Historical Question:
Was ‘machine politics’ of the late 19th and early 20th century a positive
influence on American growth?
Author: Eric Murphy Conrad
School: Orchard Hills School
District: Milford
Overview:
During the 19th and 20th century, government went through drastic change. As cities and industry
developed in our country, many opportunities arose for public officials to gain great power. In some
instances, politicians used this power for personal benefit. The most infamous and possibly influential
political “machine” was that of Tammany Hall. While there can easily be a case built against such politics,
there was also a great deal of economic growth both as a nation and for individual citizens. It was also a
time when unions gained strength and workers’ rights were brought to light. Is the line between right
and wrong in this instance clear? This academic controversy provides documentation for “pros” and
“cons” for machine politics and provides the opportunity for students to form a critical stance on the
topic.
Document Summary:
Document A demonstrates the commonly held belief by the “average” citizen that as long as a political
party takes care of the things that really matter to them(sound job, decent wages, etc.) they can look past
the corruption that doesn’t necessarily have a direct bearing on them.
Document B details some of the many examples of corruption and gross overspending during the time
period. It gives instances of political players giving contracts for graft or “kickbacks” and voter support. It
also gives a few weaker examples of how machine politics may have improved work conditions for the
common person.
Document C illustrates the common stance that the political machine makes all decisions based on
potential for personal profit.
Document D gives a detailed narrative from George Plunkett and illustrates his, and many others, belief
that while there is definitely a component of corruption to politics of the time, he does not participate in the
“dishonest” form of graft that “plays” the system rather than taking advantage of an individual. He goes
further to claim that if he didn’t take advantage of the opportunity, someone else would have. He also
insinuates that someone else would do it in a worse, less “honest” fashion.
Document E demonstrates the belief that Tweed and his party were a bunch of vultures preying on innocent
people.
Document F gives a brief history of Tammany Hall in the early 20th century. It details the political career of
Charles Francis Murphy and a few others. It attempts to explain how Tammany tried to “clean-up” its
reputation during the period to retain power.
Document G
These brief video clips give good information about the pros and cons of machine politics of the time.
Procedure (80 minutes):
1. Introduction of lesson, objectives, overview of SAC procedure (15 minutes)
2. SAC group assignments (30 minutes)
a. Assign groups of four and assign arguments to each team of two.
b. In each group, teams read and examine the Document Packet
c. Each student completes the Preparation part of the Capture Sheet (#2), and works with
their partner to prepare their argument using supporting evidence.
d. Students should summarize your argument in #3.
3. Position Presentation (10 minutes)
a. Team 1 presents their position using supporting evidence recorded and summarized on
the Preparation part of the Capture Sheet (#2 & #3) on the Preparation matrix. Team 2
records Team 1’s argument in #4.
b. Team 2 restates Team 1’s position to their satisfaction.
c. Team 2 asks clarifying questions and records Team 1’s answers.
d. Team 2 presents their position using supporting evidence recorded and summarized on
the Preparation part of the Capture Sheet (#2 & #3) on the Preparation matrix. Team 1
records Team 2’s argument in #4.
e. Team 1 restates Team 2’s position to their satisfaction.
f. Team 1 asks clarifying questions and records Team 2’s answers.
4. Consensus Building (10 minutes)
a. Team 1 and 2 put their roles aside.
b. Teams discuss ideas that have been presented, and figure out where they can agree or
where they have differences about the historical question
5. Closing the lesson (15 minutes)
a. Whole-group Discussion
b. Make connection to unit
c. Assessment (suggested writing activity addressing the question)
DOCUMENT PACKET
Document A
This document demonstrates the commonly held belief by the “average” citizen that as long as a political
party takes care of the things that really matter to them(sound job, decent wages, etc.) they can look past
the corruption that doesn’t necessarily have a direct bearing on them.
