Violence, Corruption, and Cover-up: The Story of the New York City Race Riot of 1900

Another example of the hostility of the trials toward the black community came on September 21, during the fourth session of the investigation. This session featured the case of Spencer Walters, the man accused of starting the riot outside of the Thorpe viewing. In this case, Moss and Ludlow presented a witness, William Williams, who was with Walters on that night, and stated without a doubt that the police had ruthlessly beaten Walters when they broke up the fight with Thomas Healy.⁶⁸ Commissioner York allowed the defense attorneys to extensively cross-examine both Williams and Walters, but again would not allow Moss or Ludlow the same privilege.⁶⁹ Israel Ludlow became angered when York also allowed contradictions in police statements to be admitted to the record, when he blocked similar occurrences from the prosecution and became more enraged when Mayor Van Wyck, upon seeing this injustice, chose to do nothing about it.⁷⁰

Commissioner York’s handling of the investigation severely handicapped the attempts by the Citizen’s Protective League and their supporters to get the justice they so desperately wanted and deserved. In addition to the afore mentioned actions, York, during later hearings, began to charge black witnesses for the League with perjury if their stories conflicted those of the police officers, insisted that officers be tried as individuals for the group attacks, and refused to accept certain charges filed against individuals for negligence of duty, such as Chief Devery, Captain Cooney.⁷¹ None of these hostile actions should have been surprising to either the attorneys or their clients, since they were challenging one of the main limbs of Tammany Hall, which had shown in the past that it was willing to do anything to retain and expand its power and influence within the city. York was also one of the heads of the police department and was therefore not inclined to allow any criticism of his department, his men, or his own competence. The final insult was to have this challenge brought by African Americans, most of whom were recent migrants to the city, which directly brought into question the social order of the city and their position as the lowest part of the social scale.

After two months, the Police Board handed down no punishments for the officers involved and barely recognized the need to clean up the department’s actions, leading Ludlow to declare the whole thing as a farce.⁷² York’s final statement for the hearings declared, “… some innocent people … were injured during the progress of the trouble, but … it is the duty of the police to preserve the peace, and in unusual and extreme conditions … much must be left to the good judgment of the officer ….”⁷³ Moss turned his attention next to a set of criminal charges filed against two individual officers for their actions in the riot. William Johnson and John Haines brought the first of these cases against Officer Herman Ohm, for beating them during the riot without provocation.⁷⁴ The second case accused Officer John L. Cleary of brutally beating ten defendants including William Hopson and George Meyers.⁷⁵ Both of these cases ultimately met the same fate as the Police Board hearings, as Magistrate Henry A. Brann’s findings declared that the actions of the officers were not overly cruel for the situation at hand and that the witnesses for the prosecution were overly hostile toward the officers and were motivated by revenge for the crimes of the mob.⁷⁶ Even though no punishments were doled out to the perpetrators of the violence, the actions of the police and the non-actions of Tammany Hall were not forgotten. Both black and white voters as a result forced the elections of 1901 to center on the issue of corruption and they were able to elect a new mayor who promised a better future for the city.⁷⁷

The 1900 race riot in New York City cannot be blamed on anyone man or the death of any one person. Instead, it evolved from a series of environmental conditions, which left unchecked would have erupted at some point when an incident, like Robert Thorpe’s murder, occurred. For the first of these environmental stressors, historians must look at the immigration history of the city, and its impact upon the events of August 1900. From the earliest days of the United States, citizens of Europe looked upon it with hope for a better life, a chance to start over, and escape the persecution and hardships experienced in their homelands. New York City became a destination for many of these groups of immigrants, and, as more of them arrived, tensions began to grow from the mixing of differing peoples and the competition, which it generated. As pointed out by Kate Holladay Claghorn in “Our Immigrants and Ourselves” written for The Atlantic Monthly in 1900, “Native Americans,” citizens born in the United States, have viewed the newly arriving immigrants almost as a plague and have blamed all the hardships, which these original immigrants face on the new arrivals.⁷⁸ It is into this atmosphere that the Irish began to arrive in the 1830’s and 1840’s. The Irish were viewed as impulsive, unreflective, passionate, and lacking the balance, solidity, morals, and rational judgment of the British settlers already in the United States.⁷⁹ As more of these “natives” were displaced from employment and housing by more Irish immigrants, the hatred toward the Irish increased, until they were relegated to a lower social status than the “natives” were.⁸⁰ In New York City, the Irish arrived with little knowledge of industrial skills and many had no friends or family to rely on.⁸¹ As a result, these immigrants earned little money for their efforts, faced cramped housing in rundown neighborhoods, like the Tenderloin, and had very few people to turn to for help. The British and German settlers from prior generations set themselves at the top of the society and justified this by viewing the Irish as a separated and inferior race filled with criminals and degenerates.⁸²

