In 1977, Robert M. Fogelson, (currently Professor of Urban Studies and History in the Department of Urban Studies at MIT), published an historical analysis of the evolution of American policing, Big City Police. He viewed the police of the latter 19th century era as an agency of the local political machine. In most urban areas that meant the Democrat party, though the Republicans long controlled the city of Philadelphia. He felt the police were especially critical to the politicians when elections or social problems were dominating the urban landscape.

Empowered to preserve order at the polls, the patrolmen decided whether or not to eject repeaters from the lines, protect voters from the thugs, and respond to complaints by poll watchers and ballot clerks...Whoever dominated the police could assign to the polls hundreds of tough, well-armed, if not necessarily well-disciplined men, whose jobs, the politicians reminded them, depended on the outcome...Empowered to maintain order in the streets, the police decided whether or not to permit agitators to speak, protestors to march, and laborers to picket, and if so, judged whether or not the protests remained orderly. They also determined whether or not to intervene in racial, ethnic and religious clashes, and if so, at what point, on whose side, with how many men, and with how much force. Whoever controlled the police possessed an enviable flexibility to respond to confrontations and crises in ways consistent with their own political objectives, which was a tremendous advantage in a society so prone to group conflict.1

          Fogelson also discussed the impact that upper and middle class Americans had on law enforcement. "Deeply upset by the prevailing life-style and underlying immorality of the lower and lower-middle class first and second generation immigrants, they pursued an agenda that would force their sense of morality on communities throughout the cities." Upper class reform movements created a constant demand that insisted the police direct more attention towards moral and vice violations. The politicians who controlled the cities fought all efforts of police reform. The police decided where, when and how the laws would be enforced, if at all. Control of the police came with underworld payoffs and political support, not to mention ultimate authority over most areas of a city resident's life.2

"The press, the citizen and the pulpit
ensuring the law is enforced"
         Political bosses had also ensured that precint boundaries were drawn in line with political ward boundaries. The ward leader, or the political boss, would therefore control the appointment of the precinct Captain, thus ensuring control of police activities. The gilded age saw a class war raging in our larger cities, with both sides fighting for control of the uniformed and armed police agencies. The rank and file officers had no doubt where their loyalties lie.

...Nor did the police maintain order in the streets with much objectivity and consistency. Conventional in their economic, political and social outlooks, most policemen felt a sharp antagonism to labor unions, radical groups and racial minorities. By virtue of their madate to preserve order, they also developed a deep antipathy to strikes, pickets, demonstrations and other protests against the status quo.3

         Fogelson's opinion of 19th century policing was not totally negative. He recognized the social impact that policing had on American cities, and he cited examples of beneficial effects. The agencies increased the employment opportunities that were available in the 19th century, especially among immigrants. "By making appointments on the basis of political considerations rather than personal qualifications, the big-city police ensured the newcomers a disproportionately large share of the available jobs." They also promoted the cultural pluralism that dominated American cities. Recruited mainly from the lower and lower-middle classes they had little desire to impose upper class standards on immigrant communities. 4

By refusing to enforce the laws against drinking among the Irish and Germans, against gambling among the Italians and Chinese, and against Sunday business among the Jews, the big-city police sanctioned the life styles of the lower and lower-middle class immigrants. And by sanctioning these lifestyles, the police enhanced their standing...Although the ethnic minorities were obliged to make regular payoffs to perpetuate their culture in American cities, this was a modest price to pay in a society where ever since the Civil War, if not earlier, many of the sharpest conflicts had erupted over moral issues.5

         Fogelson also touched upon the various reform movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was obvious that the American policing system was not meeting the expectations of certain segments of American society. Middle and upper class Americans, along with their many social institutions, churches, civic organizations, temperance societies and rotary clubs declared a "war" on crime, vice and all immoral activity. The reformers felt that if the police could be removed from political control they would be successful in the eradication of crime and vice. The Commissioner of New York City described his force as an "army." President Wilson declared that every officer had the "sacred obligation of a soldier." 6

...the American police were engaged in a war on crime which, the reformers pointed out, raged day and night, extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific and was no less terrifying for being a domestic affair. The implications were staggering...if crime was warfare, criminals were the enemy, lawyers were their diplomats, policemen were the main line of defense, and civilians were combatants in the struggle. All of urban America was a battlefield. In this case, one journalist observed, no holds were barred, no tactics ruled out, no rights respected and no mercy tendered; nothing less than complete victory, presumably the total annihilation of the enemy, was acceptable.7

"New York City Roll Call-1915"
         Were the police of the late 19th and early 20th century an army protecting our growing urban areas from their immigrant populations? Did the declared "war against crime" demand that our police be crusaders against an elusive enemy? Would the war against crime (and the much later war against drugs) impact upon the performance and public perception of police and policing? Did President Wilson's mandate that police recognize the "sacred obligation of a soldier" indicate the future direction of policing?

