Crime and Punishment in American History - Lawrence M. Friedman [43]
Reform and innovation often followed directly on the heels of a particularly vicious or frightening riot. In Philadelphia, there were major anti-Catholic riots in 1844. In July, when a mob laid siege to a Catholic church, militia troops came to the scene; they fired on the crowd, killing fourteen people. A grand jury called for a civilian solution: a police force of some hundreds of men. The force was established in 1845, and strengthened in 1850. By 1852 there were over seven hundred policemen in the county.24 Boston established a day watch in 1838. Piecemeal reforms followed; then, in 1854, the old system of watch and police was finally consigned to the ash heap. What replaced it was a “Boston Police Department” of about two hundred and fifty men under a chief of police; the old brass badge was exchanged “for a silver octagon oval plate, little larger than a silver dollar, with a ‘five-pointed star,’ on which was engraved BOSTON POLICE.”25 New Orleans and Cincinnati established police forces in 1852, Chicago in 1855, Baltimore in 1857.26
A badge was one thing, a uniform another. Men balked at the idea of a uniform, and the public was also wary. One newspaper questioned whether “an American freeman” would or should “strut about ... in the livery furnished at the public expense.” A uniform, however, represented visibility, control, and gave the police a smart, military flavor. In 1854, Philadelphia decided that officers should wear a black coat, a hat, and the badge; in 1858, the Boston police also adopted uniforms.27 The departments began to issue rule books that stressed discipline, propriety, and uniformity.28
Wilbur Miller has drawn a sharp contrast between the “bobbies” of London and the police of New York. For its police, London recruited mostly country boys, strangers to London; this was a policy of “detachment from the citizens” and “professional impartiality.” New York, on the other hand, stressed “closeness to the community”; the police were locals, city boys themselves. This was a policy that could and did slide easily into corruption. Also, it put the police in a position of dependence on politicians. Police discipline in New York was nowhere near as strict as in London, and patrolmen “looked to local politicans for appointment and promotion.”29
The politicking went both ways; police, for their part, often worked to make sure “their” alderman got elected; the situation improved somewhat after reforms in 1853, but the unholy alliance between police and politics in New York did not vanish.30 Other cities were no less politicized. Edward Savage, reminiscing romantically about the good old days in Boston, told how the police “very quietly dabbled a little (very little) in politics” in the election of fall 1858, when “things looked a little squally.... Our choice was successful.”31
The American police, in other words, were less “professional” than their British counterparts from the very start; they dipped into local politics—indeed, they were drenched in it. They were full-time workers in the system, to be sure, but there was no job training, no requirements or prerequisites, and not much real control over behavior on the beat. Amateurism of a sort went all the way to the top of the force—a point illustrated by the antics of Francis Tukey, marshal of the Boston police after 1846. Tukey was only thirty-two when he was appointed; he was a lawyer, and a personal friend of the mayor. Tukey expanded the department, staged flamboyant raids on gambling dens, and showed a talent for publicity. In January 1848, the “police drew a crowd by mysteriously digging into Boston Common to uncover a cache