As time passed, the Irish were able to rise in the social ranks of New York City, despite their treatment at the hands of “natives”, became productive citizens, assimilated into the culture, and learned the popular prejudice against newer immigrants.⁸³ Their new role in the city was soon challenged as waves of new immigrants, mostly Russian Jews and Italians, began to arrive in the city in the 1880’s and seek employment, housing, and a new start, just as the Irish had done in generations past.⁸⁴ Into this wave of foreign immigrants, a surge of African American migrants from the southern United States also arrived looking to escape the restrictions of Jim Crow legislation and a chance at a better life in the North.⁸⁵ These new African American migrants arrived with similar educational levels and family conditions as the Irish who arrived in prior decades. Most were young, residents of the rural areas of the South, and the vast majority lacked the skills to be competitive in an industrial work force.⁸⁶ These conditions were perfect for them to take over jobs traditionally dominated by past Irish immigrants, causing a loss of employment for many. These new arrivals also sought cheaper housing to match their lower income, which put them squarely into working class Irish neighborhoods within the city.

The arrival of a new group of immigrants and migrants forced a new tier into the social strata, and the Irish found themselves in the position of the German and British “natives” before them. The Irish looked down on the new arrivals as competitors and a threat to their livelihood, and their new place within the white race and as a result their place in society. These tensions were played out in the more densely populated and ethnically diverse areas of New York City, including the Tenderloin District, which house a population composed mostly of Irish with newly arriving African Americans, approximately 60,000, filling in the voids along with other European immigrants.⁸⁷ The Irish used intimidation by both the civilian population and the police force to keep these new arrivals in their social place, as well as their ethnically isolated neighborhoods. Many feared the crime rates usually associated with areas of overcrowding and lower income levels, as well as the financial devaluation of property and the threat posed by different cultural and social traditions.

Social and economic tensions laid the groundwork for the riots that erupted in the city in August 1900. By that time, a large portion of the Irish had risen in social and political ranks enough, to control the New York City Police Department through numbers, and to hold sway in the operations of Tammany Hall.⁸⁸ With the kinship and social links of the Irish culture, an attack on one of them was viewed as an attack on all of them, and with their authority as the superiors in the social hierarchy, the backlash against Thorpe’s murder would not be far behind. To illustrate this point further, beyond racial lines, the New York City Police Department carried out several other assaults against Eastern Europeans, Jews, and African Americans in the years following the riot, as a physical manifestation of the resentment that these more established groups felt toward the new competitors.⁸⁹ Many historians place the main cause of the New York City riot on whites hating blacks based solely on racial characteristics. Radicalization of racial ideologies and policies of the South was indeed finding its way into the Northern cities, so that it met migrating African Americans at the city limits and there were always elements of racism among many northerners.⁹⁰ This however overlooks the tensions created by patterns of immigration on the social structure seen within the city, as well as the challenges that these posed to the political system. It is more important to remember that the definition of race in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was not as clear-cut as many would assume. After all the Irish were considered a separate race by the British founders of the nation and not worthy of the label “white”, a fate to be shared by Jews and Italians in later years. As Joel Williamson points out in The Crucible of Race: Black-White Relations in the American South Since Emmancipation, the North was less interested in helping African Americans in the South to regain the social and political ground that they lost, due to Jim Crow Legistlation, because the North was trying to defend its “cultural integrity” from newly arriving immigrants.⁹¹

When taken together with the statements of W.E.B. DuBois in a series of articles for the New York Times, entitled “The Black North”, it can be seen that African Americans themselves fit into this category as a threat to the culture of the North. According to DuBois, there were two groups of African Americans present in the North, one that was born there and were accustomed to its way of life and had enjoyed freedom for generations, and then there was the group of blacks who migrated there from the South.⁹² This second portion of the black population, came north with the concepts of segregation firmly cemented in their minds, and so were unfamiliar with the white world, and as a result of this they were forced to create a world of their own.⁹³ This was likely to be seen as a threat to the established social system of New York City, since the migrants were different and did not assimilate as other immigrant groups, such as the Irish, were forced to do. This group of blacks instead resigned themselves to their destiny at the bottom and went about their lives the best they could, living within their own separate world, but striving for a better life.⁹⁴ This may have created another form of resentment on the part of the Irish, who were forced by former “native” residents to conform to the culture and social rules, since new African American arrivals were forced to live in close quarters with the Irish population, but made few efforts at the same assimilations forced upon the Irish. With this said, it not intended to completely overlook the impact of racism on the events surrounding August 16, 1900, but simply point out that the tensions and prejudices that existed were far more complex than a simple difference in skin color.

