Daily Register_, May 16, 1791.
[6] _New York Journal and Patriotic Register_, May 15, 1793.
[7] This statement of Hammond probably refers to May 12, 1797.