History 555
Emergence of Modern America
Dr. Charles Hardy
Joseph O'Brien
April, 2003
On June 14,1850, an otherwise peaceful Sunday afternoon
on Philadelphia's Carpenter Street was shattered by the rioting of competitive volunteer fire companies. The groups had long been a
haven for local toughs and trouble makers. Pitched battles were often fought over turf and the control of area streets. They
provided a venue for violence between religous and ethnic groups, Irish and Nativists, blacks and whites. One man was killed, ten were injured, and the disturbances continued throughout the day. The surrounding South Philadelphia
community complained of the inaction and complacency of police officers summoned to the scene.1
On Tuesday, February 27, 2001, several hundred drunk and marauding Philadelphia area youths rioted on South Street during a
local Mardi Gras festival. A crowd estimated at 40,000 people had spent the day visiting area bars and clubs. Several persons were injured, and local businesses suffered tens of thousands of dollars in property damage.2 The five
hundred police officers assigned to the area made more than 100 arrrests for various violations. The local South Philadelphia community was not happy with their response.
A hundred and fifty one years and three city blocks separated the two incidents in Philadelphia. At first glance there does not appear to be many similarities.
It would be simple to classify both scenes as examples of the historical trivia of urban life. Citizens and police clashed in an atmosphere of violence. That cannot be considered unusual in either age. What caused the violence? Any number of factors
could have contributed to it, including the presence of the police. Did the police react properly?
Why were both communities unhappy with police response? What response did they expect from police? Why did the police react as they did? Had anything changed in the intervening one hundred and fifty years?
To answer the above questions we must begin by discussing the role of police in our society. An immediate response is possible, we expect the police to protect us from crime. Why do we harbor this expectation? Another quick reply is possible, "because that is their job." Has it always been their job?
As we probe deeper into our analysis we find ourselves wondering why we have certain perceptions of police and expectations about their purpose. Sociologists might tell us that the role of police evolved from the interactions of people living in community settings. Other social scientists may have differing explanations. As historians however, we
can rest assured that many clues pertaining to policing and its role in our society can be found in the past.
From the Town Watch of colonial times to the present day technology laden police cruisers, policing followed
a path which mirrored the growth, urbanization and industrialization of our society. Historians have identified the gilded age as the prime
influence on the development of urban policing in America.
The Civil War, a defining event in the molding of our national character, ended in 1865. By the 1870's, southern reconstruction had been
sacrificed on the altar of political necessity. America was entering its adolescence with its cities recovering from decades of discontent and violence.
Born in the 1850's and weaned on the social chaos of latter
19th century urban areas, organized policing entered the modern age handicapped by its origins and ill-equipped to deal with the problems encountered. Urban departments grew in size throughout the 1850's and 1860's.
New York City was the scene of major draft riots in 1863. Irish immigrants, mostly unemployed, rioted for days and directed most of the violence against the city's blacks. Philadelphia was the scene
of many race and nativist riots in the mid-century decades. Military troops, both regular army and state militia, had to restore the peace in both cities. Local departments were not adequate to address the public
safety issues involved. Larger cities began to expand the size of their departments, while Philadelphia even
expanded its municipal borders, enabling the city to increase its tax base and fund more police positions.
New York and Philadelphia decided to "uniform" their forces in the 1850's. Both departments reacted with hostility to the idea of
being a uniformed force. Officers were intimidated by being easily identified and felt the uniforms were demeaning. They did not relish the thought
of walking a prisoner to the nearest police station, sometimes several miles away, in full view of hostile crowds or local toughs who had nothing better
to do than challenge the local beat cop. Some officers resented the change to uniform because it hampered their efforts to drink, socialize or otherwise loaf while on duty. Politicians saw the obvious advantage of a strong and controlling uniformed force in the public view.
3
No longer the town watchmen or anonymous thief catchers of prior years, the role of policing
was being redefined to include "social control." This mandate would cause confusion concerning the police role for the remainder of the century. As policing developed, the police mission also evolved. The police took on many other duties. The "social control" mandate however,
remained an important part of their world.