“I know what Parks is doing,” said a New York union workman, “but what do I
care. He has raised my wages. Let him have his graft!” And the Philadelphia
merchant says the same thing: “The party leaders may be getting more than
they should out of the city, but that doesn’t hurt me. It may raise taxes a little,
but I can stand that. The party keeps up the protective tariff. If that were cut
down, my business would be ruined. So long as the party stands pat on that, I
stand pat on the party.”
Vocabulary
Union: a group of people united
Graft: the taking of money
dishonestly in connection with city or
government business
Tariff: tax on imports or exports
Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (New York: McClure, Philips & Co., 1904), 1–18.
Document B
This document details some of the many examples of corruption and gross overspending during the time
period. It gives instances of political players giving contracts for graft or “kickbacks” and voter support. It
also gives a few weaker examples of how machine politics may have improved work conditions for the
common person.
In the late 1860s, William M. Tweed was the New York City's political boss. His headquarters, located on
East 14th Street, was known as Tammany Hall. He wore a diamond, orchestrated elections, controlled the
city's mayor, and rewarded political supporters. His primary source of funds came from the bribes and
kickbacks that he demanded in exchange of city contracts. The most notorious example of urban
corruption was the construction of the New York County Courthouse, begun in 1861 on the site of a former
almshouse. Officially, the city wound up spending nearly $13 million--roughly $178 million in today's
dollars--on a building that should have cost several times less. Its construction cost nearly twice as much
as the purchase of Alaska in 1867. The corruption was breathtaking in its breadth and baldness. A
carpenter was paid $360,751 (roughly $4.9 million today) for one month's labor in a building with very
little woodwork. A furniture contractor received $179,729 ($2.5 million) for three tables and 40 chairs.
And the plasterer, A Tammy functionary, Andrew J. Garvey, got $133,187 ($1.82 million) for two days'
work; his business acumen earned him the sobriquet "The Prince of Plasterers." Tweed personally profited
from a financial interest in a Massachusetts quarry that provided the courthouse's marble. When a
committee investigated why it took so long to build the courthouse, it spent $7,718 ($105,000) to print its
report. The printing company was owned by Tweed. The Tweed courthouse was not completed until 1880,
two decades after ground was broken. By then, the courthouse had become a symbol of public corruption.
"The whole atmosphere is corrupt," said a reformer from the time. "You look up at its ceilings and find
gaudy decorations; you wonder which is the greatest, the vulgarity or the corruptness of the place.
"Boss-rule, machine politics, payoff and graft, and the spoils system outraged late 19th century reformers.
But were bosses and political machines as corrupt as their critics charged? George Washington Plunkitt of
Tammany Hall, New York's Democratic political machine, distinguished between "honest" and "dishonest"
graft. Honest graft might involve buying up land scheduled for purchase by government. Many machines
professionalized urban police forces and instituted the first housing regulations. Political bosses also
served the welfare needs of immigrants. They offered jobs, food, fuel, and clothing to the new immigrants
and the destitute poor.
Vocabulary
Orchestrated-to compose or arrange
Corruption-a being influenced by bribes;
dishonesty
Source: Excerpt from "Boss Tweed", Digital
Historyhttp://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=211
Document C
This document illustrates the common stance that the political machine makes all decisions based on
potential for personal profit.
Library of Congress
Document D
This document gives a detailed narrative from George Plunkett and illustrates his, and many others, belief
that while there is definitely a component of corruption to politics of the time, he does not participate in the
“dishonest” form of graft that “plays” the system rather than taking advantage of an individual. He goes
further to claim that if he didn’t take advantage of the opportunity, someone else would have. He also
insinuates that someone else would do it in a worse, less “honest” fashion.
EVERYBODY is talkin’ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody
thinks of drawin’ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There’s all the
difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I
have myself. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve
not gone in for dishonest graft – blackmailin’ gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc. –
and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics. Just let me explain by
examples. My party’s in power in the city, and it’s goin’ to undertake a lot of public
improvements. Well, I’m tipped off, say, that they’re going to lay out a new park at a certain
place. I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the
neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my
land, which nobody cared particular for before. Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price
and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft.
