catholics and 19th century new york city politics. >> well, good morning, everyone. today's lecture is called

good morning everyone. today's lecture is called's -- were going to be looking at catholics in american politics, especially urban politics in the late 19th century. to put this in the context of what we've been looking at the past couple of weeks, and what we've been looking at is the struggle for american catholics to kind of find their place in america culture. despite persistent and clear expressions of loyalty and patriotism, despite the real human sacrifice of life in the civil war. considerable work, catholics remain viewed by most americans with suspicion and fear. people to be feared. a variety of reasons for this. they were members of what was perceived as a foreign charge, based in rome. they were, as we've seen,

participants in a separate school system. and even just by the virtue of their status as members of the working class at a time when the working classes are coming to be seen as the dangerous classes. catholics appear to many non-catholic americans as a people apart, a people dangerously apart. catholic efforts to participate in mainstream american institutions always seem to make things worse. this is perhaps most clear and the area that will look at today. politics. from before the foundation of the united states, many protestant americans believe that the hierarchical authority, structures at the catholic church instilled submission and civility and catholics. you'll recall that reading from john adams, the futile law where he described the catholic church as the root of all evil in history. certainly the readable tyranny in human history.

adams was not an outlier on this front. there was a common component of anglo american political culture. it was the submission to authority that rendered catholics, bad citizens, in the new republic. bad citizens unfit to participate in american republicans, as -- political institutions. a much to the core of the protestants, however, catholics, and especially the most hated catholics of all, irish catholics, turned out to be enthusiastic participants and the american political order. whatever the relation to authority was in the church, catholics and braced american political institutions in america. still, this did not prove that catholics -- and anything, they responded by arguing that this participation itself was undermining the american political system.

catholics did not understand the true nature of politics. what is the true nature of politics? i think that's something we're still debating today. it is clear in the late 19th century, the -- protestants in catholics had different understandings of politics. these different understandings, i, thank our best understood not as different political theories, but as different political cultures. the contrast between the two cultures, i think, was best expressed in the work of the mid 20th century american historian, where stirred hostin. i outlines this. he is a pulitzer prize-winning book, the age of reform, written 19 -- it's about the period in the late 19th century, the early

20th century after the new deal. hostetter introduces this period with this very illuminating contrast between two different political cultures. according to hostetter, one of those culture's is founded upon indigenous, that means anglo, indigenous middle class yankee protestants. political traditions. the c.a.d. protestant tradition assumed and demanded the constant disinterest an activity of the citizen and -- disinterested is the key here. politics is not supposed to be about disinterested activities. this tradition argued that political live launched a run in accordance with general principles of abstract law. apart from personal needs. we don't get into politics for our personal needs. in addition, this political culture paired with the

assumption that government should be in a part to moralize the lives of individuals. i've seen a bit of this already with the moral reform traditions that started and 1830s. these are directly political in terms of being part of political parties. things like the temperance movement. the best example of that. temperance applied to politics, that means politics should be used to raise the moral level of citizens. that's one political culture. according to hostetter, there is another political culture founded upon the european backgrounds of immigrants. so we've got native, yankee, protestant, versus immigrants. these immigrant cultures war generally unfamiliar with independent political action. these people did not come from republics that were voting citizens. most of these immigrants were, however, very familiar with hierarchy and authority.

anti-immigrant coming from a traditional peasant culture, these cultures are structured by authority. immigrants come to america, they are not in search of political theory. they are desperately in need of basic material sustenance. they took for granted the political life with throw out of those needs, that politics was very much a bout interests. the interest, for them, or largely interest and survival. basic material survival. they understood politics, not as disinterested and personal activity, politics mainly in terms of personal obligations, strong personal loyalties. rather than allegiance to abstract laws or morals. so this is personal politics in the 19th century. personal connection. personal loyalty. these two ideal types, if you will, these political cultures, they can be somewhat abstract.

i want to begin just by giving you a very specific example of this contrasts. a real life example. this example comes from a book by the historian jack bt. the book is called, the rascal can. it's a biography of janes michael currently. and irish catholic, boston politician who let's say is a representative of that second culture. this is what bt has to say, almost as if he were just directly following hostetter. beaty writes, an archetypal boston story illustrates the resulting clash of political cultures. a beacon hill lady, beacon hill is kind of an elite -- embossed. and think of that is standing for the first culture. the yankee, protestant culture. a beacon hill lady, once would ring doorbells and i were south boston on behalf of high mandate candidate for the stool committee.

