Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Wilderness Waterways: The Significance of Transporters During the French and Indian War in the New York/Montreal Borderlands

By George Kotlik


In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner delivered his frontier thesis. Turner’s thesis explored the North American frontier’s influence on the development of American identity. Though he prefers not to define the term “frontier” too narrowly, his meaning of the word essentially covers Indian country and the outer margins of “settled area.”[1] Like Turner, this paper will also explore the North American frontier. It will cover the period defined by Turner as the “Old West,” an area of space-occupying the coastal settlements of the seventeenth century and the trans-Alleghany settlements of the latter portion of the eighteenth century.[2] The Old Western frontier existed between 1676 to 1763.[3] During the French and Indian War, the North American theatre of the more massive Seven Years’ War, the Old West was a battleground between competing European imperial powers: France and Britain.[4] This essay covers the war as it was fought in the frontier space between New York and Canada. More specifically, this essay examines the critical role men like Joshua Moody played in the French and Indian War, that is, transporters who ferried troops and supplies up and down North America’s backcountry waterways.

Thanks to Joshua Moody’s record-keeping, he left behind a journal that reveals his experiences as a ship captain in the Old West during the Great War for Empire.[5] Examined in isolation, the journal is nothing of serious consequence. Only when examined in the broader context of the transformative effect’s transporters, like Moody, had on the war effort can the journal be appreciated. In addition to this, Moody’s journal provides modern scholars with a glimpse into the life of an eighteenth-century soldier-frontiersman in the Old West. This method of historical examination is largely influenced by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s book, A Midwife’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812. Ulrich’s methodology is similar, making relevant a previously considered irrelevant historical document.[6] Unlike Ulrich, however, this paper will explore Moody’s contributions solely through a political theoretical lens. No consideration is given to the social history surrounding eighteenth-century transporters, an almost central consideration in Ulrich’s research.

Before delving into Moody’s journal, it is important that the reader acquaints themselves with the history of the world Moody occupied. This section of the essay will offer a brief history of England’s war with France in North America, giving special attention to the New York province. Ever since the New World’s settlement, European powers sought to exploit North America’s natural resources. France controlled Canada and much of the interior, including the Great Lakes Region, the Ohio Country, the Illinois Country, and land along the Mississippi River.[7] New France, the governing body of French possessions in North America, managed this vast territory.

Meanwhile, the British claimed dominion over the Atlantic coast from Maine to Georgia.[8] On the topic of population, Britain’s colonies boasted a vastly superior number of inhabitants than New France. By the 1750s, British settlers in North America numbered 1.5 million colonists, while only 75,000 residents resided in New France.[9] Hungry for land and territorial expansion, Britain pushed its North American settlement boundaries further west. This expansion eventually collided with French territorial interests in the Ohio Country. After the Battle of Jumonville Glen, an encounter that resulted in the accidental death of a French emissary, tensions between France and Britain quickly escalated.[10] The result of these tensions produced an outright war in 1754.[11] Formal declarations of war were not published, however, until 1756.[12] That conflict between France and Britain in North America would be known as the French and Indian War.

By 1762, the date in which Moody’s journal takes place, the Seven Years’ War in North America, had virtually ended. The remainder of the conflict was fought in the West Indies, India, and Europe.[13] After the fall of Montreal in September 1760, the looming French menace in the north had disappeared.[14] The French, however, still posed a threat in Louisiana.[15] Immediately after Britain’s conquest of Montreal, and with it the seat of New France, British civil government stepped in and assumed administration over the former French-controlled Canadian and western settlements (here considered the Illinois Country, Ohio Country, and the Great Lakes region).[16] By 1761, the British had secured all of Canada and its western outposts, establishing garrisons at even some of the most remote settlements.[17] In the wake of the conflict, settlers poured into the North American interior.[18] In New York, five hundred dwellings were built in the Mohawk Valley during the last few years of the war.[19] This attests to the rapid development the Old West experienced in New York during its final years of existence.

Despite the rapid growth and settlement of the Old West during the final years of the French and Indian War, the New York frontier, especially in the north - near and around the Adirondack Mountains, was still sparsely populated and, by following Turner’s definition, can be considered a frontier space. A 1762 Lake Champlain map attests to the region’s lack of developed settlement.[20] To encourage frontier colonization, Jeffrey Amherst envisioned settlement of the Old West by veterans of the French War.[21] He even encouraged would-be settlers to seek land-grants.[22] As such, between the years 1760 and 1763, the Lake Champlain region was slowly settled by both squatters and folk who bought land grants.[23] During this time, the Lake Champlain space was also a borderland without defined borders.[24]While British leadership waited for the establishment of defined borders in the region, later formalized by treaty negotiations in Europe, the movement of people and goods was monitored and restricted.[25] During Moody’s time as a ship captain, he no doubt looked out over the bow of his vessel and gazed upon a vast expanse of wilderness. The mountains, the lakes, the savannas: the abundance with which these existed in Moody’s time attests to the fact that he lived and worked on the fringe of civilization. But who was Joshua Moody? Based on his diary, it tells us that he was a Lieutenant serving on Lake Champlain in 1762.[26] We also know that he captained a sloop, the HMS Masquenange.[27] Other than this information, provided to us in the first few pages of his journal, Joshua Moody is a ghost in the historical record.[28]