How did historians view the origins of urban policing in the gilded age? How did they feel the "role" of police was shaped and influenced? In 1887, Howard O. Sprogle, a Philadelphia author, wrote The Philadelphia Police, Past and Present, a "feel good"
account of both current and historical events in the department and city. Interestingly, his comments on the makeup of the Philadelphia force, contained in his preface, reflect
the popular attitudes of his age:
It is the object of this work to trace the devlopment of the present day perfect system from its most primitive beginnings, and to record the personnel of a police
force that, unlike any other in the United States, is native to the city which it watches and guards.4
He noted that of the 1,660 officers in the department, five-sixths were born in the city, and seven-eighths in the United States.5
Was the system, described as "perfect" by Sprogle, previewed in an 1854 speech given by Philadelphia's Mayor, Robert T. Conrad?
...The need of a vigorous police is perhaps greater in our large American cities than anywhere in the civilized world. If our population
were native, or homogeneous, we would have less need of police restraints than a city like London, whose vast population is governed with a mild control that secures
tranquility without oppression....Perverted immigration has filled our cities with pauperism-the fruitful parent of disorder and crime...no magistrate connected with the
police administration can be ignorant of the fact that a considerable portion of those arrested for crime are the exiles of European cities. 6
Though Conrad mentioned that his reasoning did not apply to the "deserving immigrant,"7 his reference
to "pauperism" coincided with the negative immigrant stereotypes of the day. The value of Sprogle's work was not in its portrayal of historical events, nor in its historical analysis. His writing best serves as an example of the prevailing attitudes
concerning "expectations" in the late 19th century. Did Conrad really "expect" that Philadelphia officers could not secure "tranquility" without resort to "oppression"?
Who were the immigrants of whom Conrad spoke? In the 1840-1850 era the immigrants mainly came from Ireland. They were rural, backward and poor. They were almost exclusively Roman Catholics. They settled in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia and the
coal mining regions of central and western Pennsylvania. Some travelled as far as Cleveland and Chicago. They were unskilled and illiterate. They were not welcome. 8
"The mortar of assimilation and the one element that won't mix"
As in other urban areas, Philadelphia had its defining moment in relation to the city's need for effective policing. In November of 1842 a group of Philadelpia clergymen, who represented most
of the Protestant denominations in the city, held a public meeting in which they expressed their misgivings about the increasing Catholicism in their midst. They pledged their committment to an unending war on popery and the influeces of its practitioners. Mandatory
religious classes and bible readings were initiated in the city's public schools. Philadelphia's Catholic Bishop, Francis Patrick Kenrick, wrote a letter to the board of education asking that Catholic children be permitted to utilize the
Catholic version of the bible, rather than the popular Saint James version. He also asked that the Catholic children be excused from Protestant religious instruction. A battle ensued, eventually leading to Kenrick's establishment of the Catholic parochial school
system, but immediately raising the anti-Catholic hostility level.9
The violence began in the city's Kensington section, home to both Protestants from Northern Ireland and Catholics who emigrated from Southern Ireland. Two recently formed groups, The Orange Society of Philadelphia and the
nativist American Repulican Association, both worked at fanning the flames of anti-Catholic sentiment. The violence however, had as much to do with economic issues as it did with religion. Recent Irish immigrants were unskilled and uneducated, and were
viewed with alarm as they invaded the textile industry of Kensington. On May 3rd, 1844, a meeting of the Republican Society was broken up by a group of the Southern Irish. Violence followed, with thirty Irish homes burned down on May 7th. The following evening angry mobs burned
down St. Michael's Catholic Church, the Female Seminary of the Sisters of Charity, St. Augustine's Church and school, along with another fifty homes occupied by Irish Catholics. The Mayor sent police watchmen to the scene, along with the city militia, but restoring order proved to be
a difficult task.10
Religious violence surfaced again in July, when the Native Americans and the Orange Society appeared in the city's 4th of July parade. Rioting resulted at St. Philip de Neri's Catholic Church. Crowds repeatedly fired on the church. The militia was re-activated.
