New York destroyed a village full of African-American landowners to create Central Park

Image: Seneca Village Project; Google Earth.

In the mid 19th century, New York City decided it needed a park. The city was growing fast, and everyone was conscious that this was one metric on which its rivals in Europe had the upper hand. In 1845, the editor of the New York Evening Post wrote a special Independence Day editorial, enviously praising Britain’s acres of parks, noting: "These parks have been called the lungs of London."

Beyond Brit-envy, there was also the problem of the changing downtown area. Once the spot where fashionable ladies perambulated, it was becoming crowded with a new immigrant population, as well as noise and the smoke produced by industry. According to the Louise Chipley Slavicek, author of New York’s Central Park, the pro-park lobby were largely “affluent merchants, bankers and landowners”, who wanted a “fashionable and safe public place where they and their families could mingle and promenade”. 

And so in 1851, Ambrose Kingsland, the city’s mayor, agreed to create one. By 1854, the city had chosen generous chunk of land in the centre of the island between what is now 59th and 106th streets, and construction on the park began. (It was later extended four blocks further north). The park is still there today, and everyone loves it: despite centuries of urban development, the park has remained an anchoring chunk of green space among the ever-denser Manhattan streets.

But there’s another side to the story. By the time the decision to create a park was made, there wasn’t enough empty space left in Manhattan. So the city chose a stretch of land where the largest settlement was Seneca Village, population 264, and seized the land under the law of eminent domain, through which the government can take private land for public purposes. Residents protested to the courts many times, against both the order and the level of compensation being offered for their land; eventually, though, all were forced to leave.

Two thirds of the population was black; the rest Irish. There were three churches and a school. And 50 per cent of the heads of households owned the land they lived on, a fact conveniently ignored by the media of the time, who described the population as “squatters” and the settlement as “n***er village”.

If you visited the park during its first 150 years of existence, you’d have no idea this village ever existed. It was only in 2001 that a small group called the Seneca Village Project pressured the city to install a small plaque; it describes the village as a “unique community”, which may well have been “Manhattan’s first prominent community of African American property owners”.

Since then the group, formed in the late nineties by a group of archaeologists and historians, has gone much further in bringing the village back into the cultural consciousness. In 2011, it managed to get permission to carry out an archaeological dig in Central Park, in order to find out more about the village and its residents.

Anthropologist Diana Wall was a founding member of the project. She told me that the excavation helped solidify information about the settlement, which even she herself had thought might be an “urban myth” when she first heard about it:

What I really like about historical archaeology is that you end up talking about families who have names; you can find out about aspects of their lives.

Fragments of crockery found during the Seneca Village dig. Image: the Media Center for Art History, Department of Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University.

In fact, there’s actually quite a lot recorded about Seneca Viillage: the simple fact that many of the residents owned their land meant that the settlement generated a lot of paperwork. In future, Wall and her colleagues hope to make a film and book about the settlement and its residents. Every few years, the project gets a grant, usually from the National Science Foundation, which moves it a little closer to these goals.

So why does the demolition of a tiny village, razed in the 19th century to create a park that’s since been enjoyed by millions, matter? Wall places it in a much wider narrative, in which African Americans’ role in the nation's early public life has been erased: “There’s been a denial that there were African Americans in New York City," she says. In 1991, a slave burial ground was discovered during excavations to build a new office block north of City Hall – a reminder that nearly a quarter of the city’s population was black by the time of the American Revolution.

A 19th century map of part of the settlement, marked with names of some residents.

Then there’s the question of what might have been. At the end of the Central Park plaque, there’s an apparently innocuous line, noting: “The residents and institutions of Seneca village did not re-establish their long-standing community in another location”.

For Wall, this is key to the tragedy of Seneca Village. In an article on African-American communities in New York, she explains that, in the years after the 1827 slave emancipation, the safest way to live as an African American was in a separate, “enclave” community. As the village was destroyed, so was this safe haven for what she believes based on census records was a “black middle class”. She tells me now:

Many of the residents stayed relatively local to New York [after the village was demolished], but what they did not do was stay together. And that’s what’s so tragic: it was a community, and then the community was gone.

Another key part of the Seneca Village Project is an attempt to trace the genealogies of those who lived there, and find any living descendents. So far, unfortunately, this has been unsuccessful.