Whoever he was and wherever he came from, Joshua Moody was issued orders on May 4, 1762, from Lieutenant Colonel Elliot of the 55th Regiment, then commanding His Majesty’s forces in the Northern District at Crown Point.[29] Moody’s orders were simple: march to Fort Ticonderoga and report to Lieutenant Alex Grant, who would grant him command of a vessel.[30] On May 4, 1762, Moody was stationed at Crown Point, ten miles from Fort Ticonderoga.[31] He made the journey and arrived at Fort Ticonderoga by foot on May 5, 1762.[32] That same day, he was given orders by the hand of Lieutenant Grant, who commanded “his Majesty’s Armed Vessels on Lake Champlain.”[33] Grant placed Moody in command of the HMS Masquenange and instructed him to ferry its contents between fort St. Johns and Crown Point.[34] He was also told to keep a diary and record daily accounts of his expeditions.[35] On the morning of May 6, 1762, Moody received his orders and cargo: escort two bateaux to fort St. John, an outpost much further north past Crown point on the left-hand side of Lake Champlain.[36] Orders in hand, he set sail at two o'clock in the morning on May 7, 1762.[37]

Moody reached Fort St. John on May 8 at seven in the morning.[38] He remained there for five days until he received orders to transport the 46th Regiment’s baggage to Fort Ticonderoga.[39] He set sail from St. John with the baggage at four o'clock in the afternoon.[40] He was accompanied by Colonel Browning, Captain Legg, Dr. Lock, Dr. Gillian, and a Lieutenant [name is ineligible in the diary].[41] He arrived at Ticonderoga on May 14, 1762.[42]Afterward, on May 15, he proceeded back to Crown Point, where he received ten days’ worth of provisions for himself and his crew.[43] On May 16 he set sail for St. John at five o'clock in the morning, arriving there at four o'clock in the afternoon.[44] On May 18, he set out for Montreal, arriving there at eight o'clock in the evening.[45] He returned to St John on May 19 at ten o'clock at night.[46] Accompanied by a Grenadier of the 58th Regiment, including his regiment’s baggage, Moody sailed at sunrise on May 21 for Crown Point.[47] The remainder of the journal recounts Moody’s trips between Fort St John, Crown Point, Montreal, and Fort Ticonderoga. On June 14, he delivered wooden planks to engineers at Crown Point.[48] From June 21 through the 23, he ferried soldiers of the 44th Regiment between St. John and Crown Point.[49] On June 29, he was ordered to return the HMS Masquenange to Ticonderoga, which he did on June 30.[50] No more journal entries are recorded after he delivered the sloop.

Alone, Joshua Moody’s journal reveals nothing significant to the average academic historian. He met no one of consequence, saw nothing noteworthy, and was absent from any significant defining historical event. Indeed, many entries of his diary simply read, “Nothing Remarkable.”[51] However, when Moody’s journal is examined from a political theoretical perspective, taking into consideration the larger role men like Moody played, Moody’s diary reveals insights about the critical role transporters played during the French and Indian War. For it was Moody, and men like him, who transported supplies and soldiers to their various destinations along Lake Champlain, then a frontier borderland in 1762. While this does not sound impressive in and of itself, let us consider the environment the British military found themselves in between the frontier space of Canada and New York from 1760 to 1763. During the French and Indian War, waterways were the main source of transportation for supplies and men of war.[52] This was due to the confined constraints imposed upon travelers by the thick woods, which covered the region at the time. These woods proved to be a hindrance to transportation, as evidenced by Braddock’s march when the army was forced to hack a road through the thick Pennsylvania forest and the very slow progress with which this was done.[53] Transporting an army through North America’s untamed wilderness was a slow and arduous process. It was much quicker to make use of the various rivers and lakes, which were found in abundance in the backcountry. The ease and speed with which large amounts of goods could be carried compounded the essentiality of waterway use.[54]

Water vessels were essential to both British and French military operations during the French and Indian War. For evidence that proves this point, look no further than the French siege of Fort William Henry in 1757 and Major General James Abercromby’s assault on Fort Carillon (Fort Ticonderoga) in 1758. Confident of a weakened British force on the New York frontier, the French assembled an army of 8,000 men at Fort Carillon.[55] In July 1757, French forces invaded Fort William Henry, a British controlled fort situated at the south end of Lake George. Because Fort William Henry threatened the existence of French-controlled Fort Carillon, William Henry needed to be knocked out of commission. In early August 1757, a fleet of 250 French bateaux and 150 Indian war canoes sailed south from the northern tip of Lake George.[56] The fleet was loaded with roughly four thousand men and cannon.[57] After their landing, Fort William Henry fell in a week.[58] In this instance, boat craft proved instrumental in the speedy delivery of men, artillery, and supplies resulting in the defeat of the British garrison stationed at William Henry. In a similar fashion, the utilization of watercraft for military purposes was not restricted to French forces. In July 1758, James Abercromby assembled a force of 16,000 men at the foot of Lake George with the intent of using this sizeable force to bring about the fall of Fort Carillon.[59] Nine hundred boats were used to transport Abercromby’s invasion force across Lake George from its southern end to its northern tip.[60] These transport ships were instrumental in securing quick passage of the British force, which would have taken much, much longer than just the single day it took had the army been forced to march on foot.[61]