at one house, an irish housewife listened politely to the ladies pitch for her candidate. then asked, doesn't he have a sister who works for the schools? or something to do a school system? beacon hill lady was shocked at what she took to be the suggestion of patronage. i assure you, she said, he is not the kind of man who would ever use his position to advance the interests of his sister. to which the south boston housewife responded, well, if he hasn't been -- what should i vote for him? and so that captures that contrast more than anything else. politics is about helping each other out. in material ways. the south boston irish woman is not about making 1 million dollars, it's about getting the job for isis to relative, something like that. economic interest, sure, but very basic at the level of survival. not enrichment. no hostetter, writing a 1955,

wrote, he described this contrast as one of anglo versus ethnic, native versus immigrant. that certainly true, but it's fairly broad. ethnic and two -- is using those terms to occluded wide variety of groups. they certainly not all -- many -- protestant, so maybe orthodox with greeks. in terms of how this conflict played out in mainstream american culture, it was centrally a battle between protestants and catholics. certainly at the time understood in those terms. this religious -- aspect of the conflict is most clear in that first political cartoon i sent you. they called it tammany preece. a political cartoon by thomas nast, who's one of, who's very

appropriately named thomas nast. some of his concerns are very nasty. particularly for catholics and the irish. in this cartoon, nast makes very clear that the religious dimension of these conflict. you have, on the left hand of the cartoon, you have this ape like irishman. that certainly covers the ethnic and class elements of this political divide. on the rights, you have a priest. in the middle, you have a goose with the label on it, the democratic party. you -- the priest, you can assume, also is carving up the democratic party and the spoils if you will of local politics i. do you want to stress that figure is like austin might downplay the religious elements of this. i'll stress class and, ethnic

and this is a class in american catholic history so i want to stress that it is impossible to do these conflicts apart from religion. now this religious divide in america in the 19th century is as sharp or sharper than any kind of class are ethnic or racial divide. you have this image from thomas nast who is definitely speaking for the first co-chair, when the yankees culture. and unholy alliance in urban america. an unholy alliance between irish catholic immigrants, and irish catholic church. this unholy alliance this unholy alliance is associated with the generally. urban democratic party but went by a more specific name of kennedy hall. tammany hall was not the democratic party itself, it was a political club within the

democratic party. there is christendom college here and there is the sac group. and the real power in christendom is -- they are the ones who control everything. that is how tammany hall functioned. and it did give some specificity as well to the northern democratic party. we don't have too much time to look at it in this class, but the democratic party is the oldest party in america. it was in an extremely divided region. the southern democratic party, they were slaveholding, not a lot of common -- after the civil war, they were not slaveholding anymore, but it is still distinctly southern and very, very distinct from the northern democratic party. the southern democratic party is very anglo native. but the northern democratic

party is heavily immigrant, and so tends to be referred to more by this term, tammany hall,. a political club within the democratic party. this political club in new york controlled new york city politics for much of the late 19th century and into about the middle of the 20th century. and the image that you have here, which is very much an image of tammany hall, certainly suggests evil and corruption. again, from the perspective of that first political culture, that is what tammany is. evil and corruption. the reading that you have for today, however, gives a different, more positive view from within the culture itself.

so we will go over some of the most relevant history of tammany hall in the middle of the 20th century. and then after that we will look at some selections of tammany hall to give you what you could say is the response from within that second political culture. the first political culture, looking from the outside. this is all corruption. this is destroying american politics and american virtue. from within a culture, no, it's not destroying american politics or virtue. it's just a different kind of virtue. a virtue very much rooted in community. again, writing from that first political culture. anti catholic and anti irish, but all that being said, the charges of corruption, that tammany is corrupt, these were not unfounded. in fact, thomas nast first made a national name for himself by covering the exposure of such

corruption in tammany hall politics through a scandal known as the tweet ring. your next image that i sent to you have this image of tweed alone. this is the harpers weekly journal of civilization. on the cover, there is this fat guy. that is william mott her tweed, the tweet of tweed ring. a figure that is still to this day, is the kind of symbol of corrupt urban politics. william mott her tweet was popularly known as boss tweed. he was the boss of politics in new york. he was the one who called the shots, due to his position in tammany hall. interesting lee here, even though some might associate with tweeting us with some irish clothing, tweet was not

himself an irishman. he was neither irish nor catholic. he was actually an immigrant, he was the son of immigrants. but immigrants from a scotch presbyterian background. think of this, in irish history, you all know. but back in ireland, there was no -- in northern ireland it would be scotch irish presbyterian's. they were sworn enemies of the old world and it's not like those old battle lines completely disappeared in the new world. about the time of the tweet scandal, 1870, 1871, there were riots in new york city. they were called the orange riots. they weren't about oranges, they were orangemen, or scotch irish precip therrien's who centuries earlier had supported william of orange in his fight

against the catholic king. you all remember this from your core classes. every year in july, the orange man back in ireland would have parades. they would march through catholic areas, celebrating this victory of protestants over catholics. it's not just an old-world thing. it was carried over to the new world, and carried over violently, we're in new york city, in 1870 and 71, the orangemen would march through irish catholic sections of the city, rubbing their face in it, and riots ensued. so that's an example of how old world resentments carried over to the new. but tweet himself's example of the possibilities of american life. he is of that same stop. but many of his followers, now most of his followers and politics were in fact irish catholics. tweed did not carry those old resentments over. tweed realized that he was in a