         James F. Richardson, while a Professor of History at the University of Akron, published two works that addressed the history of urban policing. The New York Police: Colonial Times to 1901 (1970) was followed by Urban Police in the United States(1974). He investigated the issues of public perception and role definition related to the NYPD during its infancy and adolescence. He examined the department's reactions to urban problems and social questions. His work contains an in-depth analysis of the political control of the police and the subsequent ramifications on the agency's development.8 In Urban Police he examines history's impact on the ability of an urban department to function as a "civilizing" agency. He felt that "Americans have rarely , if ever, agreed on the proper scope and function of the police." That conflict has affected police performance over the years. He did not agree that the primary function of the police should be law enforcement, fighting crime or regulating public morals. He identified their primary duty as preserving the peace and helping those in need."9

         One of the focal points of The New York Police is Richardson's analysis of the Draft Riots of 1863. For four days, July 13th through July 16th, and only a week after the Union defeat of Lee at Gettysburgh, Irish immigrants in New York City went on a rampage that was destined to become the worst civil disturbance in the nation's history. The city's economy had suffered from the outbreak of war, having lost the South as a market for goods produced in New York. The recent Irish immigrants were competing with the city's negroes for the manual labor jobs available. Irish longshoremen had called strikes at the docks in 1855, 1862 and 1863. On each occasion negro strike breakers were brought in under police protection. The Conscription Act of 1863 caused further resentment. Potential draftees could secure a replacement or opt out of service for a three hundred dollar fee. The lower classes viewed the war as a "rich man's war but a poor man's fight." White laborers also resented the changing nature of the conflict, from a war to preserve the union to a war for emancipation. The white community was also shocked by the recent conscription and recruitment of negro soldiers. Any appearance of negro troops under arms caused extreme resentment and sporadic violence. New York Governor Horatio Seymour, speaking in the city on July 4th, warned that "the bloody and treasonable and revolutionary doctrine of public necessity can be proclaimed by a mob as well as a government."10


New York City Police-1860"
         New York authorities anticipated problems when the Conscription Act was passed, but little was done to prepare. Most of the troops in the city had been sent to Gettysburgh days earlier. The municipal police were totally unprepared. The department numbered 2,000 men, though only 800 were available at any given time. The force had been under state control for several years and had many Irish Americans among its ranks. There was little sympathy among the police, as they were then controlled by Albany's republicans, most of their leaders also being members of the Union League. The first conscription lottery was held on Saturday, July 11th. At Monday's drawing, held at 46th and 3rd Streets, an angry crowd gathered. A number of police officers assigned to the scene had failed to report for duty on that day. All off-duty personnel were mobilized, but not before the crowd attacked the draft office and defeated the police contingent. The office was burned, and all its records were destroyed. The police chief, recognized by the crowd, was severly beaten. It took several hours for additional police to arrive, and the mob burned the Colored Orphan Asylum on 46th Street. Police stations were burned on Tuesday, along with many businesses and residences. Negroes encountered by the mob were lynched on the spot. Though the police could not prevent individual or isolated acts of violence, they did perform adequately in controlling large disturbances. Federal Troops, sent from Pennsylvania, did not arrive in the city until Wednesday evening. The violence continued on Wednesday and Thursday, finally being halted by federal troops. Controversy continues over the numbers of dead and injured during the week. Estimates range up to 1200 deaths. Many of the rioters who were killed were dragged away by other participants and either buried secretly or reported as deaths occuring under other circumstances. Richardson estimated that eighteen negroes and three police officers were killed. His estimate of rioters killed by police was 200 to 500. The military did not report their casualty figures. It was obvious that an accurate accounting would elude New York authorities.11

         The New York police have since referred to their performance in the Draft Riots as the high point of their history up to that time. There was no sympathy for the rioters throughout much of America. Richardson echoed the popular sentiment.

The police of the 1860's did not have either the doctrine or the materials to deal with disorder in any other way than violence...The only anti-riot tools they possessed were their clubs and revolvers, and their only recourse in a disorder was to bash as many people on the head as possible. ...Middle-class commentators praised the police for their discipline and their courage and noted the way "locusts" (police clubs were made of locust wood) fell on rioter's heads...they did not speculate on whether there was any other way to deal with riots and rioters. 12

Public opinion was not as kind to the Irish. George Templeton Strong, a New York lawyer, civic figure and abolitionist, trumpeted the popular sentiment concerning Irish immigrants.

England is right about the lower class of Irish. They are brutal, base, cruel, cowards, and as insolent as base...how is one to deal with women who assemble around a lamp-post to which a Negro has been hanged and cut off certain parts of his body to keep as souvenirs? Have they any womanly privelege, immunity for sanctity? No wonder Saint Patrick drove all the venemous vermin out of Ireland! Its biped mammalia supply that island its full average share of creatures that crawl and eat dirt and poison every community they infest. Vipers were superfluous. By my own theory is that St. Patrick's campaign against the snakes is a Popish delusion. They perished of biting the Irish people.13

         In Urban Police, Richardson explained the reluctance of both the English and American cultures to investing authority in a body that would utimately represent a standing army. Having deep reservations about investing too much power in any one institution, both societies ensured by law that power would be distributed throughout various branches of government. The idea of a uniformed force, whether national or municipal, was an uncomfortable compromise that many felt was not worth the potential damage to civil liberties. The best arguement for an organized police in both nations was the city's inability to control riots and disorder and the reluctance to assign those duties to military forces. Both British and American commanders were hesitant to involve their troops in urban disturbances. Few officers wanted to see their men shooting civilian rioters who may be armed only with clubs or rocks.14

INTRO PAGE     PREVIOUS PAGE     NEXT PAGE
*********************************************************************************
1 Robert M. Fogelson, Big City Police (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977), 20.
2 Fogelson, Big City Police, 21.
3 Fogelson, Big City Police, 34.
4 Fogelson, Big City Police, 35-38.
5 Fogelson, Big City Police, 38.
6 Fogelson, Big City Police, 52.
7 Fogelson, Big City Police, 53-54.
8 James F. Richardson, The New York Police: Colonial Times to 1901 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), ix.
9 James F. Richardson, Urban Police in the United States, (Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1974), ix-x.
10 Richardson, The New York Police, 133.
11 Richardson, The New York Police, 134-138.
12 Richardson, The New York Police, 143.
13 Richardson, The New York Police, 141.
14 Richardson, Urban Police, 10-13.