Talk:List of mayors of New York City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject New York City (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Removal of red links[edit]

We should be careful with red-links for old people's names because as time goes on someone with the same name might become notable, take the link, and screw up this page. I move that names should remained unlinked until there is a corresponding page for the person. The red-links i have not removed are sensitive to the particular person (of that name) who served as mayor and will be able to link to the proper page when the article is written. Nbruschi 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New York City mayoral terms[edit]

In NYC, the outgoing mayor leaves office at precisely 11:59:59 PM on December 31st. Incoming mayors are sworn in at the stroke of midnight of the first day of January following their election. 24.168.42.182 09:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas Hood[edit]

The official list of NYC mayors does not mention Hood,[1] so I did some Googling. As near as I can tell, a 19th century list had Hood instead of Noell, that list was widely copied, and some contemporary sources "corrected" that by including them both. However, the vast majority of definitive sources, such as the city's Green Book and New York City Mayors by Ralph J. Caliendo [2] include Noell and not Hood. I've therefore removed Hood from this list, and have redirected Hood's article to Thomas Noell until some other evidence comes along. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mayors who died in office[edit]

[Moved from my user talk page:]—— Shakescene (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I do have a question, have any mayors besides Wm Havemeyer and Wm Gaynor died in office? The standard sources (e.g. The Green Book & the Encyclopedia of NYC) don't give much indication for early mayors, but that may be because none of them died in harness. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The shorter term of the early mayors make it less likely that one would die in office. Maybe, also, someone in ill health wouldn't have been appointed. Just guesses on my part -- I'll see what I can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to this, Robert Lurting (#35) and Edward Holland (#40) both died in office. Also John Cruger (#38) died in the same year as his last year of service, but it's not clear if that was while he was in office or not -- although I'd think that the author would have mentioned it. (Also, the Wikipedia article on Cruger is more than the sub-stub some of them are, and it says nothing about dying in office, although it has info on his will and where he was buried. I tend to think Cruger did not die while in office.)

There's also a half-dozen or so mayors for whom the date of death is not listed, but I have to think that if they died in office it would have been noted somewhere and therefore we would know their dates of death. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all that work; I'd thought there was a simple annotated list somewhere without having to research the first sixty mayors, one by one. Actually the first paragraph of John Cruger's Wiki-biography seems to say pretty clearly that he served as mayor until he died:

John Cruger (1678 – August 13, 1744) was an immigrant to colonial New York with an uncertain place of birth, but his family was originally Danish. In New York from at least 1696, he became a prosperous merchant and established a successful family as well. He served as an alderman for twenty-two years and as Mayor of New York from 1739 until his death in 1744.

Maybe this is getting to a point where we should move the discussion off my talk page and onto the List of Mayors' where any passing experts might see it. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone may have been making an assumption about Cruger's death in writing the lede to that article. What the other source says is:

In 1744, Stephen Bayard is appointed mayor of six consecutive one-year terms. John Cruger died in New York City on Auhust 13, 1744.

I have to think that these sentences wopuld have been reversed in order if Cruger had died in office. Also, I believe at the time that mayors were appointed on July 1.

Moving this discussion to the article talk page is probably a good idea. Maybe I'll just cut and paste part of it there now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC) (Actually moved by Shakescene, except for this last comment, moved by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I think you should remove the "died in office" marker from Cruger. The evidence is not definitive and, to me, not very persuasive, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The fact that the statement in the Wiki bio article isn't specifically referenced means that it's got to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, there's something funcky with the formatting, there's lots of text running down the side of the table. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I take it back, this seems definitive:

1744. On ye 13th of August 1744, father John Cruger then Mayor of this City dyed and (.he next day his corps was deposited in the Old Dutch Church.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added that source to the John Cruger article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict 2] Probably more work than I'm ready to do right now myself (especially since I'm a non-academic in Providence, and thus far from many NYC and college sources), but the sources for John Cruger are different from yours, including the Dictionary of American Biography (DAB). That of course doesn't preclude a mistaken conclusion on the Wikipedia editor's part but it would be drawn from different phrases and sentences. The Encyclopedia of New York City (first ed.) entry (by David William Voorhees, Ph.D. [NYU], a professional editor) says "Appointed mayor in 1739, he remained in office for five consecutive one-year terms." This doesn't preclude his dying in office, but the phrasing does throw more doubt upon the question, so I'll remove the dagger.
¶ As for the text running down the side, which text is it? I'm going to bed now, so it may not be fixed immediately unless you do it, but maybe an extra clear or { - } template could be added, or the footnote moved away from the wikitable. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect our messages crossed, so a few things:
  • I fixed the formatting problem I was seeing, which you may or may not have been seeing, due to the different ways diferent browser render a page
  • I restored the "died in office" mark for Cruger, based on the evidence I posted above.
  • I also marked Lurting and Holland as dying in office.
  • I think the above evidence about Cruger is fairly definitive, coming as it does from the Cruger family records, but just in case, I checked my copy of the Encyclopedia of NYC, which is the latest edition, and it has the same text you quoted above, so there's no backup support from that source.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alive at inauguration / died during this term[edit]

I'm not sure this adds all that much, especially since it's only presented for the currently livign mayors. I think it tip-toes into being WP:OR, although I wouldn't remove it for that. It just seems rather unnecessary. JMHO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peter Delanoy, popular election and Leisler's Rebellion[edit]

Several sources, including The Encyclopedia of New York City, say that P[i]eter Delanoy was the City's only elected mayor before 1834 (or 1821). But the most-readily available sources are sparse and confusing. Wikipedia has no article on Delanoy. His predecessor's term ended in 1688, and elections weren't held until August or September of 1689, so it's not clear if Delanoy had been an unelected mayor earlier in the year (of if the job was vacant or held by a caretaker, perhaps the previous mayor). The Encyclopedia's article on the City Charter says that Delanoy was overthrown during or after Leisler's Rebellion, although its article on the Rebellion mentions his election in August 1689 (before which the city government "remained in the hands of appointees of James II") but not his overthrow. The Wikipedia article on the Rebellion doesn't mention Delanoy. Ralph Caliendo's book on New York Mayors, relied on for the deaths in office of other New York mayors, give such a confused, duplicative and sometimes contradictory account of Leisler's Rebellion in relation to P. Delanoy and Abraham de Peyster that it looks like mindless copying from other sources and significantly lessens my confidence in Mr Caliendo's work. I've put in as clear a note about Delanoy's election as I feel safe in writing, but I'd very much appreciate some verification, any necessary revision and sound references. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lastest edition of the Encyclopedia of New York doesn't have an entry on Peter Delanoy, and there's no mention in the article on mayors of Delanoy being elected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but look at the articles on Leisler's Rebellion and on the City Charter (1689 in the table of changes to the Charter). Caliendo's book, by the way, has nearly-identical phrasing to the Encyclopedia's (written by David Wm Voorhees) about government "remaining in the hands of appointees of James II", so one book may be lifting from the other. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wording in the Leisler's Rebellion article appears somewhat ambiguous to me:

The city government, however, remained in the hands of appointees of James II until September, when the provincial convention called for elections in which Peter Delanoy become the mayor.

What's unclear to me is whether the "elections" called for took place within the convention -- in which case, Delanoy was more or less appointed by the convention -- or if they were elections in the modern sense of being open to anyone with the franchise to vote. Nonetheless, the City Charter table of changes does refer to Delanoy as the city's "first elected mayor", and that seems definitive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
James Trager's New York Chronology says for 1689 that "...appointees of James II retain control of New York City's government until September, when Peter Delanoy becomes the first elected mayor under provisions laid down by the provincial convention." Trager (like Caliendo) seems confused, since previously he says that Jacob Leisler led a vehemently anti-Catholic faction that opposed William of Orange's accession. (James II was the Catholic king deposed by William and Mary in the very Protestant Glorious Revolution, still celebrated by the Orange Order of Northern Ireland.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the lack of precision about what exactly happened is why I removed "directly" from "directly-elected" in the list. I'd like to have a RS confirm that it was a general election and not simply an election within the convention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ralph J. Caliendo's book on New York mayors seems enlightening, except that after the extracts below he tends to repeat the same things in not wholly consistent ways about three times in the same mini-biography
Just to confuse things a little further, Jacob Leisler signed a commission making Delanoy mayor in mid-December 1689. Apparently (from Caliendo's Confused Chronology of a very confused time), Delanoy had been deposed or at least faced with an alternative mayor, by the actions of Gov. Fletcher, which were then reversed by his successor, Richard Coote, the Whig Earl of Bellomont, restoring Delanoy to the mayoralty. (A transposition of 1689 to 1698 on page 46 didn't make this any clearer.) I'm not sure if this explains some of the difference or not. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm no longer certain Caliendo is an RS. It seems to be self-published, and it looks like almost all the content is ripped off from elsewhere, with very little editorial oversight -- hence the repetition. But, yes, the Delanoy thing is very confusing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I think I have our smoking gun. This is from Burrows, Edwin G. and Wallace, Mike (1999). Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-195-11634-8., p.99-100:

Something like a "people's Revolucion" did indeed appear to be approaching New York between the autumn of 1689 and the spring of 1691. When the Committee of Safety called for a general election of local officers in September 1689, it decided (perhaps at [Jacob] Milbourne's urging) to broaden the range of elective positions: justices of the peace and militia captains were to be chosen directly by voters for the first time, tiggering a dramatic shift in the distribution of political power in the city. Bakers, bricklayers, carpentyers, innkeepers -- workingmen heretofore thought unfit for public responsibility -- captured a majoprity of seats on the board of alderman. Johannes Johnson, carpenter, became sheriff, and William Churcher, bricklayer, became marshal. Peter Delanoy, a Huguenot and one of Leisler's inner circle, was elected mayor of the city.

That's a clear descrirption that the election was a true general election, and the Delanoy was, indeed, directly elected. (I'll restore that language to the article momentarily). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if any book qualifies as a Reliable (though like all things human, imperfect and/or incomplete) Source, it would be Gotham, a book I wish I had. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

How many mayors of New York were born in this city ? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8422:1360:F500:835:88F7:B918:3F04 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Willem Beekman[edit]

I have undone the addition of Willem Beekman as acting mayor in 1674 for these reasons:

  • The official Green Book list, which lists acting mayors, does not list Beekman
  • The first source given has nothing on page 375 that I can find that corroborates this information
  • The second source given, on page 117, list Beekman as "Burgomaster", not as mayor
  • The third source is the only one that actually lists Beekman as Mayor of New Orange, and it does not list him as "acting" mayor, which appears to be OR used to insert him into the list without disturbing the numbering scheme. Further, the cite is a genealogical site, and of dubious reliability.

I'm open to discussion about whether the sources provided are sufficient to add Beekman to the list.

BMK (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responding to your first comment:
The first source given has nothing on page 375 that I can find that corroborates this information
Pg 375, 3d par, 5th line: Aug 29, 1683, mentions Mayor Beckman (Beekman), with Van Cortlandt . . .
Responding to your second comment:
The second source given, on page 117, list Beekman as "Burgomaster", not as mayor
Burgomaster is the Dutch term for mayor.
"Burgomaster (alternatively spelled Burgomeister, literally master of the town . . ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgomaster
In July 1673, during the Third Anglo-Dutch War, the Dutch briefly occupied New York City and renamed it New Orange. Anthony Colve was installed as the first Governor. Previously there had only been West India Company Directors. After the signing of the Treaty of Westminster in November 1674, the city was relinquished to the English and the name reverted to "New York". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam
Examples from the first reference on which you commented, using the term:
p 35 - Sep 5, 1664: Burgomaster Cornelis Steenwyck and old burgomaster Van Cortlandt
p 48 - 22 Nov 1664 - Burgomaster Steenwyck
p 77 - 14 Jun 1665 - Burgomaster Van Cortlandt
p 80 - 28 Jun 1664 - Steenwyck, deposed burgomaster
p 76 - 12 Jun 1665 - [with the English taking control in earlier war]: Gov. Richard Nichols "by proclamation, now revoked "the form and ceremony of government . . . under the name of Schout, Burgomasters, and Shepens" and declared the be "Mayor (burgomasters), Aldermen (schepens) and Sheriff (schout)". This demonstrates the change of terms as governments changed.
It is during the period of the Third Anglo-Dutch War, nearly ten years later, when again under Dutch control Willem (William) Beekman was Burgomaster (Mayor). The first source has additional references to this era, and use of the term:
p 256 - 11 Aug 1674 - Van Brugh and Beekman were accordingly selected as burgomasters, and Kip, verplanck, Rombouts, Hoogland and Stephanus Van Cortlandt as Schepens of New Orange.
p 271 - 30 Oct 1676 - Burgomaster Van Burgh
p 665 - 5 Noc 1674 - Burgomaster Johannes van Brugh and Willem Beekman
It seems correct that Wilhelmus (Willem) Beekman be listed as a Mayor during the period 1674-1675.
Info update (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, regarding "Burgomaster", look at the other burgomasters listed in other years and compare them to the list of mayors. They are not listed that I can see. That makes your assumption that burgomaster must mean mayor original research, which is not allowed. "It seems" is not enough, you must have a source that explicitly says that, not combine information from multiple sources, with is synthesis, a form of original research which is, again, not allowed. BMK (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I beg your pardon on p.375 of "A History of New York", it does indeed say "Mayor Beekman" in passing -- but that's all it says. There's no explanation of when he was elected or appointed, no confirmation of which of the various Beekmans he was, nothing except the words "Mayor Beekman" in a list of names. That's not sufficient to support inclusion in the list in the absence of any other direct and explicit information, and his absence from the official list of mayors maintained by the city. It's just not enough to shoehorn him in -- please do some more research, and if you come up with something more convincing, please bring it here before you add it to the article, so that other editors can evaluate it. Thanks, BMK (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, I think you cited biographies of Beekman in the other places where you've been inserting his name. If that is the case, do those biographies confirm that he was mayor of New York City in 1674? If they do, why didn't you cite them? If they didn't, don't you think that's pretty telling? BMK (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your remarks. It is not an assumption that the Burgomaster was the Mayor. Descriptions such as master of the town and head of state clearly express the role as chief executive. My use of the phrase "it seems" was an expression of courtesy.
Below is additional information and references which confirm that William Beekman was Mayor of New York City in 1683.
"The mayor of the city in 1683 was William Beekman." History of the City of New York: Its Origin, Rise and Progress. Volume 1 page=301
". . .as the time for the inauguration of new city magistrates was now at hand the commander in council, in accordance with the duke's general order, continued in office the actual incumbents. William Beekman, the deputy-mayor thus kept his place as acting mayor." History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century. Van Rensselaer, Mrs. Schuyler. Vol 2. Macmillan Company, NY 1909. p 247
"As soon as the assembly adjourned, the city magistrates, William Beekman still acting as mayor [1683] . . . ." History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century. Van Rensselaer, Mrs. Schuyler. Vol 2. Macmillan Company, NY 1909. p 269
"William Beekman was Lieutenant in the militia in 1673 and Deputy Mayor of New York from 1681 to 1683." Distinguished Families in America Descended from Wilhelmus Beekman and Jan Thomasse Van Dyke. p 5.
You write: "I beg your pardon on p.375 of "A History of New York", it does indeed say "Mayor Beekman" in passing -- but that's all it says. There's no explanation of when he was elected or appointed, no confirmation of which of the various Beekmans he was, nothing except the words "Mayor Beekman" in a list of names." A fair reading of the cited authoritative reference clearly states the timeline down the right margin. Opposite "Mayor Beekman" it states 29 August 1683. While you are correct the printed page says Mayor Beekman instead of Mayor William Beekman, further exploration of the book would indicate it was William Beekman.
Further, the footnote on this page cites Minutes of the Common Council, the official government record.
Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York, 1675-1776: in Eight Volumes. pp 94-105, show numerous Warrants and Orders by Deputy Mayor (Acting Mayor) Willliam Beekman.
Another source corroborating the same:
"In accordance with further instructions, John Spragg became secretary of the colony, and Anthony Brokholls, with Matthias Nicolls and others, were appointed to catalogue the records surrendered by John West. Rev. John Gordon became chaplain of the English soldiers in New York, and Mayor William Beekman, Stephanus Van Cortlandt, Lucas San ten, Mark Talbot, and Gabriel Minvielle were appointed to survey Fort James, while Captain Thomas Young was made pilot of the port." National Magazine. Vol 16. August, 1892. p 376, middle of right column.
"In 1683, when Thomas Dongan became Governor, Beekman was Mayor of New York, and was one of those appointed to survey Fort James. On 9 November, 1683, he signed a petition to Governor Dongan asking that certain privileges, granted to New York City in 1665, should be confirmed by a charter of the Duke of York. John Watts De Peyster. Vol 1. Allaben, Frank. NY, 1908.
Manual of the Corporation of the City of New York, 1845-6. David T. Valentine. Levi Slamm & Co., 1846. Official city publication, as adopted by the city. D. T. Valentine, Clerk of the Board, NY. Burgomasters Johannes van Bruggh, William Beekman. p 117.
Info update (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. So we're left with a bit of a mystery as to why the city, in its official records, doesn't include Beekman as Acting Mayor. One possibility, gleaned from the quotes you cited above, is that Beekman was in fact the Deputy Mayor, and acted as "acting mayor" in his capacity as Deputy without being the actual "Acting Mayor." There may well be (I'm speculating here), a distinction between someone who is the official Acting Mayor and someone who is the Deputy Mayor who is acting as mayor in the absence of an elected or appointed Mayor.