cosmopolitan city, many different ethnic groups. all of whom could vote, and you don't get votes by alienating people or dragging up old battles. so tweed, though by native anglo perspective was a little more american, as opposed to irish and catholic nonetheless, he opened up to the catholic community. especially the irish catholic community. we say this in his inner circle, his tweet ring that was associated with this corruption. the next image i have sent out to you is that of the tweed ring. you see a ring of people, all accusing the other person of corruption. but there are four figures that are highlighted in this image. you can see the carry over from the harper's cover, the fat guy on the left, that is tweed himself. then on the right, the dewey b

guide there is opiate hall, for elegant hockey. he was the mayor of new york, but a mayor who was handpicked by the real power, boss tweed in tammany hall. okay was an native anglo stop, and it was important to have somebody like that out in front. even if they're only a figurehead, it would help to soften the blow. they were trying to give critics the illusion that anglo americans were still in power. so that public figure, the public face of the democratic party. at least at the level of mayor, around the time of tweed, that was okay hall. so you've got tweed, scotch presbyterian. okay hall, anglo american.

but the other two figures, the ones that are right in the center, our irish catholics. richard slippery dick connally. who served as comptroller in the city government. and peter sweeney, who served as commissioner. neither of these positions suggest great political power. but no, not at this time. he is more minor, an unelected bureaucratic position like comptroller. these were much more important because these were positions that dealt with finances and jobs. so half of the tweed rain is irish catholic. but more importantly, tammany's rank and file was overwhelmingly irish and catholic. and tweed it was seen as their champion. tweet was seen by the irish

catholics themselves as their champion. so these are the possibilities of the new world, putting aside old resentments. saying oh, we're not going to support a scotch presbyterian. they supported him because he supported them. there was truly corruption at the heart of this relationship. in 1871, the new york times charged tweed with having looted the new york city treasury to the tune of $45 million. that may be chump change these days, but at the time, it amounted to us some greater than the entire annual federal budget. so this was a lot of money.

at the time of the indictment, tweed served as the commissioner of public works. again it seems like a minor bureaucratic job, position, nothing that carries great power. but as i've said before, his true political power lay in his position as head of tammany hall. as head of tammany hall, he controlled the selection of candidates that the democratic party had. and he was in charge of making sure that those candidates -- oh yeah, jackie? >> he was accused of stealing? >> yes, yes. the tweed ring shared in it. but he was the focus of the accusation. because people like -- realized that he was the power behind the throne. so if you are going to focus on

somebody to indict, it was going to be tweed. and again, as we will see, the indictment was fair enough because indeed, he was behind all of this. but aside from enriching himself, his job as head of tammany hall was to pick the slate of candidates and make sure that they won by any means necessary. including voter fraud that is repeater's or ballot box stuffing, or creative arithmetic in the counting. or a simple physical intimidation which is something all through the late 19th century early been politics. you go to the voting pool, and there would be these monster guys with two by fours, or something. and representing their candidate, this is before secret ballots. so you go in there, and people can see how you are voting. and if you are familiar with

more specifically chicago, the late 19th century. but election day in an american city in the late 18 century was almost a riot day sometimes. have brawls atif the election was particularly contested, there were sharp divisions, you could have brawls at the book voting booth. but think back, earlier in the semester, when we looked at the trusty election in philadelphia. there were these catholics voting on who is going to be trustees in the church, and they had the orange riots. the 19th century city is a very, very violent city. and the things that we have seen in recent years, in these past years, are nothing compared to what was a fairly regular occurrence in the 19th century. and often associated with voting. so these tactics, as well as

tammy's irish catholic constituency, raised suspicions about tweed long before the charges of graft and investment embezzlement were leveled against him in 1871. so tweeds critics and the critics of this political culture had their suspicions all along. suspicions rooted in the fact that this political culture was catholic and was catholic and was immigrant. all that being said, the charges were in fact true. tweet had spent several decades working his way up to the tammany ladder. by the late 18 60s, he was able to engineer and restructure new york city politics to consolidate all the real power in the hands of those four people. people that were largely on

elected. how do they have all the power without being elected? they have the power because they control the finances of the city. and for two straight years, the city of new york at tweeds direction borrowed money, sometimes directly from banks, sometimes through bond, creating bond programs for people to buy bonds as an investment. and even attracting foreign investors into new york city. tweet it was not too particular about where the money came from or how it arrived. he was very interested in bringing money into the coffers of new york city. of course, he is not doing this publicly, simply to enrich himself.

why are people giving all this money to the treasury of new york city? to pay for building projects. this is a city that is growing, like every city in the 19th century. new york, more than any other. so the city is growing, it's roads, it's buildings, it means a lot of stuff. that is true. but how this stuff was built was how tweed enriched himself. he was dealing with other people's money, borrowed funds. does he simply stick it in his pocket? that would be a little too easy. his typical method was simply to pad building contracts. so say a building cost $10,000 to build.

