Tammany Hall in New York City

The History of Crime and Punishment in the United States

The crime of Edward Lawless—false registration—was an election crime that was as much an issue in 1904 as it is today in 2018 (and one could argue that it is even worse today than it was back then). Essentially, election fraud had been a huge problem in New York, what with the Tammany Hall government attempting to get its Irish Catholic supporters to register at multiple locations in order to vote early and vote often (and thus keep Tammany Hall in power). Teddy Roosevelt, as a member of the Police Board of Commissioners at the end of the 19th century had pledged to combat fraud and corruption and crack down on this type of abuse of the elections process—which is why Lawless’ crime was significant. Roosevelt had moved on from the Police Board in New York—to the White House. The man who spoke softly and carried a big state—the man who had sought to clean up NYC—was now at top of the world in Washington, D.C.—and under his watch, crime was not going to pay. Nonetheless, Tammany Hall would keep trying its tricks: its “rough-and-tumble style of politics that, when eventually adopted citywide, would make the city’s Democratic machine…so infamous”[footnoteRef:2] would not truly be put up against the ropes into Mayor LaGuardia came to power decades later. For now, with Lawless coming before the Court of General Sessions under presiding judge John W. Goff, the law was going to do what it could to bring the lawless to justice—and in this case, his name just happened to personify that quality which so characterized the Democratic machine at Tammany Hall that benefited from people like Edward Lawless going about to different districts to register under a false name in order to get the vote out. [2: Tyler Anbinder, Five Points: The Nineteenth-Century New York City Neighborhood (New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 3.]

In the People vs. Edward Lawless (1904), the identity of Lawless, who was charged with registering to vote under the name Donnelly is discussed again and again. However, the identities of the witnesses are also called into question (by the defense) because they are Republicans. In other words, politics is at the root of the issue—it is Democrats vs. Republicans in 1904, just as it is today—and both the prosecution and the defense were aware of this. The witnesses asserted that they knew the defendant as Lawless though he registered as Donnelly. The defense attorney on the contrary pointed out that the witnesses all identified as Republicans and thus were naturally inclined to want to fabricate a story like this. In short, their testimony could not be believed or trusted because they had a motive to lie. The defense did not work—mainly because the facts of the matter bore out the truth: A review of the Board of Election’s Deputy Clerk’s official records of persons registered in the Third Election District of the Fifth Assembly District showed that Lawless had indeed registered as Donnelly.[footnoteRef:3] [3: The People Against Edward Lawless. (1904). http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/crimeinny/trials/pdfs/414.pdf]

Lawless represented part of the way in which votes were won (then as now)—by manipulating the system. As Campbell points out, Tammany Hall Democrats did not “always have to resort to fraud to maintain their power”[footnoteRef:4]—but in tight races they certainly did try, over and over and over, whether a man like Roosevelt was in town or in the White House. Lawless’s crime thus reflected the notion of what was criminal in that period by highlighting this all-important issue of registration fraud and the significance of the Democratic vs. Republican elections in NYC, where so much power was at stake. The political machine was responsible for overseeing police, which would oversee elections, which would be the feedback loop that determined the nature of the society that would thrive. After all, it was Roosevelt’s Republican victory in NYC that came in response to reports of rampant corruption at Tammany Hall—and it was Roosevelt’s strict enforcement of the liquor laws that the teetotalers had wanted enforced that allowed Tammany to regain its edge. [4: Tracy Campbell, Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition-1742-2004 (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2005), 19.]

A variety of forms of election fraud were rampant at the time—“such as the padding of registration lists, ballot stuffing, and electoral manipulation”[footnoteRef:5]—but the crackdown that was occurring all around this issue was being seen, from Roosevelt himself to the local level citizens beginning to fight back and hold offenders responsible in the courts. The social change at that time in U.S. history that was occurring had to do with the class between the political parties, which was both ethnic and religious in its way. Tammany Hall represented the Irish Catholic working class. The Republican Party represented the Protestant evangelical upper class (Roosevelt’s party)—the party that would seek to make all of NYC dry. [5: Teorell, Jan & Ziblatt, Daniel. “In Election Fraud and Contested Congressional Elections:
An Analysis of the United States, 1840-1940.” Working paper published by the American Political Science Association (2011). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228129460_Election_Fraud_and_Contested_Co ngressional_Elections_An_Analysis_of_the_United_States_1840-1940]

NYC, the melting pot capital of the nation, was where the bitterest elections were fought and where the hardest-nosed tactics were implemented to help sway elections one way or another. In this respect, Lawless was just one of many individuals of the Democratic Party to try and do his part to keep his machine in operation. The working class was the one filled by immigrants—Germans and Irish and Italians (Catholics by and large); the English aristocracy of the upper classes (the Protestant regime, represented by Roosevelt and the Republicans at lower levels of government) were directly opposed to the values (like drinking on Sundays) that the working class ethnic groups liked to indulge in on their only days off.[footnoteRef:6] Thus, it was not so much that Lawless was out to destabilize a system as just to give his side an advantage in a way that his side had routinely engaged in for many several decades. [6: Tyler Anbinder, Five Points: The Nineteenth-Century New York City Neighborhood (New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 38-46.]

Lawless’ crime in a way thus involved all sectors of society. While he himself was just a lowly working class individual, he represented a Party whose aim was to keep power away from the Republican upper class, which in turn sought to take power away from the working class immigrants whose political machine was well known for stealing elections through a variety of unscrupulous means. That was why Republican volunteers were on the lookout and why they were willing to come forward and testify against this type of crime. They wanted the corruption to stop. They wanted to clean up the town in many ways—even if it meant turning against some members of their own community. While many who believed in and supported Tammany Hall felt this type of fraud to be valid and justified (if they didn’t do it, the opposing side would—or would resort to a different kind of manipulation in order to achieve their end). Therefore, winning elections in whatever way possible was the only thing that mattered: it was a power play pure and simple, and the power that was up for grabs would determine the way of life for two very different groups of people.
In conclusion, Lawless’ crime exemplified the changes that were taking place in society at that time in history: there was a distinct effort being made by the opposition party (the Republicans) to tamp down on Tammany Hall style corruption in NYC. The real brunt of the battle for control, however, was much bigger than Lawless—he was just one of many individuals at the local level participating in a much grander game of political thrones, with the Irish and German working class immigrants and their European Catholic ways on the one hand, and the Protestant elite and their Puritanical beliefs and ways on the other. It was a battle for the heart and mind of a city and of a nation—and no amount of “lawlessness” was going to be permitted now that Roosevelt and his Party were in charge—and that was exactly why Lawless was being brought to justice in 1904. The Republicans wanted to put a stop to it—but of course the Democrats wanted to show that Republicans were not above lying and making up facts to keep a poor person like Lawless aka Donnelly from getting out the vote. Then as now, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Bibliography

Anbinder, Tyler. Five Points: The Nineteenth-Century New York City Neighborhood. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

Campbell, Tracy. Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition-1742-2004. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2005.

The People Against Edward Lawless, 1904. http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/crimeinny/trials/search.php?str=414&only_case=1

Teorell, Jan & Ziblatt, Daniel. “In Election Fraud and Contested Congressional Elections: An Analysis of the United States, 1840-1940.” Working paper published by the American Political Science Association (2011). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228129460_Election_Fraud_and_Contested_Co ngressional_Elections_An_Analysis_of_the_United_States_1840-1940