I think this is a question you might want to bring to a city historian for an official ruling, since -- as of now -- the Green Book List is the official list of Mayors and Acting Mayors, as far as New York City is concerned. BMK (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The active management of affairs was at once taken up by the new Governor. His instructions from the duke, signed on January 27th, [1683] required that on his arrival be should call together Frederick Philipse and Stephanus Van Cortlandt, and other of the most eminent inhabitants, not exceeding ten in all, and swear them to allegiance to the king, fealty to the duke as" lord and proprietor," and official faithfulness as members of his council. . . .Rev. John Gordon became chaplain of the English soldiers in New-York, and Mayor William Beekman, Stephanus Van Cortlandt, Lucas Santen, Mark Talbot, and Gabriel Minvielle were appointed to survey Fort James, while Captain Thomas Young was made pilot of the port. The administration of the colony having been properly organized, Doogan immediately turned his attention to a matter which directly concerned the interests of his patron." The Memorial History of the City of New York from its first settlement. James grant Wilson. 4 vols. p 403.
"On November 9, 1683, Dongan received a petition signed by William Beekman, Mayor, Johannes Van Brugh, John Laurence, Peter J. Morris, James Graham, Cornelius Steenwyck, and Nicholas Bayard, Aldermen of the city, asking that certain "ancient customs, privileges, and immunities," which had been granted them in 1665, should be confirmed by a charter from the Duke of York, with some additions . . ." at p 411.
"October twenty first 1683, "our new governor has at last arrived. His excellency is a person of knowledge, refinement and modesty. . . The corporation [NYC] entertained him at a banquet, presided over by Mayor William Beekman, at which all the leading citizens were present and a round of receptions and hospitalities followed. "Thomas Dongan, Catholic Colonial Governor of New York". [Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia. Vol XXII, 1911]. p 212
Footnote to the Green Book list of Mayors: "Prior to June 15, 1665, (when New Amsterdam was captured by the British) the city was headed by Burgomasters." The 2003-04 Green Book. p 4. This indicates the list is incomplete, or intended not to reflect the city under Dutch rule. It is during the 1 year period when the Dutch regain control of New York City that William Beekman held office.
Info update (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New research sheds more light, and confirms that for two years Wilhelmus Beekman was Acting Mayor.
His predecessor as Mayor Captain William Dyer who was also Collector of Customs and a member of Gov. Andros' Council. In November, 1680 authority to levy taxes expired but, although lacking authority to continue the expired taxes without express orders from the Duke of York, Mayor Dyer, who was also tax collector, continued to levy customs taxes. Arriving shipments were impounded for unpaid taxes. Dyer was summoned before the very court of which he was normally the presiding officer, that of the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of New York. With Deputy Mayor William Beekman presiding in his place, the court promptly ordered Dyer to surrender the goods which he had been holding for non-payment of customs. The Lieutenant Governor empaneled a grand jury. Mayor Dyer was formally indicted for having "trayterously maliciously and advisedly used and exercised Regall power and authority over the Kings subjects." Ultimately, Dyer was sent to England "to be proceeded against as his Majesty and Council shall direct."[History of the State of New York. Second Volume., 1871]. p 351
William Beekman and his fellow aldermen continued to administer municipal matters and Brockholls discreetly reappointed all of them in 1681 and 1682 without attempting to name a successor to the unfortunate Mayor Dyer. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 63.)
As acting Mayor since the elimination of Dyer more than two years before, Beekman occupied a post which gave him great prestige in the eyes of the inhabitants. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 64.)
On November 8, William Beekman, still Acting Mayor, presented to Governor Dongan the aldermen's petition for a city charter. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 66.)
Info update (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"First Elected"[edit]