A second cause of the riot was simply the corruption of the muncipal government of New York City. The early years of city politics were dominated by Tammany Hall, which was created in 1788 as a social club, that would accept more common members into its ranks as opposed to the city’s other more prestigeious clubs.⁹⁵ By the mid 1800’s the club had expanded its political influence in the city, mostly by aiding new immigrants to find work and housing, which endeared them to the organization and increased its power in the polls.⁹⁶ Tammany Hall, once in control of the city government, made all efforts possible to stay there and create a city of their desires by building an army of faithful followers, ostricizing organizations that opposed them, and tampering with election results to ensure that their legacy would continue.⁹⁷ The Irish madeup a large portion of their following by 1900, with members of the Irish community serving as precinct captains and police officers to help supporters find work, get out of problems with the law, and ensure their continued support.⁹⁸

It is not hard to see that this type of political power made many of them think that they were above the law, since frankly, they were the law. As Reverand P. Butler Tompkins of St. James’ Presbyterian Church stated on August 19, 1900, Tammany Hall was the root of all evil in the city and the New York City Police Department was her child.⁹⁹ As the Irish gained influence here, Tammany Hall continued to reach out to new arrivals in the city as it had always done, but this time an internal conflict likely arose as the goals of Tammany clashed with the goals of the Irish. Tammany Hall sought to gain the support of the new arrivals as they always had, by helping them with employment and housing, in order to gain their votes. This clashed with the Irish as they began to lose jobs and housing to these new groups of residents, in some cases due to the interference of their past guardian, Tammany Hall. The Irish were now caught in a vise, on one side they wanted to please Tammany and retain their share of the spoils of city power, but they also had to protest the pro-immigrant policies of their master to keep their own social position in the city. This likely increased the hatreds felt by the Irish toward these new residents and led them to pursue activities, which would alienate Tammany Hall from the immigrants and migrants to the city.

These conditions bred many cases of police corruption, and with a large number of Irish on the police force, they were more likely to look the other way when members of the Irish community started trouble, such as the riot, with these new groups. In many cases, as pointed out in an editorial to the New York Times by an anonymous source, the crimes committeed and the vice participated in by the police were wide spread and the commanding officers put there to prevent such violations, in many cases approved of their actions, which can be placed squarly on the shoulders of Tammany Hall by the author.¹⁰⁰ This left Tammany Hall in a tricky situation, where they needed the Irish on the force to carry out their programs, but they also did not want to eliminate the support of the immigrants and African Americans in the city. From the investigation following the riot itself, it is clear that the Police Board, composed of the police commissioners, the mayor, the city recorder, and the city judge, had a vested interest in protecting the members of its own bureaucracy, while attempting to make a show of handing out justice.¹⁰¹ This helps to explain the mishandling of the investigation by Bernard York and the decisions of Magistrate Henry Brann, which ultimately protected the police force through the exclussion of evidence, testimony, and witnesses.

A final cause of the race riot in 1900, which is linked ultimately with the corruption in the system, and the social atmosphere of the time, is the level of police retaliation used to retain their authority and control of the Tenderloin District. It should come as no surprise that the police force was a tightly knit group of individuals, due to the danger faced on the job and their reliance on their fellow officers on a daily basis. When this is added to a very familial and socially linked group such as the Irish, which made up the majority of the police force in 1900, it leads to a situtation where justice for an offense against them is sought at any cost. When a well liked Irish officer such as Robert Thorpe is killed in the line of duty, the motivation of a corrupt and undisciplined police force leans more towards revenge.¹⁰² African Americans made several reports of hearing police officers the night of the riot wanting vengence for the murder of Thorpe, including Chief Devery, who openly admitted to this fact and declared that the Tenderloin was the worst area of the city, making it seem as if the police used the riot to allow for pent up frustrations to escape from having to deal with the area and its black residents in general.¹⁰³ Dr. Dean Richmond Babbitt, rector of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Epiphany, not only blamed the police for the severity of the riot, but also claimed that they planned it and then carried it out to the fullest extent.¹⁰⁴ While there is no proof of a police conspiracy to begin the riot, many leaders of the African American community were quick to jump to this conclussion based on past encounters with the police and the Irish community. Add to this the fact that there was no effort made to catch Arthur Harris in the city, because the police likely knew that he was not in the city at the time, and no pretense of looking for him was made during the riot. Couple these points with the unrestained and overly violent actions of the police against citizens, such as William J. Elliott, the man beaten in the precinct muster room by a group of police, and it is not far fetched that the anger of the police and their desire for vengence at least fueled the fires of the riots, if not initiated them in the first place.