The significance of transporters in the French and Indian War, as evidenced in the New York frontier, were instrumental in transporting troops and supplies across vast distances in short periods. The significance of transporters during the Seven Years’ War in North America has gone underrated for far too long. This essay serves as a case study to bring to light an underdeveloped aspect of French and Indian War scholarship in the New York/Montreal borderlands. While the boats themselves have been given their credit in accounts of the war, the men who captained such vessels are severely underrepresented. Joshua Moody’s journal provides a glimpse into the life of such transporters. Without him, men like him, and their bravery in navigating North America’s frontier rivers and lakes, many of the events we know about the French and Indian War would have never come to pass. Or at least they would have turned out differently. The speed with which transports delivered troops and goods produced a conflict we are familiar with as it is recounted in history books still to this day. Without these transports or their captains for that matter, an entirely different war would have resulted from France and Britain’s North American contest. This is true, especially considering how slow travel would have been for fully equipped armies navigating overland routes in North America, which were then covered in thick forest. Slow movement across the board would have produced a much slower-paced/progressing conflict, which, in turn, would have possibly prolonged the war and thus prolonged history.[62] Ultimately, while Joshua Moody’s Journal offers no substantial insights when examined as a stand-alone journal, it does show the life of a man whose contributions in the French and Indian War were instrumental to the progress and development of the conflict in the Old West.

About the author: George Kotlik is a Florida-based writer who is originally from the New York Finger Lakes. He has contributed essays and articles to the Journal of the American Revolution, the Seven Years’ War Association Journal, the Armstrong Journal of Undergraduate History, and The Hessians: The Journal of the Johannes Schwalm Association.



Bibliography and Primary Source(s)

Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

Baugh, Daniel. The Global Seven Years War, 1754-1763. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Calloway, Colin G. The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Fowler Jr., William M. Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763. New York: Walker & Company, 2006.

Gunther, Michael. “Forty-Five Degrees of Separation: Imperial and Indigenous Geographical Knowledge and the Bordering of Quebec in the 1760s.” Essays in History 51 (2018). http://www.essaysinhistory.com/forty-five-degrees-of-separation-imperial-and-indigenous-geographical-knowledge-and-the-bordering-of-quebec-in-the-1760s/.

Halsey, Francis Whiting. The Old New York Frontier: Its Wars with Indians and Tories, Its Missionary Schools, Pioneers, and Land Titles. 1901. Reprint, London: Forgotten Books, 2015.

Hamilton, Edward P. The French and Indian Wars: The Story of Battles and Forts in the Wilderness. Edited by Lewis Gannett. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1962.

Jennings, Francis. Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies & Tribes in the Seven Years War in America. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1988.

Johnson, Rossiter. A History of The French War: Ending in the Conquest of Canada. 1882. Reprint, Westminster: Heritage Books, 2007.

Leach, Douglas Edward. Arms for Empire: A Military History of the British Colonies in North America, 1607-1763. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973.

Marston, Daniel. The French-Indian War, 1754-1760. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2002.

Moody, Joshua. Journal of Joshua Moody. Mss A 2007. R. Stanton Avery Special Collections, New England Historic Genealogical Society, online at DigitalCollections.AmericanAncestors.org.

Parkman, Francis. Francis Parkman: The Oregon Trail, The Conspiracy of Pontiac. Edited by William R. Taylor. New York: Library of America, 1991.

Quinn, Frederick. The French Overseas Empire. Westport: Praeger, 2000.

Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. A Midwife’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.

The American Military Pocket Atlas; Being An approved Collection of Correct Maps, Both General and Particular, of The British Colonies; Especially those who now are, or probably maybe The Theatre of War: Taken principally from the actual Surveys and judicious Observations of Engineers De Brahm and Romans; Cook, Jackson, and Collet; Maj. Holland, and other Officers Employed in His Majesty’s Fleets and Armies. London: R. Sayer and J. Bennet, 1776. From the Internet Archivehttps://archive.org/details/americanmilitary00unkn/page/n21/mode/2up.

Turner, Andrew Jackson. The Frontier in American History. 1920. Reprint, New York: Barns & Noble, 2009.


 


 




[1] Andrew Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (1920; reprint, New York: Barns & Noble, 2009), 2.

[3] Turner, The Frontier in American History, 42.

[4] For more reading see: Colin G. Calloway, The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Francis Parkman, Francis Parkman: The Oregon Trail, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, edited by William R. Taylor (New York: Library of America, 1991).

[5] The Great War for Empire is the more appropriate term to call the Seven Years’ War in North America and not the French and Indian War, although they are both acceptable. Their use is made interchangeably throughout the essay.

[6] Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, A Midwife’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990), 25.

[7] Frederick Quinn, The French Overseas Empire (Westport: Praeger, 2000), 67.

[8] William M. Fowler Jr., Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763 (New York: Walker & Company, 2006), 2.

[9] Daniel Marston, The French-Indian War, 1754-1760 (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2002), 7.

[11] Marston, The French-Indian War, 11.

[12] Marston, The French-Indian War, 27.

[13] Daniel Baugh, The Global Seven Years War, 1754-1763 (New York: Routledge, 2014), 453-619.

[14] Francis Jennings, Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies & Tribes in the Seven Years War in America (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1988), 425.