Is there any particular reason why the column only gives links to the elections where the mayors were *first* elected, rather than every election they won? They should be plenty of vertical space in each row to list every election, since there are large portraits anyway. Chuborno (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A. Oakey Hall's party affiliation as mayor - Democratic or Republican?[edit]

Am I missing something some historical information that everybody else knows? A. Oakey Hall's listing says that he was a Republican. But according to these newspaper articles that I found when I was updating the New York County District Attorney page, and which were published in the New York Times at the times of his elections, he was a Whig in 1854 when he ran for district attorney, a Republican in 1861 when he ran for district attorney, and then a Democratic Tammany Hall candidate when he ran for D.A. in 1864 and 1867 and for Mayor in 1868 and 1870. So for Mayor, shouldn't he be listed Democratic? (The same way Bloomberg is listed by the party tickets he used when he ran, not his original affiliation.)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]References are right under my signature. I listed one article that mentioned his party in each election campaign, but there are others. Subscription to the Times may be required to see the articles — my apologies.

References

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oakey Hall was definitely a Democrat as mayor. He was the front man for Tammany Hall's Tweed Ring. I went to Newspapers.com and verified it. A story from the New York Tribune for November 30, 1868 identifies him as a Democrat. An article from the Louisville Courier-Journal for July 6, 1868 names Hall as one of Tweed's top lieutenants in the Tammany Hall Democratic organization. The New York Sun for December 2, 1868 has a page one article identifying Hall as the successful Democratic nominee for mayor. An ad in the New York Sun for November 26, 1868 invites voters to a Democratic rally for Hall and Richard O'Gorman, the Democratic nominee for Corporation Counsel. The Daily Phoenix (Columbia, SC) for November 29, 1868 identifies Hall as the Democratic nominee for mayor, and Frederick A. Conkling as his Republican opponent.
I think you're on solid ground to make the party affiliation as mayor Democratic.
Billmckern (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel F. Tiemann[edit]

Here's what I just added to Tiemann's article:

In December 1857, Democrat Fernando Wood, the mayor of New York, was removed from office by the New York State Legislature, and an election was held to replace him. Fed up with the corruption of Wood's administration, members of the Democratic Party's inner circle, powerful merchants such as August Belmont, John A. Dix, William Havemeyer, and John van Buren left the party and joined with reformers such as Peter Cooper, Republicans and Know-Nothings to create a fusion Independent Party. They nominated Tiemann as their candidate, while Wood ran on the Democratic ticket. Tiemann won the election with 51.4 percent of the vote, against Wood's 48.6 percent. He served for one term.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pre-consolidation mayors[edit]

I am unfamiliar with Pre-consolidation. Is this the same time period as Post-Revolutionary? ~1776-> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EFC0:105:199A:4B54:94D:5B71 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, "pre-consolidation" refers to the period before 1898, when the City of New York (i.e. Manhattan and its extensions north, known as The Bronx), the City of Brooklyn, the western portion of Queens County, Richmond County (Staten Island), and parts of Westchester County were consolidated into the City of Greater New York. The Bronx was, at that time, a part of New York County, i.e. an extension of Manhattan. The new Bronx County was created from that extension plus parts of lower Westchester County. The unconsolidated eastern portion of Queens County became Nassau County.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Age of death?[edit]

Not clear why this info should be included in the table of post-consolidation mayors. Nareek (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mayors Term Definition Between 1784 - 1803[edit]

As the mayors of this era were appointed by the Council of Appointment as opposed to being elected, and there were no term limits as we understand them today, do we define James Duane, Richard Varick, and Robert Livingston as one term mayors? Or do we assign them single year terms and their successors had and roll that into the total number of years served? i.e. Is Varick an 11 term, or a 1 term, mayor? 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11 term, because they were appointed to serve ffor a year, and then re-appointed at the end of the year. Also, because ootherwise all mayors during this period would be 1 term mayors, which would make "term" a meaningless stat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)sReply[reply]