they would soak say okay, give me a bill for $20,000. you'll get your $10, 000, that's what you can expect. when this arrangement -- he could divide the extra funds between the big four and -- however he there was one person he did not keep happy but. there is always an informer, just like the -- movie. a political enemy within the democratic party. they eventually got hold of the accounts and turned it over to the new york times. so that is how the tweet agreement was brought down.

they were shocked by the scale of the graft. the scale, but not the nature of the graft. why would they support such a corrupt, immoral politician? because they knew that however much tweed may have enriched himself, he, to some degree, shared the wealth. sometimes directly through patronage that is getting a job in the city government. or even giving a job to a cousin, or a friend, you know but somebody who got a job. tweed is a good guy, maybe he can help you.

there is that direct patronage. sometimes there was in direct financial benefit through a job on these booking projects, were funded by borrowers. he was lining his pockets with these building projects. but a working class new yorker is maybe getting a job on one of these building projects. so for them, it is a job. one way or another, i have tweeted to think for this. so tweed is okay with me, i don't care if he's getting his millions, i'm getting something, i'm feeding my family. this is survival. you can think of it as a situation similar to the molly maguire film. if you see any pictures of new york city ali union century, it is almost as bad as a coal mine. the struggle for survival is very similar, and what are your options if you are in the --

they care nothing about you at all under going to let you starve and discard you. we do not live in an ideal world, and we are happy to support somebody likes tweed. perhaps most dramatically in terms of tweeds support, for the working class of new york city, they bought the everlasting loyalty of many irish conflicts during this war. in 1863, the war was going badly and people in the north were no longer signing up. they were no longer enlisting, they were no longer volunteering, and so lincoln

done what had never been done before, he instituted a federal draft. people had to serve in the army. subs titute, then you didyou had to u could find a way out. if you could pay for a substitute, then you didn't have to fight. now, in terms of people wanting to fight or not, there are a couple of considerations. as we talked about before, irish catholics were very, very patriotic. but most of the democrats were enslaved. when the war was going badly, some of enthusiasm was waning and i had to choose between patriotism for their country, and just simply staying at home and supporting their country. many of them wanted to stay at home and support their families, and didn't want to risk going off to war and dying. you could buy your way out, if you got a substitute to fight for you.

the cost of a substitute was $300. it was well beyond the means of any working class new yorker. the response to the draft was, dare i say, some of the worst riots in history. through the 18 60s and 18 90s, there were protests against the draft for different reasons and from different people. ultimately, this is the 1960s. the 18 60s were far more violent in terms of the draft in new york city. draft riots in which irish catholics played a prominent role. tweet it comes to the rescue. he pays the bounty for many of these irish catholics. $300. so this isn't just tweet lining his pockets, he is certainly using city funds, but he says, okay, you don't want to go fight for war? because you've got a family to support, i will put your bounty.

for those who still want to go to war, if you're a single guy, and you don't have a family to support, war maybe your best option. because there was a 300 dollar signing bonus if you enlisted. to keep lincoln happy, because lincoln wants to do the draft because he needed bodies. to keep lincoln happy, tweeted agreed to pay the signing bonus for workers who are willing to go to war. especially if they were married men were concerned about our families. so, again, he pays the bounty for some workers. and he pays the signing bonus for other workers who are willing to go to war. either way, he is sharing the wealth, shall we say. he becomes a hero for irish catholics. because of this. this bond of loyalty forged

most dramatically during the civil war only deepened through the 1816. while serving in the state assembly he jumped around all the time. the political position that he had in any given time is not as important as his position -- before the 18 60s, he served in the state assembly. he arranged for state funds to be used to support the catholic charities. think back to the controversy we looked at earlier. protestant subjected to this. they didn't like state funds going to catholic charities. but they were willing to accept

it because catholic charities were sometimes the only charities around, especially the women, the nuns and sisters who worked -- they were the ones caring for the poorer when nobody else would do it. and even the protestants who were always suspicious of the poorer realized that this work had to be done, if only to maintain some semblance of social order, and so they kind of held their nose and were willing to allow state funds to be used to fund catholic charities that one could argue served the common good. charity such as orphanages and hospitals. schools were different. schools were the real hot button issue. and the laws were set that it was illegal to have any money go to catholic schools. so what is the line between friends? he had to be a little sneaky or about this but he still managed

to channel some funds to catholic schools. it was mainly the catholic charities that he supported with state money. when tweed was confronted with this and accused of favoring catholics, he would say, look, i send money to protestant charities as well. if catholic charities receive more, it's because they support me more. getit's as basic as that. you get what you pay for. i will take promised and votes, i don't mind. and if i get promised in votes, then i will return the favor by channeling some charity funds into protestants. the catholic charities, particularly those run by nuns were the most important charities in new york in the 19th century. they got money from tweet, to. so even if you are not directly using the orphanage, tweed, a scotch presbyterian, seems like