Vocabulary
Blackmail -any payment extorted by intimidation,
as by threats or accusations.
Riordan, W. Plunkitt of Tammany Hall
Document E
This illustration demonstrates the belief that Tweed and his party were a bunch of vultures preying on
innocent people.
Library of Congress
Document F
This document gives a brief history of Tammany Hall in the early 20 th century. It details the political career
of Charles Francis Murphy and a few others. It attempts to explain how Tammany tried to “clean-up” its
reputation during the period to retain power.
Murphy succeeded Lewis Nixon as leader of Tammany Hall in 1902 and became the most powerful boss
in Tammany's history. The son of Irish immigrants, Murphy quit school at age fourteen and worked a
series of jobs, saving money until he purchased a saloon. He eventually amassed four such
establishments and made a significant percentage of his fortune. He soon became a member of
Tammany Hall, and by 1892, Murphy became the leader of Manhattan's so-called Gas House District. His
stature in the Tammany organization rose until, in September 1902, Murphy became the undisputed
leader of Tammany Hall, a title he maintained until his sudden death in 1924. Murphy, a Roman Catholic,
was buried at Calvary Cemetery in New York.[1]
In contrast to longtime boss Richard Croker, the taciturn and teetotaling Murphy (his nickname was "silent
Charlie") brought an air of respectability to Tammany Hall. He furthered this end by promoting a new crop
of Tammany politicians — chief among them was Senator James J. Walker, Rockland County
Chairman James Farley and Alderman Alfred E. Smith — who would move the machine away from the
methods of Boss Tweed and toward a Progressive Era style that rewarded the loyalty of the poor with
reforms like factory safety and child labor laws. Thus, Murphy is credited with transforming Tammany into
a political organization capable of drawing the votes of the ever-growing numbers of new immigrants from
Eastern and Southern Europe, a feat that kept Tammany in power until the early 1930s.
Vocabulary:
Credited- commendation or honor given for some action, quality, etc.
Amassed- accumulated
Stature- physical presence or accomplishment
Baida, Peter. "The Corrupting of New York City." American Heritage, December 1986, www.americanheritage.com.
Document G
These brief video clips give good information about the pros and cons of machine politics of the time.
This is a Quicktime movie. Please click the link to listen to the documentary. It will be beneficial to write
notes to support your stance as you watch.
D:\Structured Academic Controversy\CONS\Tammany Hall ~cons.mov
OR
http://player.discoveryeducation.com/index.cfm?guidAssetId=75EAC6D0-AA44-49F9-AF6CF391F0E7728D&blnFromSearch=1&productcode=US
Some of the language and phrasing in these documents have been
modified from the originals.
CAPTURE SHEET
Was ‘machine politics’ of the late 19th and
early 20th century a positive influence on
American growth?
Preparation:
1. Highlight your assigned position.
Don’t forget the rules of a successful
academic controversy!
1. Practice active listening.
2. Challenge ideas, not each other
3. Try your best to understand the other
positions
4. Share the floor: each person in a pair
MUST have an opportunity to speak
5. No disagreeing until consensusbuilding as a group of four
Yes: Machine politics’ of the late 19th and early 20th century had a positive influence on American growth.
No: ‘Machine politics’ of the late 19th and early 20th century did not have a positive influence on
American growth.
2. Read through each document searching for support for your side’s argument. Use the
documents to fill in the chart (Hint: Not all documents support your side, find those that do):
Document
#
What is the main idea of this document?
What details support your position?
3. Work with your partner to summarize your arguments for your position using the supporting
documents you found above:
Position Presentation:
4. You and your partner will present your position to your opposing group members. When you
are done, you will then listen to your opponents’ position.
While you are listening to your opponents’ presentation, write down the main details that they
present here:
Clarifying questions I have for the opposing partners:
How they answered the questions:
Consensus Building:
5. Put your assigned roles aside. Where does your group stand on the question? Where does
your group agree? Where does your group disagree? Your consensus answer does not have
to be strictly yes, or no.
We agree:
We disagree:
Our final consensus: