The Bowery Boy Riot still ranks as one of the deadliest episodes of civil unrest in the history of New York. To that point, only the Astor Place Riot of 1849 had resulted in more loss of life, and in that case most of the twenty fatalities had come when the military fired upon the crowd surrounding the opera house there. Never before the events of 1857 had New York civilians taken the lives of so many of their fellows.41
Many historians, including Mike Wallace and Edwin G. Burrows in Gotham, have portrayed the riot as one between nativists and the Irish. Given that the Bowery Boys aided the Metropolitans, and that most Five Pointers perceived the new police as part of a Know Nothing conspiracy against them, this interpretation has seemed perfectly plausible. Yet an examination of both the contemporary evidence and the subsequent careers of the Bowery Boy leaders suggests otherwise. No contemporary observer portrayed the conflict as a struggle between nativists and Irish Catholics. Mathews was a native of Ireland, and although his religious affiliation (if any) is not known, his given name Patrick and that of his sister Mary suggest a Catholic background. Kerrigan was a native New Yorker, but must also have been at least a nominal Catholic, having attended a Catholic university. His later career also indicates a devotion to Irish independence incompatible with significant anti-Catholicism. In 1866, Kerrigan raised a brigade for the invasion of Canada organized by the Irish freedom fighters known as the Fenians. A year later, he served as “brigadier general” for a force of thirty-eight men that sailed to Ireland with a shipload of weapons in the hopes of fomenting an uprising against the British.42
Recognizing the riot as an intraethnic rather than an interethnic battle, the Irish-American Citizen condemned the rioters as an embarrassment to Irishmen everywhere. It is “idle to deny that a portion of the Irish working classes are far too ready, when intoxicated, to engage in a row.” Of all the evils associated with Irish drunkenness, the editor asserted, “the faction fights at home and abroad are undoubtedly the most to be regretted. . . . Riots are bad under any circumstances; but they are peculiarly detestable when got up by compatriots against each other in a foreign land. Thus Irishmen come to this free country to improve their condition; and because one party came from a different province [from] another, or perhaps only from a different county they attack each other like tigers whenever they get together and drink.” Yet the Five Points riot was not a “faction fight” in the strictest sense of the term—a battle inspired by Irish regional pride. Although the Roche Guard drew an especially large proportion of its recruits from lower Mulberry Street, a stronghold of immigrants from County Cork in southern Ireland, its hero Brennan traced his roots to County Donegal in the far north.43
The real cause of the riot was not regionalism in Ireland so much as politics in New York, mixed with a good old-fashioned local turf battle. The Herald rightly attributed the hostilities to a long-standing feud between Five Points political factions. “The whole thing was an ordinary, or rather extraordinary Sixth ward muss,” the Herald concluded, “rendered more disastrous by the appearance of the police force, against which the residents of that locality have an undoubtedly strong prejudice.”44
The reason why Mathews, a prominent Wood supporter, would defend the Metropolitans alongside Kerrigan’s men, well-known adversaries of the mayor, is that in the world of Five Points politics, defending one’s turf trumped consistency on a controversial issue such as the Police Act. Mathews and Kerrigan might adhere to different factions within Tammany, but could unite in their determination to defend their territory against an incursion by Brennan’s followers—even if that encroachment was for the harassment of the Metropolitans, something Mathews ought to have condoned. Kerrigan himself told the Tribune that the riot started because in their pursuit of the police to the Bowery, “the Dead Rabbits were on forbidden ground, the Bowery Boys claiming exclusive control over that part of the Ward.” More than just the bragging rights over certain neighborhood blocks inspired this territorial jealousy. Brennan’s followers realized, according to one riot witness, that “if they could lick the Bowery men they would have all of the 6th ward.” This ongoing battle to stave off absorption into Brennan’s sphere of influence helps explain why Mathews would aid the Metropolitans in their struggle with Brennan’s supporters.45
Dana recorded in his journal that “one of the more respectable Irishmen” present at the uprising told him the riot had started because “the New police could not go into the 6th Ward,—that the men of the 6th Ward had vowed to kill them all, if they came there.” When Dana reminded the Five Pointer that the police were backed by the authority of the entire state, he replied that “‘the Sixth Ward, Sir, is the strongest power on earth.’ He repeated this, & fully believed it. Nor is it strange that he should. It has given the great[est] Democratic Majority every year,” and as a result its inhabitants “have enjoyed almost an impunity in their violences & wickedness.” The result was one of the bloodiest riots in the city’s violent history.46
“THESE DEMANDS OF THE IRISH”
In the immediate aftermath of the Bowery Boy Riot, it appeared that the police and license laws would irrevocably alter Five Points life. The police department, for years a bastion of Democratic patronage, was now firmly in the control of Republicans and Know Nothings. The Metropolitans made sure that the portion of the license law mandating the Sunday closing of saloons was strictly enforced. “Old residents declared that never before had they seen such a quiet Sunday in the Sixth Ward,” reported the Times a few weeks after the riot. “The stoops and side-walks were never so crowded with men, women and children, seeking dubious air and conversation away from their narrow apartments up crooked alleys and lofty buildings. Their sports were somewhat rough and boisterous, but it was all good-natured and peculiar.”47
Yet Five Points Democrats soon reasserted themselves, both in the ward and, for the first time, citywide as well. Brennan was so popular and respected as police justice for the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Wards that neither Democrat nor Republican opposed him when he stood for reelection in November 1857. About a half year later, in June 1858, the Metropolitans asked Dowling to return to the Sixth Ward as police captain. Whether Dowling received this invitation due to Brennan’s influence, or because the Metropolitans came to appreciate Dowling’s skill at keeping the peace in the unruly neighborhood, cannot be determined. But Dowling was thrilled to return to the force and seemed to consider it a vindication of sorts—his certificate of reappointment, dated June 24, 1858, hung on his bedroom wall until the day he died. In October, Dowling managed to get his former right-hand man, Sergeant John Jourdan, reinstated as well. Jourdan had returned to his teenage vocation as a Herald paper folder when the Metropolitans dismissed him.48
Even the men whose names were prominently linked to the 1857 rioting prospered politically. Kerrigan secured a patronage post as an assistant clerk in Brennan’s own police court (whether in Brennan’s courtroom or that of his fellow justice James Steers is unclear), indicating that the two foes had agreed upon some sort of truce. He would later serve in Congress. Those Five Pointers associated with Brennan and the Roche Guard found political success as well. When the city’s new Board of Supervisors was created in 1858, Roche was elected to serve on it.49
The politician associated with Brennan who advanced furthest was John Clancy. A few months after the riot, at the end of November 1857, Clancy bought a controlling interest in the Leader—Tammany’s official organ—and became its editor in chief. Clancy had already increased his visibility within Democratic ranks as the journal’s junior editor. Now in complete command of the influential weekly, the ambitious and talented Clancy utilized his new influence and prestige in pursuit of citywide office. No Irish Catholic Sixth Warder had ever held such a post, but Clancy was determined to be the first.50
Clancy set his sights on the November 1858 contest for county clerk. Surveying the field and discovering that his main competition came from another rising Democratic star, Seventh Ward supervisor Wil
liam M. Tweed, the twenty-nine-year-old Clancy unabashedly utilized the pages of the Leader to explain why he deserved the nomination. An editorial in early October noted that Tweed had spent a lot of money distributing “pasteboard cards” touting his candidacy. Yet despite the “herculean efforts” of the “‘gay Supervisor,’” the Leader insisted that the nomination should go to Clancy. The editorial noted sarcastically that the “small sprinkling of Democratic voters” in the Sixth Ward “have never, within memory of any man connected with Tammany Hall . . . received an acknowledgement of their existence since Cornelius W. Lawrence [a Sixth Ward resident] was elected Mayor some twenty-three years ago.” Harry Howard (Kerrigan’s patron) had once been appointed receiver of taxes, but served only for a short period until he resigned
for a Seventh ward man, and in the distribution of patronage, both federal and municipal, the Sixth Ward seems to have had a back seat. There is an end to all things, and the idea of working every election to elevate other people and then get no thanks for it, is pretty well played out in the 6th Ward. For the past twenty years the democracy of that district have never been recognized as they should be, except on election day, when they are of some importance to county candidates; and during the several democratic administrations at the Custom House and in this city, up to the present time not one important place has ever been tendered to the 6th Ward. The whole of the departments of the county and city governments are filled with people from other wards, with whom we have no fault to find except to make a clear case why something should be done for the 6th Ward at the coming county convention.
Clancy did not rely on the Leader alone to promote his candidacy. He used advertising and other means to whip up support, including “a gorgeous banner” strung across Third Avenue.51
The year 1858 was actually a watershed for Irish-American politicians all over New York, as they began an unprecedented push for a fair share of the nominations. The New York Dispatch noted that summer that “there is beginning to be a good deal of grumbling among the American and German Democrats, in consequence of these demands of the Irish.” Such discontent became evident at the Tammany nominating convention. Clancy’s opponents argued that because Irish-American John Kelly was the consensus choice to head the ticket as the candidate for sheriff, Clancy’s nomination for clerk would mean that “the ticket would be entirely ‘too Irish.’” Clancy spoke on his own behalf to rebut this argument, however, and the convention nominated him on the first ballot. “Mr. Clancy’s nomination,” explained the Irish-American afterward, “was generally conceded to the claims of the Sixth Ward.”52
The scene in a Five Points bar on election day 1858. The polls were located through the doorway in the back of the saloon. Note the large posters advertising the candidacies of Clancy and Kelly. Few Five Pointers would have agreed with those who complained that the ticket was “entirely too Irish.” Harper’s Weekly (November 13, 1858): 724. Collection of the author.
Clancy’s triumph in the general election marked the climax of a remarkable quarter century in Five Points politics. The election riots of 1834 had dramatically signaled the end of deference as the hallmark of neighborhood politics, as Five Points’ Irish-American residents demonstrated their determination to take their destiny into their own hands. In the alternative system that developed, violence, patronage, and party loyalty were the keys to advancement, as was the ability to command the support of fire companies, police officers, and liquor dealers. As the city became increasingly Irish with the flood of famine immigrants in the late 1840s, and as the violent tactics of Five Points politicians became standard throughout the city, Sixth Ward Irish Catholics for the first time discovered opportunities to advance their political careers beyond the ward’s boundaries. Brennan was the first Five Points Catholic to become an important player in the Tammany hierarchy, and his influence was quickly matched by his protégé, Clancy. Clancy’s victory in the race for county clerk ensured that, for the foreseeable future at least, Tammany leaders would no longer be able to take Five Points Democrats for granted. By the time the Tweed Ring had seized control of city politics at the end of the Civil War, Five Pointers would have the dubious distinction of being counted among the most influential of those leaders.53
10
PROLOGUE
“THE BOY WHO COMMANDS THAT
PRETTY LOT RECRUITED THEM FOR THE SECESHES”
IN MID-DECEMBER 1860, as South Carolina prepared to secede from the Union, a strange advertisement appeared in the New York Herald:
The captains of all the Volunteer [militia] Companies of the City of New-York [are requested] to send a communication to the undersigned, at No. 74 Mott-st., stating the name of the Company and the number of men under their command, for the purpose of perfecting a Military Organization to protect the municipal rights of the city and the constitutional rights of the citizens of the country, in the event of a revolution.
For the few New Yorkers who did not understand the code words, the Herald offered a translation. One object of the proposed corps, it explained, was to protect the city “from further republican encroachments” such as the Metropolitan Police Act of 1857. The reference to “constitutional rights” indicated that the organization “will be pro-slavery in principle, and will take prompt action in case of secession.” In other words, the ad was a call for New York militia units to fight for the Confederacy should the country descend into Civil War. The ad was signed by the city’s best known Bowery Boy, Five Pointer James E. Kerrigan.1
Kerrigan’s story reflects the competing loyalties tugging at many New York Democrats during the War Between the States. He had laid relatively low since helping to incite the bloody Bowery Boy Riot in 1857, drawing a salary as a police court clerk while undoubtedly devoting most of his energy to gambling, fighting, and politicking with his fellow sporting men. He reemerged in the fall of 1860, however, running for Congress as the candidate of “Mozart Hall,” the organization created by Mayor Fernando Wood as an alternative to Tammany. Discussing Kerrigan’s qualifications for office, the Herald noted that his chief talent was as “a strong man to head crowds at political meetings. . . . If he should happen to be elected and there should be a disposition in the American Congress to break the thing up in a row, Councilman Kerrigan may be relied upon to do yeoman service in the cause of his country.”2
Though the thirty-one-year-old might lack the résumé of the typical congressional candidate, his appearance and bearing were bound to impress Five Points voters. “He is tall, slim and graceful, though possessed, it is said, of a remarkable physical strength,” commented the Herald on the eve of the election. “His face is long, thin and pale, free from mustache or beard, except [for] a delicate imperial, copied from the style of the old masters.” Kerrigan’s long, jet-black hair curled about his shoulders, but he was not burly like many of his fellow sporting men. “He has more the appearance, in gentility and grace, of one of Mr. Brown’s dancing young men, than of the warlike and indomitable hero which he is known to be,” observed the same reporter. “A gleam, which shoots out of his light, cold gray eyes, however, indicates the spirit which is within.”3
Kerrigan entered the congressional contest at a distinct disadvantage. The Tammany nominee could rely on his organization’s vast network of district leaders and ward heelers to assist him in his bid for office. Kerrigan, in contrast, had no such machine. But the demographics of the congressional district—comprising the Fourth, Sixth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Wards—must have encouraged him. According to the Herald, the constituency had “more of the active element of young America in it than any other, and, necessarily, Kerrigan is the leader and chief.” Sure enough, Kerrigan pulled off the upset, one of several Mozart congressional victories that year.4
After the election, as the South began preparations for secession, New York swirled with rumors of conspiracy and intrigue. An attack by saboteurs on the Brooklyn Navy Yard was said to be imminent. Ships were said to be sailing from New York wharves lade
n with weapons and ammunition for the Confederacy. Given the city’s overwhelming Democratic majority and close economic ties to the South, speculation that New York City might secede from the Republican North and join the Confederacy did not seem far-fetched. Kerrigan’s advertisement in the Herald was thus especially provocative.5
Some New Yorkers did not take Kerrigan’s announcement seriously, calling it another of his self-aggrandizing attempts to attract public attention. The Tribune interpreted it as a political gesture designed to draw recruits to a new Democratic political organization that would be independent of both Tammany and Mozart Halls. Nonetheless, rumors persisted throughout the winter of 1860–61 that Kerrigan’s followers would join the Confederate ranks or attack the Navy Yard. He was even called before a grand jury to explain his intentions. After South Carolinians launched the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861, northern opinion—even in New York—swung decisively against the South. If he had ever seriously entertained thoughts of fighting for the Confederacy, Kerrigan now abandoned them, and began seeking a command in the Union ranks. Although he lacked West Point training, he was able to parlay his political clout and his experience in Mexico and Nicaragua into a colonel’s commission in May 1861. In early July, his unit of 777 soldiers, designated the Twenty-fifth Regiment of New York Infantry, left the city to join the forces defending Washington.6
As long as it remained under Kerrigan’s command, the Twenty-fifth never fully reconciled itself to war with the South. When the troops assigned to the defense of the capital marched in review for Lincoln and General George B. McClellan on August 26, 1861, Kerrigan’s unit refused to give a cheer for the president and the Union. A soldier from another command explained the regiment’s attitude to the English journalist William H. Russell, telling him that “the boy who commands that pretty lot recruited them for the Seceshes in New York, but finding he could not get them away he handed them over to Uncle Sam.” The unit’s lack of enthusiasm for the war effort also manifested itself in the recruits’ appearance. Russell described Kerrigan’s soldiers as “miserable scarecrows in rags and tatters.”7
Five Points Page 35