a friend of irish catholics. he's a friend of the church. he's a friend of the good sisters who are running the orphanages and the hospitals. this is a great for tweet. he's enriching himself. spreading it around, and through that, he is earning loyalty. this isn't just money, it's not just bribing somebody to vote for you. he's building up a real personal connection to voters. it was also about money, and a lot of it. tweed, we can say, overreached. to the tune of $45 million or so. tweeted was indicted, he spent most of the rest of the 18 70s in and out of jail. sometimes he was convicted of some things, and one time he

tried to escape to spain or something like that. but he was caught and brought back. he died in april of 1878, died a broken man. now, again, irish catholics had a high tolerance for graft. but this just seem to be going too far. it's not that he didn't spread the wealth around, but he kept a disproportionate amount for himself. irish catholics, though disappointed and embarrassed by tweed, because it seemed to confirm all of the worst criticisms and accusations made by protestants, still, they remain loyal to tammany hall. just to give you an example of their thinking, this is from

numeral three letter c. a writer for the catholic newspaper, the irish american, stated soon after the fall of tweed, one no more goes outside the party than one goes outside the church. to give you a sense of that connection. this wasn't just a political party in the situation. it was for them, almost as sacred as the church because it was just as central to their survival. and again, loyalty is everything. so they could not turn their backs on tammany simply because of corruption. they want to reform it from within. and that they would do, to some degree. in rome enumerate three, tammany, certainly scaling back the extremes of tweed.

being a little more moderate, -- >> did this corruption scandal have an impact on the national democratic party? or was it limited to new york city? >> good question. it certainly had national implications. it was a national magazine, and they were spread across the country. they did have a tremendous effect in terms of -- at the same time, there is political corruption across the board in the late 18 60s. this is the national republican party, it is one of moral uprightness. remember when we looked at earlier, the attack on catholic schools and republican

political -- still, grants administration was one of the most corrupt ever. the most corrupt up to that point. there was a lot of graft at the national level. it's interesting that despite the graft administration, the republican party still emerged as a party of good government. they spoke that rhetoric. they spoke the language of good government, where the tammany people and the democrats never spoke that way. even the southern democrats were not quite so -- there was corruption in the grant administration and other scandals. there was a movement at the national level for what they call civil service reform. i don't get too much into it here but it's a good question you asked. so to clarify the national

level, this is playing out of the national level as well. i have to get my reliable marker. reform civil service reform. pendleton act. that was around the 18 80s. but here is the situation. to cut down on graft, just giving jobs to your friends, we don't need cronies and government, we need people to actually do the job. we need a civil service, that is, you are going to get a job in government not because you know somebody, but because you are qualified. so there will be a civil

service test we will take. this is something that will be played out of the national level, the civil service reform act that mandated that a greater percentage of federal government jobs would be acquired only through passing the exam. this is in terms of the plunked readings. this is a big issue with blanket, as well. i chose not to focus on it for reasons we will see here. but this is being played at the local level. the civil service reform is something that connects national government politics and local politics. the whole tweet scandal, and the general operation convinced many reformers from the first political culture that the way to have good government was to have ideally, every position in government.

they have passed a civil service test. i will digress a bit here because this goes back to one of those early figures i looked at. the oftentimes mayor and one time governor in boston in massachusetts. he won his first elected position, he won it when he was in jail. he was in jail because it took he and this other friend of his, they took civil service exams for a poor irish catholic who needed a city job, but couldn't pass the civil service exams. and think of a civil service exam as an s.a.t. test. it's really whatever skills it might assess or judge, it is primarily a way of weeding people out.

dare i say, the college degree, right? you go to apply for a job you must of a four year degree. really, for this degree? do i need a four-year degree? you probably don't need a four-year degree to do many jobs, but it's required. it's a way of leading people out. that was the purpose of the civil service at the local level. he was breaking the law, he was taking a test and miss representing himself. his campaign slogan was, he did it for a friend. and he got elected. you are doing it for a friend, okay, i want a friend like that. somebody help me out. again, the local and national and political conversation is interesting how, even to this day, when we talk about corruption, it's always localize.

it's always a local politicians. that is the corrupt one. even contemporary politics, if at the federal level it is attacked it's not so much for corruption but for big spending. it's not that bureaucrats are corrupt, it's that their bureaucrats. but corruption continues to be linked to local politics. and still with irish catholics, the irish catholic dominance of the city's long past, but that's the image that endures of a tammany style politician. the term tammany, long after the demise of tammany hall, is still part of a political discourse in america. tammy knew this, and they knew they could not simply go on conducting business as usual. and so they began a kind of

reform effort of their own. the fall of boss tweed was actually a key transition point, not only in trying to spruce up its image of it to be more respectable, but with a shift from non-irish catholic leadership irish catholic leadership. one on the outline here is honest john kelly, who rose to power as the first irish catholic boss in new york in the 1870s. kelly was a longtime tammy operative, he knew how tammany worked. he had been in the worst of the tweed scandals, so hit a relatively clean record. the emergence of this only heightened -- it's bad enough when a scratch

presbyterian like tweed was reading the irish catholic rabble. now the irish catholics are in the leadership positions themselves. and there is some truth even to that nasty political cartoon that we began with, the link between irish catholics and local politics. it is true. it is true, and best expressed by anecdote often linked to john kelly. in 1879, at the dedication of st. patrick's cathedral in new york, kelly rose up to speak. he was married to the niece of new york's cardinal archbishop, john mccloskey. there is a connection, there is a family connection. there is definitely a connection there. according to the story, he raised his glass at this dinner. he raised his glass and said

god bless the two greatest organizations in the world, catholic church and tammany hall. the person next to him says, well, the second one? because they are one. and again, certainly most irish catholics had no problem with that. the irish supported tammany because tammany supported them. tammy was often the difference between life and death for the poorer of new york. what are you your options when you look at power? who do you turn to for help? do you turn it to tammany hall, however much these people may enrich themselves, it does seem to care about you in some way. it brings you coal in winter when you have no heat. it brings you a tricky thanksgiving when you have no food no.

they were all above board and it everything according to the law, they presented themselves as being respectable law a buying, even if they didn't care about their workers. there is no choice here for the poor in new york at the time and again, the tammany had that personal connection to the church. a connection to neighborhoods, ultimately, a connection to community. though they are certainly dispersing benefits, this is about material benefits. it's not just like, here is a check, and go buy something for yourself. it is about a community, and i think even though the reading that we have for today, this text, this is the book that

this comes from. most historians that deal with this will often focus on a civil service issue because he is all these things to say about civil service, how it's ruining politics. because it was certainly undermining tammany style politics. but i want to focus on another aspect of the book, the ways in which plunk it -- again, it's not simply distributing material benefits. go to tammy, and get your check, and go home. it's about community building relationships. but building relationships by providing material. blanket, george washington plunk it is the last image for today, this is plunk it at the new york county courthouse boot black stand, where they are

sharing the political wisdom to new york. this is the kind of place where a tammany politician to be right at the heart of things. plunk it, like tweed, held a variety of positions. again, the particular position didn't matter so much as his access to patronage jobs. this is how he builds loyalty from voters and this is also how he enriched himself. and again, think of the tweed scandal and the problem of excessive enrichment. it was written 30 years or so after, in 1935. things have changed some what, some distinctions have been introduced. but there is no pretense here. there is no -- oh, we are honest politicians,

were above board. no, he is very up about the fact that he does in fact enrich himself through politics. but he makes lucky -- i don't know how to say it. it's not a risk to tell you, but key distinction. a key distinction between honest graft and dishonest craft. and just to read you this passage here, everybody is talking these days betmgm and growing rich on graft. but nobody thinks to draw the distinction and honest graft and dishonest draft. yes many of our men have grown rich in politics. i made a big fortune out of the game and i'm getting richer every day. but i'm not going into a dishonest graft. and neither are any of the men who have made fortunes in politics. an honest graft than, i might

sum up the whole thing by saying, i see my opportunities and i took them. just let me explain by example. i undertake a lot of public improvements. they are going to lay out a new park. i see my opportunity and i take it. i go to that place, and i buy up all the land i can in the neighborhood. then they make the planned public, and there's a rush to get my land, which nobody cared about before. i did it perfectly honestly to make a profit on my investment. that is honest graft. so again, let's say a unique, particular kind of moral distinction. but it was there nonetheless. this didn't assure informers everything was above board. a justification -- [inaudible] do you make a more important

distinction, and honest, dishonest graft is meant to be comical. they are done in a very light way. we will see, he takes on political theory a little later. he goes on to make a distinction that is, for all the lightness in terms very important. he does it in a very good chapter where he is responding to one of these exposés that was written at the time. a book, the shame of the city, exposing all this corruption. it is exposing the graft that he is, in some ways, admitting to. it is written by -- go to the passage. he means well, but like all reformers he doesn't know how to make distinctions. he can't see no difference between honest graft and dishonest craft. inconsequent, he gets things all mixed up. there is the biggest kind of difference between political looters and politicians who make a fortune out of politics by keeping their eyes wide open. the lunar goes in for himself

alone, without considering his organization or his city. the politician looks after his interest, the organization's interests and the cities interest on the same time. see the distinction? for instance, i ain't no looter. the looter hogsett, i ate no hog. i made it in politics but at the same time serve the organization and made more for new york city than any other living man. any monkey with the penal code. this is like rationalization, justification. sure. but again, for his constituents, if they're getting jobs on these improvements, these building projects, that's fine. it doesn't have to be equal. if anything, the fancy clothes he might wear might be something to aspire to. but the big key is this distinction between a politician and a looter. a looter keeps it all for themselves. you could say, looking back,

