Until 1806 Tammany Hall remained an agitational political club, the New York city representative of the Republican, later termed Democratic, Party. In that year was begun a thorough or ganization of Democratic voters. The main features of this com prehensive plan were general, nominating, corresponding and ward committees. In the general committee was vested the power of convening the party's meetings and of making all necessary ar rangements for elections. Composed originally of 3o members, this committee was gradually expanded until it had many thou sands of members penetrating every section in the city.
Tammany Hall's strength was greatly increased when, in 1820, it decided as a matter of policy to support a New York State con stitutional amendment abolishing property qualifications for vot ing. Effective in 1822, this amendment brought a new and ever increasing voting element into politics and generally into Tam many Hall. The change produced by manhood suffrage was not immediate. For some years more Tammany was led by bankers and merchants who used their power for self-enrichment. The Workingmen's Party, in 1829, and its successor, the Equal Rights Party, organized in 1834, so successfully warred upon banker leaders and their colleagues that the general committee rid Tam many Hall of this element.
The period especially from 1846 onward was one in which heavy immigration, notably Irish, poured into New York city. Impecunious, and objects of religious and racial prejudice, numbers of the Irish, unable to get work, banded in street gangs. Unlike other political parties, Tammany Hall welcomed immigrants, facilitated their naturalization and gave them relief. The astute, unscrupulous and engaging Fernando Wood organized the gangs as a political power within Tammany Hall, securing his own advancement as well as assuring Tammany the redoubtable support of men equally useful in overawing oppo sition, packing primaries or committing frauds at the polls. Wood had been a powerful but not a supreme leader. With the ascend ency of William M. Tweed in 1867, Tammany Hall came under the sway of a single leader or boss. The son of a chairmaker, Tweed had won his way through ward politics, had been a mem ber of "The Forty Thieves" board of aldermen in 1851-52, ma nipulating his unprincipled way to the rule of Tammany Hall. Corruption reached its climax under Tweed when New York city was plundered of an amount conservatively estimated at $4J,000, 000 in direct spoliation, but ranging as high as $200,000,000 when reduced taxes and fraudulent bond issues are also considered. Only $876,000 was ever recovered. Tweed died in gaol, but most of his confederates and the other looting beneficiaries retained their wealth. Tammany Hall became a world-wide object of odium.
For a time in popular disfavour, Tam many Hall, within three years after the exposures of the Tweed regime, was again in power in New York city. Succeeding Tweed
as boss, John Kelly sagaciously induced Democrats who had been prominent in overthrowing Tweed to reorganize Tammany Hall. Superficial, this move in nowise affected the composition and char acteristics of the Tammany organization at large. The real resusci tating factor was the attachment of New York city's tenement house masses to an organization the district leaders of which exer cised a human relationship, coming into direct contact with them, treating them politically as equals, and giving a helping hand to those in want or trouble. This one large service outweighed all of the denunciations of Tammany by Republican business opponents who often had their own less spectacular but more insidious sys tem of corruption. After Kelly's death in 1886, Richard Croker succeeded as Tammany Hall's boss, and he was followed by Charles F. Murphy in 1902. During this period many charges of Tammany corruption were made and proved. But these were per haps no greater than the contemporary frauds and corruptions committed by financial, insurance and other corporations.
With the accession of Judge George W. Olvany to leadership of Tammany after Murphy's death in 1924, came evidence of a still more altered Tammany Hall. Differing from his predecessors, Judge Olvany was a uni versity graduate and lawyer, having served in the court of general sessions. In contrast to former or older crude district leaders, the new district leaders were also men of varying degrees of educa tion. The force behind this changing Tammany was generally recognized to be that of Alfred E. Smith (q.v.), four times gov ernor of New York and a leading Presidential candidate. On Mar. 16, 1929, Olvany suddenly resigned his leadership. Many inter preted this as meaning a loss of Smith's power and influence after his defeat in the national election of 1928. After a month's dead lock between the factions John F. Curry, a former ward leader of the old type, was elected to head the organization. Criticism of Mayor Walker's administration, culminating in the Hofstadter Committee's investigation and Samuel Seabury's report, prompted. Walker's resignation and discredited Curry. Tammany leaders re fused to indorse the moderate reforms made by acting mayor Mc Kee and chose John P. O'Brien of the old school to fill out the un expired term. The city rose in revolt and a Fusion ticket formed under Seabury's direction successfully ran Fiorello H. LaGuardia for mayor. These successive defeats weakened Curry's leadership and in July 1934 he was replaced by James J. Dooling.
See Gustavus Myers, The History of Tammany Hall; "The New Tammany," The Century Magazine, Aug. 1926 ; Dennis Tilden Lynch, Boss Tweed; M. R. Werner, Tammany Hall (1928).