The question then becomes, how do the events of New York City reflect those of other contemporary riots? Was New York City’s riot an islolated incident, or were there broader themes to be found in the cases of others, such as New Orleans and Atlanta? On July 23, 1900, the spark of a riot in New Orleans was struck, as Robert Charles and his roommate Lenard Pierce, were approached by a group of three white police officers, led by Sergent Jules C. Aucion at 11 pm.¹⁰⁵ Charles and Pierce, both African American were waiting on the steps of a white apartment building for the return of Charles’ girlfriend Virginia and her roommate in hopes of a late night date, as the two girls were out of town for the day.¹⁰⁶ When the officers approached to question the two men, Charles rose, Aucoin took a hold of Charles and threatened to hit him with his club if he did not sit, to which Charles drew his 38 caliber revolver, followed quickly by Aucoin, which resulted in both men being shot in the thigh.¹⁰⁷ Charles fled the scene and went home, leaving his roommate to be arrested as an accomplice, which initiated a search for Charles.¹⁰⁸ Charles was conered leaving his apartment, and opened fire killing Captain John T. Day in the door way, killing Patrolman Lamb in the alley, and forcing two other officers to seek shelter in the home of an elderly black lady nearby, who offered them a place to hide.¹⁰⁹ What initially began as a city wide search for Robert Charles by the police, quickly devolved into a white mob roaming the city looking for not only Charles, but a method to release their pentup hatreds and frustrations.¹¹⁰

The violence in the city continued on, unchecked by the police and in some instances, like in New York, the police join in on the assults and arrested any African American deemed to be supporters of Robert Charles and his defiance to white authority.¹¹¹ The end of the manhunt came as aburptly as it began with the spilling of more police blood and ultimately the death of Charles in a massive standoff, during which Charles fired his weapons from a building into the crowd of nearly 1,000 police, militia, and mob members surrounding the building, killing two and wounding nineteen, before he was killed trying to run into an adjacent building.¹¹² The body of Robert Charles was placed into a police wagon, where the son of one of the officers killed and later others were encouraged to hit and spit upon the lifeless corpse as a final show of dominance.¹¹³ It was then that the riot entered its death throws resulting in additional violence, which would ultimatley claim the lives of an additional three African Americans, the destruction of a black school, and attacks upon countless others throughout the city before the riot final died, leaving the city in shambles, and members of the black community in fear of further attacks.¹¹⁴

Atlanta, Georgia was a growing city due to its role as a railroad hub and as a result saw a massive influx of commerce and manufacturing businesses in the years following Reconstruction according to author David Fort Godshalk.¹¹⁵ As in New York and New Orleans, people of all walks of life flooded the city in search of more opportunity and a chance to start over, creating economic and social tensions in Atlanta on par with the other cities. All of these pressures came to a head on September 22, 1906, as newspaper articles detailed four assults on white women by black males, and the white crowds gathered in the city on a Saturday night let their fears of black challenges to their authority dictate their actions, which allowed a riot of epic porportions to be born.¹¹⁶ To illustrate the extreme violence that perpetuated the mob, Godshalk tells the tale of an African American owned baber shop on Marietta Street, which was attacked by part of the mob, who entered the shop, beat the barber and the shoe black, looted the shop, then proceeded to kill both men, and drag their bodies into the street to place them at the based of a statue dedicated to Henry Grady in honor of his attempts to end racial violence in the city.¹¹⁷

The mobs also attacked the street cars, as they did in New York City, dragging black victims to the streets to beat them and in many cases kill them¹¹⁸ These attacks on the streetcars were the result of attempts by southern whites, and New York Irish, to enforce segregation upon blacks who challenged their place in society by intermingling with their “superiors.” With a lack of prey on the streets, the mob retired for the night only to return the following day to attempt an assault on a black residential area known as Darktown, in which the residents created a blackout condition, set an ambush for the mob, and with a few shots fired into the crowd caused it to disperse.¹¹⁹ The fear of widespread African American retaliation led the police to invade the middle class black neighborhood of Brownsville on Monday night September 24, only to find that the residents again had readied a defense against the police who entered the area to investigate the rummors of a planned attack.¹²⁰ Their defense was so effective, that the police retreated and awaited the Georgia State Militia to enter the area and arrest 250 people after a two hour search of the area, eventually charging seventy of these residents with possession of firearms.¹²¹