tweed, given the enormous disparity between what he took in and gave, tweed would be judged a looter. keeping too much for himself, and that's the sin, the immorality. keeping too much for yourself. but spread it around, take a little bit more for yourself. you're the, leader you deserve to get a little more. but as long as you're spreading it around, let's say, fairly if not exactly equally. then you are fine. again, think of what the alternatives are. the coal owners in eastern pennsylvania. the slaughterhouse owners that we will be looking at later this semester after a break, slaughterhouse owners on the back of the yard neighborhood in chicago. it's not that tammany has no moral code, they just happen to have a different one. and the difference between right and wrong here is primarily in how you treat others. it's not strict at hearings to the rules. because, for tammany people,

politics is not about rules, it's not about ideas, it's about people. it is kind of interesting, i assume most of the people in this class our history majors. you were never led a stray by, say, political science [laughs] political science. plante get himself has some things to say about political science and book learning and all that. now, that's not to say that plunkett does not had this political theory. like aristotle in the ancient world and the founding fathers, plunkett believes that politics is rooted in human nature. it's a reflection of human nature. plunkett just happens to have a

different conception of human nature that maybe aristotle or the founding fathers. this is in chapter six. chapter six, to hold your district. it's like, told your district, get reelected. to hold your district, study human nature and act according. there's only one way to hold a district, you must study human nature and act according. you can't study human nature in books, sorry, people. books is a hindrance more than anything else. if you've been to college, so much the worse for you. you have to learn all you learned before you can get right down to human nature. and on learning takes a lot of time. some men can never forget what they learned in college, some men may get to be district leaders by a fluke but they never last. to learn real human nature, you have to go out among the people, see them and be seen. i know every, man woman and child in the 15th district, except some of those who have been born this summer, and i know some of them too. i know what they, like don't, like what they're strong, at week in. and i approach them by approaching at the right side. for, instance here is how i gathered in the young men. i hear every young feller that's proud of his voice,

thinks he can say find. i ask him to come to washington hall enjoying our glee club. he comes and sings and he's a follower of plunkett for life. now, the young fella gains a reputation as a baseball player in a vacant lot. i bring him into our baseball club, that fixes him. you'll find him working for my ticket at the polls next election day. then, there is the fellow who likes rowing on the river. the young fellow who makes his name as a waltz are on the block. the young fellow who's handy with his dukes. i wrote them all in by giving them opportunities to show themselves off. i don't trouble them with political arguments, i just study human nature and act accordingly. so, again, he is building up loyalty. not simply through politics directly, not discussing the great political theories or ideas or what needs to be done to improve the city or anything like that. by giving people something to do, giving them a social life, encouraging the things that they like to do that they then come to associate with their political party. a lot of this is interesting, just as a quick aside here. a lot of these activities that

were done through political parties or through a fraternal organizations, often ethnic fraternal organizations, gradually get absorbed by the schools. the school becomes everything. in the spirit of the civil service. we have to get people playing baseball for tammany hall? no, plate for the high school. you want to sing? don't sing for tammany hall, seeing for your high school. activities, sports, music, the arts, entertainment if you will, that people developed in this political context. the context of these political clubs. gradually, the school absorbs everything. plunkett could see that happen, thus his bias against schools and book learning. so, again, he sees human nature and acts according. he gives people something to

do. builds up a community live through things that are not directly related to politics. singing, playing sports. but that have political benefits for him. he gives them something to do, encourages their activities, they pay him back by voting for him. again, this is kind of a multiplier effect. it just takes doing this for a few people and then people may not directly benefit but they say, who should i vote for this november? they say, tammany it's great, they help me saying, they help me play baseball. in terms of human nature, aside from singing and playing sports, tammany also recognized more basic aspects of human nature. the need for food, clothing and shelter. this is continued at a later section in chapter six, how to hold your district, study nature and act according. he talked about this direct aid, fighting for the material needs of people. plunkett writes, holding a grip

on her district you go to the poor people and help them in the ways they need help. i've a system for this, if there is a fire on ninth, tenth or 11th avenue, for example, any day of night, i'm usually there with some of my fire district captains as soon as the fire engines. the families burned out, i don't ask whether they're republicans or democrats and i don't refer them to the charity organization, which would investigate their case in a month or two and decide they were worthy of help about the time they are dead from starvation. i just get quarters for them, buy clothes for them if their clothes were burned up, and fix them up until they get things running again. it's philanthropy but it's politics too, mighty good politics. who can tell how many votes one of these fires bring me? >> is he setting the fires himself? part of the most grateful people in the world, let me tell, you they have more friends in their neighborhoods

in the rich have been theirs. there's a family in my district and want, i know it before the charitable societies do. and me and my manner first on the ground. i have a special core to look at such cases. the consequence is that they look up to george w. plunkett as a father, come to him in time of trouble. excuse, me i mangled this. the consequences the port looked up to george w. plunkett as a father, come to him in trouble and don't forget him on election day. so, again, these are kind of an exchange here. you need something, i need something. i just want to comment a bit on one part of this passage, where he talks about the charity organization society. again, this is a big distinction, at least at the time, between the products and charity organizations which he is referring to and the catholic ones. among the protestant, there is much more of a sense of conspicuous in of the poor. if you're poor, why are you pour, why do you need food? haven't you've been saving your money? are you irresponsible? are you a drunk?