[15] Douglas Edward Leach, Arms for Empire: A Military History of the British Colonies in North America, 1607-1763 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973), 486.

[17] Leach, Arms for Empire, 487.

[18] Leach, Arms for Empire, 487.

[19] Francis Whiting Halsey, The Old New York Frontier: Its Wars with Indians and Tories, Its Missionary Schools, Pioneers and Land Titles(1901; reprint, London: Forgotten Books, 2015), 117-121.

[20] William Brassier, A Survey of Lake Champlain, including Lake George, Crown Point and St. John, in The American Military Pocket Atlas; Being An approved Collection of Correct Maps, Both General and Particular, of The British Colonies; Especially those which now are, or probably may be The Theatre of War: Taken principally from the actual Surveys and judicious Observations of Engineers De Brahm and Romans; Cook, Jackson, and Collet; Maj. Holland, and other Officers Employed in His Majesty’s Fleets and Armies (London: R. Sayer and J. Bennet, 1776), from Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/americanmilitary00unkn/page/n21/mode/2up.

[21] Another term to describe the French and Indian War.

[22] Michael Gunther, “Forty-Five Degrees of Separation: Imperial and Indigenous Geographical Knowledge and the Bordering of Quebec in the 1760s,” Essays in History 51 (2018). http://www.essaysinhistory.com/forty-five-degrees-of-separation-imperial-and-indigenous-geographical-knowledge-and-the-bordering-of-quebec-in-the-1760s/.

[23] Gunther, “Forty-Five Degrees of Separation,” Essays in History.

[24] Gunther, “Forty-Five Degrees of Separation,” Essays in History.

[25] Gunther, “Forty-Five Degrees of Separation,” Essays in History.

[26] Joshua Moody, Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007, R. Stanton Avery Special Collections, New England Historic Genealogical Society, online at DigitalCollections.AmericanAncestors.org.

[27] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[28] Although this essay does not explore Moody’s genealogy, that does not mean that he does not exist in the historical record. Traces of Moody and his ancestry may be found in the New England Historic Genealogical Society. At the time of writing this essay, those records were rendered inaccessible due to the Coronavirus Pandemic which restricted the author’s travel and access to archival sources.

[29] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[30] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[31] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[32] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[33] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[34] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[35] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[36] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[38] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[39] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[40] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[41] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[42] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[43] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[44] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[45] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[46] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[47] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[48] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[49] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[50] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[51] Journal of Joshua Moody, Mss A 2007.

[53] Rossiter Johnson, A History of The French War: Ending in the Conquest of Canada (1882; reprint, Westminster: Heritage Books, 2007), 215.

[54] Hamilton, The French and Indian Wars, 3-20.

[55] Hamilton, The French and Indian Wars, 199.

[56] Anderson, Crucible of War, 190-191.

[57] Anderson, Crucible of War, 190-191.

[58] Anderson, Crucible of War, 195-196.

[61] Hamilton, The French and Indian Wars, 219.

[62] The American Revolution, an important after-effect of the French and Indian War, would have possibly been delayed since Britain would have attempted to raise taxes much later than 1763.

Thursday, June 25, 2020

The Downfall of Boss Tweed

By Anthony Ruggiero
Copyright ©2020 All rights reserved by the author



New York City’s history is rich with various instances of political triumphs and corruption. New York City’s history also has its share of political figures that have had a major influence in its continuous development. Some figures have helped changed New York for the better. Some, however, only had power to corrupt the city and get money for themselves. One of these figures is William “Boss” Tweed. Boss Tweed was the leader of New York’s Tammany Hall from 1868-1871. Tammany Hall was a major political force in New York City during the 1860’s and early 1870’s. However, in 1871, Boss Tweed’s reign came to an end when he was exposed for major fraud. After this exposure, Tweed’s life was never the same and he died penniless on April 12, 1878. In order to understand why Boss Tweed was ultimately exposed, it is important to learn about the man himself and the events that led to his downfall in 1871.

The life of Boss Tweed began on April 3, 1823, in the Lower East Side of New York City. In his early life, he was proficient in being a chair maker, saddler, clerk, and bookkeeper. He also opened a law office in 1860. However, he only had little knowledge of the law. According to Hirsch (1945), “he extorted large fees for political favors” (p.268). This would be a common action of Tweed later in his life when he led Tammany Hall. After stints as a volunteer fireman in 1848 and a Congressman from 1853 to 1855, Tweed was on his way to becoming a major political force in New York City.

Tweed’s major political rule began in 1863 when he was elected chief of Tammany Hall. During that year, the Draft Riots occurred. The United States was at the height of the Civil War. To fight the Confederate states, Congress passed a draft that stated that all men between the ages of 20 and 45 were liable to fight for the Union states. When the draft was enforced in New York City on July 13, 1863, disaster struck. Riots emerged, and over 100 deaths were the result. As a result of the riots, Manhattan was in a troubled state. Many people had moved away, especially African Americans, and property damage was immense. Tweed, however, was not going to let this get in his way. According to Munson (2005), “Through involved and astute political maneuvering, Tweed managed to have Tammany Hall designed as the main administrative apparatus of President Lincoln’s draft in the city” (p.83). Tweed found ways to solve the draft situation. According to Hamill (2005), “Tweed worked on managing the draft mess, creating a system of exemptions (cops, firemen, militia members) and case-by-case hardship exemptions for heads of impoverished families.” This was Tweed’s first big victory in New York City. This victory helped Tweed to escalate to the main leader of Tammany Hall in 1868 when his corruption would begin.

Tweed’s reign of corruption began in 1868 when he became both the chief of Tammany Hall and New York’s state senator. During this reign, he was assisted by four men: New York’s Governor John Hoffman, City Chamberlain Peter Barr Sweeney, Comptroller Daniel Connolly, and New York City’s mayor A. Oakey Hall. They would later be known as “Tweed’s ring”. Tweed, along with his ring, wanted to take control of all the city’s finances. To do this, he created a charter that would be passed in 1870. According to Hirsch (1945), “The charter turned over control of the municipal treasury to Tweed and his henchmen by creating a Board of Audit for the city” (p.269). Also, Tweed became the commissioner of the public works of New York in 1870. This position is what let Tweed perform his corrupt acts.

Tweed focused on public projects in New York City as a way to increase his profit. One way Tweed did so was overly inflating the prices of benches he paid at the store. According to Lynch (1927), “Tweed purchased three hundred benches at the rate of five dollars each, a total of $1,500.” The cashier of the Home Insurance Company was there to bid in some of them. Tweed told him he would let him have them at the price he paid, as the insurance man only wanted seventeen. Tweed turned the remaining benches over to the furniture house of Ingersoll and Company. The benches were sold for six hundred dollars each” (p.241). This made a huge profit for Tweed: $168,300, to be exact. Tweed would also set up contracts that included bills that were priced way higher than they should have been for the work performed. For example, a contract stated that a carpenter was to be paid $360,751 for a month’s worth of work. However, this carpenter hardly worked as there was barely any woodwork done. Another example of Tweed’s corruption was during the construction of City Hall Park. According to Simkin (1997), “Tweed also organized the building of City Hall Park. Originally estimated to cost $350,000, by the time it was finished, expenditure had reached $13,000,000”. One final way Tweed corrupted through the city was through the Brooklyn Bridge project. According to Greenspan (2013), “Tweed facilitated up to $65,000 in bribes to New York’s aldermen to win their backing for a $1.5 million bond issue. He then became a major holder of bridge stock and joined a committee charged with managing the project’s finances.” This was not his most successful endeavor as he was arrested before big money started to come in. Overall, it was estimated that Tweed stole up to 200 million dollars from the city. However, Tweed’s corruption could not last forever. In 1871, Tweed would go from a multi-millionaire and powerhouse to a broke, penniless man who was about to face trial. There were three factors that led to Tweed’s downfall: Thomas Nast and his drawings, the Orange Riots of 1971, and the Tweed Courthouse.

While many members of the city might have been outsmarted, one prominent figure was not. This figure was a German political cartoonist for Harper’s Weekly, Thomas Nast. Thomas Nast was a member of the Republican Party, so he was already opposed to Tweed’s political views. Tweed was a Democrat. However, Nast’s dissatisfaction went much beyond the difference in political parties. Nast viewed Tweed as a greedy politician who was only out for his personal gains. These opinions proved to be a strong influence in New York in 1871. “A man that can appeal powerfully to millions of people must be admitted to great power in the land. No writer can possibly possess a tenth part of the influence which Mr. Nast exercises. He addresses the learned and unlearned alike” (“Mr. Thomas Nast,” 1872). In Nast’s drawings, Tweed is depicted as an overweight, greedy villain stealing the city’s money. One of Nast’s most famous drawings is “Twas Him.” In this cartoon, Nast asks the question, “Who stole the people’s money.” In the cartoon, Tweed’s ring is arranged in a circular shape. Tweed and his four biggest supporters are placed in the front. They are all not taking responsibility for fraud as they all point to the men that are beside them. This pointing goes on until the men reach Tweed. Tweed stands there, not pointing at anyone. Nast does this to emphasize that Tweed is the mastermind of the fraud. These cartoons began to worry Tweed. According to Hinckley (2002), “Tweed is said to have once remarked that he feared Nast more than the other pesky reformers at the papers - because even though Tweed was confident that most of his supporters could not read, they could look at pictures.” Tweed feared Nast for a good reason. According to Hinckley (2002), “It helped give political reformers like Samuel J. Tilden, a one-time Tammany honcho himself, the public support to oust Tweed and his cronies.” Nast helped to change the political atmosphere of New York City. His drawings were a big influence on Tweed’s verdict of guilty of fraud and graft in 1873. However, Nast was only one contributor to Tweed’s downfall. The Orange Riots of 1871 became the turning point for Tweed. After the riots occurred, Tweed and Tammany Hall began to crumble, losing supporters from left and right.

The Orange Riots took place on June 12, 1871. This was only eight years after the Draft Riots had occurred. During the Draft Riots, Boss Tweed was seen as this great hero. He was the one who helped to solve the draft problem in New York City. Would Tweed be viewed as a great hero this time? The answer to that would be no, not exactly. The riots stemmed from a rivalry between two groups: the Irish Protestants and the Irish Catholics. This rivalry began all the way back in 1690. “The real roots of the trouble went back to 1690, nearly 200 years before, when the great Battle of Boyne was fought in Ireland. On that day, the adherents of William of Orange, the champion of Protestantism, won a complete victory over James II, the Catholic Champion. Ever since Protestant and Catholic Irishmen have looked upon the anniversary of the Boyne with diametrically opposite feelings” (“The Orange Riots of Fifty Years Ago, 1921). There had already been a riot in 1870 between the two groups. The Protestants organized a parade to commemorate the anniversary of the Boyne. The Catholics were not happy with this and started a riot. This riot resulted in over eight deaths. In 1871, the Protestants proposed another parade. Tweed and Tammany Hall allowed the parade to happen to show that it can hold New York’s stability. Unfortunately, this did not happen. A riot again emerged. It was worse than in the previous years. The riot resulted in 60 deaths.

The Orange Riots had large negative impacts on Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. Before the riots, Tammany Hall held a strong grip on New York City. They kept it stable, or so everyone assumed. The Orange Riots ruined that reputation. Tweed could not maintain control over the two Irish groups. This led to a loss of faith in Tweed that was never recovered. The most interesting part about the Orange Riots is it led to Tweed’s downfall, but not in exposing his corruption. This was for an entirely different reason. This exposed Tweed’s failure to keep the Irish under control, a group that he has always tried to help. If things could not get any worse for Tweed, his dream of building a courthouse turned into a nightmare.

Tweed’s dream of building a courthouse began in 1858 when $250,000 was laid out for the cost of constructing the courthouse. However, as usual with Tweed, $250,000 was well below what would be the actual cost of the courthouse. According to Dunlap (1986), “All told, the documented cost of the courthouse was put at $8 million with estimates of its actual price tags-kickbacks to the Rings included- going as high as $14 million” (p. B5). This is an incredibly high cost for the construction of a building in the 1800s. One of the reasons why the cost was so high is what Tweed paid the construction workers. According to Barry (2000), “A furniture contractor received $179, 729 for three tables and 40 chairs. The plasterer, a Tammany functionary, named Andrew J. Garvey, got $133, 187 for two days' work” (p. B5). These high amounts came from fraudulent bills. Since these bills were not legal, little to no work was performed, thus delaying the construction and increasing the costs.

At this point, Tweed was unstoppable. He was incredibly rich and had a wealthy body of supporters. However, in July 1871, along with the Orange Riots, Tweed encountered a huge dent in his plan. According to Barry (2000), “In July 1871, two low-level city officials with a grudge against the Tweed ring provided the New York Times with reams of documentation that detailed the corruption at the courthouse and other city projects. The newspaper published a string of articles teasing out the details day by day before publishing a special supplement. Those articles coupled with the political cartoons of Thomas Nast in Harper’s Weekly, created a national outcry and soon Tweed and many of his cronies were facing criminal charges and political oblivion” (p. B5). This dent had officially ended Tweed’s reign. In 1873, he was convicted of fraud and sentenced to twelve years in prison. He only served one year as he managed to escape and go to Spain. However, he was soon found with the help of Thomas Nast’s cartoons. He went back to prison, where he would remain there for the rest of his life. Boss Tweed died on April 12, 1878. He was broke and unhealthy, a shadow of his former self.

William “Boss” Tweed definitely made a name for himself in New York City. He was one of the most controversial political figures to ever grace the city. At first, he seemed like an honest man who had his sights on the welfare of the city and its people. This was seen through how he handled the Draft Riots in 1863. He helped to stop them and provide a more peaceful environment in the city. As the years went on, his seemingly honest persona would start to show its true colors. Instead of protecting the well-being of the city, he was stealing from it time and time again. When all was said and done, he is said to have robbed up to 200 million dollars, an incredibly high amount in 1871. However, his greediness got the best of him. Tweed’s love of greed was prominent during the construction of the courthouse. Thomas Nast’s cartoons, in addition to the Orange Riots, changed Tweed’s reputation for the worse. In fact, these would change it for the rest of his life. He spent the rest of his life in and out of jail. He died a man without a cent. Boss Tweed is a classic tale of the tragedy of greed. One who has a love of money will find ways to get it, even if it means stealing. He may be initially successful at getting money, but it will only be a matter of time until it will start to crumble and completely fall apart. William Tweed is a perfect representation of this, a man who went from a millionaire to a man who had lost everything due to his love of the dollar bill.


About the author: Anthony Ruggiero currently a High School History Teacher in New York City, New York. In addition to teaching, I have been published in several magazines and blogs. For example, I have been published previously in History Is Now magazine, Historic-U.K.magazine, Tudor Life magazine, Discover Britain magazine, The Odd Historian magazine, the Culture-Exchange blog, Inside History magazine and The Freelance History Writer blog. Through continuing to research and write, I am able to share my findings with my students in order to engage them in their learning and help them succeed. My work can also be viewed on my Twitter handle: @Anthony10290122





References

Barry, D. (2000, December 12). The courthouse that Tweed built seeks to shed notorious past. The

New York Times, pp. B1, B9.

Dunlap, D. (1986, May 5). Boss Tweed's courthouse: An elegant monument to corruption. The

New York Times, pp. B1, B5.

Greenspan, J. (2013, May 23). Ten things you may not know about the Brooklyn Bridge.