Before peace was restored on July 8th, fifteen were killed and fifty seven wounded. The city fathers had failed miserably in their attempt to control the mobs, and the city police and militia were ineffective. Many of their numbers actively sympathized with the causes
of whatever area they hailed from. The city passed an ordinance creating its own armed force, 1,350 men, including a battalion of artillery, a regiment of infantry and two troops of cavalry. Eventually, the police department was reorgnaized and expanded, while Philadelphia's municipal
boundaries grew from one square mile to one hundred and twenty nine square miles. The larger tax-base and greater population afforded the opportunity to fund and staff the new department.11
"Irish Immigration Memorial-Philadelphia Pa."
By 1890, another wave of immigrants flocked to American shores. The Jews, Italians and Poles also settled in urban areas. American cities became multi-lingual and multi-cultural areas of tension which continually produced
social conflict. The task of managing this conflict would fall to the reorganized uniform police forces of America.12
an otherwise peaceful Sunday afternoon on Philadelphia's Carpenter Street was shattered by the rioting of competitive volunteer fire companies. The groups had long been a haven for local toughs and trouble makers. Pitched battles were often fought over turf and the control of area streets. They provided a venue for violence between religous and ethnic groups, Irish and Nativists, blacks and whites. One man was killed, ten were injured, and the disturbances continued throughout the day. The surrounding South Philadelphia community complained of the inaction and complacency of police officers summoned to the scene.1
several hundred drunk and marauding Philadelphia area youths rioted on South Street during a local Mardi Gras festival. A crowd estimated at 40,000 people had spent the day visiting area bars and clubs. Several persons were injured, and local businesses suffered tens of thousands of dollars in property damage.2 The five hundred police officers assigned to the area made more than 100 arrrests for various violations. The local South Philadelphia community was not happy with their response.
we must begin by discussing the role of police in our society. An immediate response is possible, we expect the police to protect us from crime. Why do we harbor this expectation? Another quick reply is possible, "because that is their job." Has it always been their job? As we probe deeper into our analysis we find ourselves wondering why we have certain perceptions of police and expectations about their purpose. Sociologists might tell us that the role of police evolved from the interactions of people living in community settings. Other social scientists may have differing explanations. As historians however, we can rest assured that many clues pertaining to policing and its role in our society can be found in the past.
the scene of many race and nativist riots in the mid-century decades. Military troops, both regular army and state militia, had to restore the peace in both cities. Local departments were not adequate to address the public safety issues involved. Larger cities began to expand the size of their departments, while Philadelphia even expanded its municipal borders, enabling the city to increase its tax base and fund more police positions. New York and Philadelphia decided to "uniform" their forces in the 1850's. Both departments reacted with hostility to the idea of being a uniformed force. Officers were intimidated by being easily identified and felt the uniforms were demeaning. They did not relish the thought of walking a prisoner to the nearest police station, sometimes several miles away, in full view of hostile crowds or local toughs who had nothing better to do than challenge the local beat cop. Some officers resented the change to uniform because it hampered their efforts to drink, socialize or otherwise loaf while on duty. Politicians saw the obvious advantage of a strong and controlling uniformed force in the public view. 3
and Catholics who emigrated from Southern Ireland. Two recently formed groups, The Orange Society of Philadelphia and the nativist American Repulican Association, both worked at fanning the flames of anti-Catholic sentiment. The violence however, had as much to do with economic issues as it did with religion. Recent Irish immigrants were unskilled and uneducated, and were viewed with alarm as they invaded the textile industry of Kensington. On May 3rd, 1844, a meeting of the Republican Society was broken up by a group of the Southern Irish. Violence followed, with thirty Irish homes burned down on May 7th. The following evening angry mobs burned down St. Michael's Catholic Church, the Female Seminary of the Sisters of Charity, St. Augustine's Church and school, along with another fifty homes occupied by Irish Catholics. The Mayor sent police watchmen to the scene, along with the city militia, but restoring order proved to be a difficult task.10