we need to determine if you are truly needy, or just a lazy good for nothing. this edited was triggered some catholic charity as well. but in general, the catholic notion from the bible that the poor will always -- well, it's not your fault, look at the city, the city is full of poor people. you're gonna say it's your fault because your poor? with organizations, charity organizations, there's generally far fewer questions asked. but the protestants are notorious for this moral scrutiny of the poor, making sure they were lazy good for, nothing's looking for a handout. these attitudes are still with us today. i've spoken about tammany mainly in terms of irish catholics, certainly in the public profile of tammany and the leadership at this time, they were the dominant group. but new york was changing. certainly, by the late 19th century, there's a new wave of immigrants. earlier in the semester we looked at the german in the

irish coming in the middle of the 20th century. in late 20th century a new wave of immigrants, allegedly from eastern and southern europe. in new york city it's largely italians and jews. you might think, with the italians, there will be a natural religious connection between the irish, with the irish. but that really didn't play, in some ways. in terms of tammany politics, the alliance was more with the jews then with italians. as we've seen earlier in the semester, that's not like a common faith was able to overcome ethnic divisions within the church. in some ways, it increased the rivalries to some degree. but the demographics of new york are changing, new immigrants are coming in. what is tammany to do with them?

historians have often made a contrast between east coast urban politics and the midwest. saying that the irish on the east coast where a bit more tribal, less willing to bring in other ethnic groups. where in the midwest, like chicago could be the best example, they were much more big tent in terms of ethnic groups. there certainly some truth of that, but in plunkett its own account, tammany sees the new immigrants, particularly the jewish immigrants, and religion is not a divider for them. every person represents a vote. before you says i don't care if you're a republican or democrat, i can help, you get your vote. when it comes to the new immigrant groups, i don't care what your ethnic group is, everyone in new york city is a potential voter and i'm going to do what i can to get your vote. he says here, toward the end, the last section, selection, that i gave you. he's talking about johnny oh her in of the third and fourth districts, one of these ward healers who are out on the streets.

making contact with the people, determining what they need. providing them with what they need. he writes about this. johnny hern of the third and fourth districts, just the men of such places. he's talking about, there's different mendacity, different ethnic groups. he's perfect for the 34th district. hearns district constituents are about half irishman and half jews. he's as popular with one race as the other. he eats corn beef and kosher meat with equal nonchalance, and it's equal to him whether he takes his hat off in charge or put it over his ears at a synagogue. when in rome, do as the romans do. his example here of johnny her, and irish name, but he moves freely among irish catholics and jews, jewish immigrants. this irish, jewish alliance, if you will, was very important in new york at this time.

certainly in the entertainment world, broadway was dominated by the irish, who passed the torch to the jews. something we'll look at later in the semester, when tammany produces its first presidential candidate, al smith. smith's team around him is, his election team, it's largely jewish in composition. this irish jewish alliance that plunkett points to hear would continue on at tammany, even to tammany first attempt at winning a national election. on that, any questions? okay. just to finish up here then, especially in that last passage i read you, by plunkett a count, politics he's capable of uniting people across lines of ethnicity and religion. of course, the reality is more

complicated. we've already seen how, within the catholic church, ethnic divisions undermine unity. catholics would say a common faith, nonetheless divided by ethnicity. because ethnicity, in some case, like with germans a different language, but in all cases certainly a different culture. and culture mattered, faith was not enough to unite people across different cultures. in the beginning of the next class, and for the next couple of weeks, we're going to keep our attention on the city but turn to a different city. the other great city of the industrial area sarah, chicago. again, a particular neighborhood of the city, the back of the yards, slaughterhouse section of chicago. we're going to look at the ways this largely catholic neighborhood nonetheless home to catholic divisions that remain strong well into the 1930s.

we saw already how a certain kind of church leaders tried to overcome these divisions by making everybody the same. by getting rid of ethnicity, by participating in the public school system and such. that wasn't going to work in chicago, the ethnic ties were very strong. but what we will see coming out of the back of the yards neighborhood in the late 19th century, into the 1930s, it's a new kind of politics. one that was, in many, ways rooted in the kind of practical concerns of tammany. but was able to move beyond them and form something like a principled language of justice. never going into the more elysium of the protestant reformers, but still some broader language of justice. a principled language of justice that was needed in response to the greatest economic challenge facing the city in the 19th and early 20th century. the great depression, a depression that just didn't

seem to, and didn't follow the cycle of previous ones, and called for something more than the type of direct material aid that tammany was able to provide before the depression. okay, so, we will see you all on thursday. if you're enjoying american history tv, sign for a newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive the weekly schedule of upcoming programs like lectures in history, the presidency, and more. sign up for the american history tv newsletter today, and be sure to watch american history tv every saturday, or anytime online at c-span.org slash history. >>