Retrieved from http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-

Brooklyn-bridge

Hamill, P. (2005, March 27). Boss Tweed: The fellowship of the ring. [Review of the book Boss

Tweed: the corrupt sol who conceived the soul of modern New York]. The New York

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/books/review/boss-tweed-

the-fellowship-of-the-ring.html?_r=1

Hinckley, D. (2002, November 11). The Tammany tiger. New York Daily News, p. 31.

Hirsch, M. (1945). More light on Boss Tweed. Political Science Quarterly, 60(2), 267-278.

doi:10.2307/2144524

Lynch, D. (1927). "Boss Tweed”: The story of a grim generation. New Brunswick, New Jersey:

Transaction.

Munson, S. (2005). Tammany's boss. Policy Review, (132), 82-86.

Simkin, J. (2014, August 1). William Tweed. Retrieved from http://spartacus-

educational.com/USAtweed.htm

Ybarra, T. (1921, July 10). The Orange Riots of fifty years ago. The New York Times, pp. 4-5.

Mr. Thomas Nast. (1872, March 20). The New York Times, p. 4.




What caused the Harlem Riot of 1935?

By Anthony Ruggiero
Copyright ©2020 All rights reserved by the author

Race and the discrimination between them have always been a stain in the history of the United States. The conflict between the two themes has been a very common phenomenon over the years. One of the most significant events of the 20th century, the Harlem Riot of 1935, has manifested these two factors.

The initial riot took place in Harlem, New York on March 19th, 1935. The riot erupted when rumors spread that police apprehended a 16-year-old black-Puerto Rican boy named Lino Rivera, for stealing in a store. Witnesses had assumed that the police killed the boy when they saw a hearse pull up to the store. Although it might seem strange that a full-scale riot ensued due to this issue, it was the circumstances of the people of Harlem who lived there during that time period that caused it. The Harlem Riot was a direct result of years of racial tension, massive unemployment, the idea of black pride, and the influence of Sufi Abdul Humid. Harlem was a diverse area filled with many ethnicities; the Jewish community was particularly dominant. The white community clashed with the expanding black community. The black community soon faced struggles in things such as housing. During this time, New York was also feeling the effects of the Great Depression, which left many jobless. This also greatly affected the black community in Harlem who were already faced with discrimination. The idea of Black Nationalism spread rapidly which stressed the idea of creating black jobs. This also would lead to Sufi Abdul Humid's rise to prominence as he backed the idea of gaining white-dominated jobs.

At one point in time, the area of Harlem was heavily dominated by the Jewish community. The area was even nicknamed, “Jewish Harlem.”[1] However, a massive influx of blacks into the community put an end to that. Black communities during this time period were scattered along streets such as West 130th street and West 146th that collectively became known as, “Darktown.” As the black community began to expand into white communities so did resistance and violence. For example, Adolph B. Rosenfield who was an employee of the Property Owner’s Improvement Association, was in some ways successful in a resistance movement to keep blacks out of the area by 90th street, 110th street, Riverside Drive, and Central Park West during the 1910s. In the 1920’s, Jews also participated in efforts lead by Harry Goodstein and the West Side Property Owner’s Association to keep the black community from advancing to 127th street. Many Jews simply left Harlem in protest of the growing black community and moved to areas such as the Bronx and Brooklyn. This meant that the city’s population began to decline and lost revenue. Despite this, with the declining number of Jewish people in the community tensions between the Jews and Blacks began to lessen.[2]However, the years of discrimination had left its mark on the black population.

The years of racial discrimination greatly affected the black communities abilities to gain jobs and income. Many of the establishments were white-owned. In a survey of business establishments it was determined that only twenty-four percent of these establishments hired black workers for low paying jobs, and fifty-nine percent did not hire black workers at all.[3]According to a study made by the Milbank Memorial Fund in 1933, the family income for black families declined from $1,808 in 1929 to $1,019 in 1932. Black skilled workers suffered the greatest percentage during this time with forty-nine percent loss in income.[4] Unskilled workers also suffered greatly as well as they had only made $1,600 in 1929, which was already below the average income rate. The deductions of income lead to many housing issues for blacks in Harlem. A New York Urban Team reported that forty-eight percent of blacks in Harlem paid two times as much in their income in rent just for a standard four-bedroom apartment compared to a white tenant in New York City. Many blacks had to move into lodgers, which lead to much overcrowding. [5]

This led too many blacks living in Harlem questioning white domination of black communities during this time period. This resulted in many blacks demanding the creation black jobs headed by black residents. To convince other blacks that this newfound nationalism could be effective, they actually used Jews as an example. Booker T. Washington stated, “get money, like the Jew…who now has recognition because he has entwined himself about America in a business and industrial way.” However, this idea was ultimately unsuccessful. Many all-black jobs were low revenue jobs, for example: barber shops, beauty salons, and taxicabs. An example of a company that failed, which also negatively affected the black community in Harlem, was the closing of the A.P.H Taxicab Company in 1932, which was the largest privately black-owned company in New York. It was estimated that six hundred Harlem residents lost their jobs.[6]Another major reason the all-black business plan did not work was black shoppers still preferred to shop at Jewish-owned establishments that were in Harlem. Jewish-owned businesses offered a more variety of goods at cheaper prices. During the Great Depression, these Jewish-owned businesses offered credit to black buyers, which meant they had a longer period of time to pay for items they were unable to provide money for at that time. A woman from Harlem stated that her mother always suggested she continue to buy from Jews, because “they let us have anything we need even when we don’t have any money”,[7] thus proving that white dominance in the black community was still intact.

The idea of creating all-black jobs was essentially a failure. There were either not enough jobs or they failed completely. The only other alternative was to gain white-collar jobs in white-dominated establishments. This is when Sufi Abdul Humid began gaining a prominence as a leader of this idea at the beginning of 1932. Humid relocated to Harlem from Chicago, after having success in the city in a different jobs campaign which he and the Chicago Whip, a black newspaper at that time, had run. Although the reasons are unknown as to why he relocated to Harlem, he certainly made his presence known. With his tall body structure and flashy appearance, Humid was often seen at the forefront of rallies on 125th street, which is the center of Harlem’s stores for clothing or other commercial items. Humid urged his followers not to purchase items from white stores, that would not hire them for jobs. At one point, Humid would go along the stores on 125th street and exclaim, “Share the Jobs!” Humid was somewhat successful in this approach. In June of 1934, Martin Weinstein, the new owner of Koch’s Department stores declared that his clerical staff would be one-third black workers. The original owner and founder, H.C.F Koch, had closed at one time Harlem’s largest department store, in protest to the expanding black community. However, it seems the primary reason Weinstein made this statement was to avoid confrontation with Humid and his growing followers.[8]

All of these issues erupted on March 19th, 1935. A 16-year-old black, Puerto Rican boy named, Lino Rivera, stole a penknife from the Kress Five and Ten store on 125th Street. Both the store owner and the assistant manager witnessed Rivera steal the knife and managed to capture him before he was able to getaway. A police officer, who was patrolling the area, was called to the scene to investigate. When asked if he wanted to press charges, the store owner instructed the officer to let Rivera go. In order to avoid the large groups of people who were surrounding the store, the police officer took Rivera out through the back entrance of the store. When one of the witnesses saw the police officer take Rivera away, she shouted that they were going to the back of the store to beat Rivera. An ambulance arrived later to take care of the store owner and the assistant manager, who suffered injuries while trying to apprehend Rivera themselves. When the ambulance left empty, many of the people surrounding the store assumed that Rivera had been killed. Shortly after the ambulance left, a hearse parked across the street from the store. The driver was actually visiting his brother-in-law, who was inside the store. The gathering crowds immediately assumed that the hearse was there to take away the body of Rivera. The police officers who arrived at the store attempted to persuade the growing crowds that Rivera was still alive. However, the people began to demand that the police bring Rivera out of the store, but police officers objected to the crowd's demand and claimed that the situation was under control and it was none of their concern. This angered the crowd and rumors spread through Harlem that the police had killed the boy. The result was large organized mobs that would destroy and loot stores.[9]

The riot was ended the following day when the New York Governor of the time, Herbert Lehman, assured white store owners that the situation was under control and handled. During the riot three African Americans were killed, and over sixty were reported injured. Seventy-five people were also arrested, and it was also reported that a majority of these people were black. The riot also cost the city $200 million in property damages.[10] The Mayor of the city during that time period, Fiorello La Guardia, attempted to improve the conditions for blacks by gaining them jobs in hospitals and other government-related jobs following the riot but could take away all the burdens that the black community still faced in Harlem.[11]

Although the Harlem Riot of 1935 can be viewed as a misinterpretation by a group of people who were assuming that the police had killed Lino Rivera when they had not, their assumptions and actions can be understood by the circumstances prior to the riot. Years of racial discrimination, poverty, and influences by others in the black community culminated in this chaotic event that rocked New York City in the early twentieth century. With the outcome being no resolution for the black community, one thing was clear: that the problems between the black and white communities were far from over.


About the author: Anthony Ruggiero currently a High School History Teacher in New York City, New York. In addition to teaching, I have been published in several magazines and blogs. For example, I have been published previously in History Is Now magazine, Historic-U.K.magazine, Tudor Life magazine, Discover Britain magazine, The Odd Historian magazine, the Culture-Exchange blog, Inside History magazine and The Freelance History Writer blog. Through continuing to research and write, I am able to share my findings with my students in order to engage them in their learning and help them succeed. My work can also be viewed on my Twitter handle: @Anthony10290122

            
 Bibliography


[1] Winston McDowell, “Race and Ethnicity During the Harlem Jobs Campaign, 1932-1935,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol.69, No.3/4 (Summer-Autumn, 1984), pg.135.
[2] Ibid, 136. 
[3] Winston McDowell, “Race and Ethnicity During the Harlem Jobs Campaign, 1932-1935,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol.69, No.3/4 (Summer-Autumn, 1984), pg.137
[4] Ibid, 136.
[5] Ibid, 137.
[6] Ibid, 137.
[7] Ibid, 138.
[8] Ibid, 138.
[9] Wang, Tabitha. "Harlem Race Riot (1935) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed." Harlem Race Riot (1935) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <http://www.blackpast.org/aah/harlem-riot-1935>.
[10] Wang, Tabitha. "Harlem Race Riot (1935) | 
[11] The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Harlem Race Riot of 1935 (United States History)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1987838/Harlem-race-riot-of-1935>.