The continuance of a community made up of African-American landowners, bang in the middle of Manhattan, could have made for a very different New York – or even a very different United States – today. It’s a reminder that seemingly small decisions, like uprooting a certain community, or bulldozing a council estate, can change a city for good. You have to wonder whether all the mingling and promenading was worth it.

You can find out more about the Seneca Village Project here

Like what you see? Why not follow CityMetric on Facebook or Twitter

 
 
 
 

15 other things ministers could move to London to boost the Northern Powerhouse

The Angel of the North. Wouldn't it look better in, say, Camden? Image: Getty.

Yesterday brought confirmation that the government had come up with a clever way of boosting its flagship “Northern Powerhouse” policy: move over 200 government jobs to London.

From the Mirror:

The Tories sneaked out a plan to move 228 jobs in the Northern Powerhouse department from Sheffield to London today, on the last day before Parliament breaks for recess.

And the department today suggested staff who want to keep their jobs could commute the two-hour each way journey from the North to the capital.

(...)

The plan, described as “madness” by Nick Clegg, will see the Department for Business Innovation and Skills’ (BIS) Sheffield office shuttered in 2018.

This is not the first time large chunks of public investment has quietly been shifted from the north to London, even as ministers repeat the words “Northern Powerhouse” in a convincing tone of voice. Remember the decision to move the National Photography Collection from Bradford to London?

It’s easy to sneer. But actually, there are some very clever and compelling arguments for gradually moving every job in Britain into the area enclosed by the M25. Larger cities, after all, are more productive. It stands to reason, then, that a country in which all economic activity took place in a single, high-rise postcode would be far richer, happier, and, well, better than the one we’ve got at the moment. 

That probably isn’t realistic. What might be, however, is gradually shifting all the north’s myriad attractions to new locations in the Home Counties. For that reason, CityMetric understands that ministers are considering relocating a number of other key economic assets to the south of England. 

The Yorkshire Dales – As things stand, England’s “landscape capital” has been disproportionately concentrated in the north. To rectify this, Her Majesty’s Government will explore plans to redistribute the Dales to southern Essex.

Alnwick Castle – Following the very successful experiment in which we moved Leeds Castle to Kent, we’ve found a very promising site for Alnwick just outside Hove.

Betty’s of Harrogate – We believe this charming tea room would do far better business somewhere in the vicinity of Park Lane. 

The Angel of the North – The iconic Antony Gormley statue is currently going to waste on a slight incline next to the A1, on the outskirts of an obscure place called Gateshead. It would attract far more visitors if we placed it instead on, say, Primrose Hill. The best thing about this plan is that we wouldn’t even have to rename it.


The Cavern – To improve Liverpool’s tourism figures, we will be consolidating its main attractions into the new “Abbey Road Experience”.

The rest of Harrogate – Bit confused they didn’t put it in Oxfordshire in the first place, actually.

Salford Quays – Moving chunks of BBC Production to Greater Manchester has been very successful. Her Majesty’s Government is keen to build on this success: we the best way of doing so would be to consolidate operations and seek efficiencies by re-locating the whole of Salford Quays to London. An ideal site has been located in the White City area.

Tate Liverpool – The present site is far too inconvenient. A new site, closer to the Tate Britain, would be ideal.

The University of Durham – It’s in a picturesque medieval town, it’s broken into colleges, it has a boat race... The perm sec was a bit surprised to find it wasn’t in the Home Counties already, if we’re honest.

While we’re at it:

The University of York – See above.

Coronation Street – The problem with this show is that it’s set in Manchester. It’s just so bloody dreary, isn’t it? All that rain; all those cobbles. They should set it in London. Make something more cheerful, like Eastenders.

Hadrian's Wall, in its original location. Image: Hulton Archive/Getty.

Hadrian’s Wall – The wall was constructed during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian to protect proper Britain from the savage Scots. Today, though, there are no fewer than 54 Scottish Nationalists in the House of Commons. This suggests that, if we’re going to bother with such defensive measures, we’re going to need them a damn sight closer to the capital than they are at the moment. 

The Settle to Carlisle line – I mean, it’s a lovely route, but it doesn’t really go anywhere. It’d almost certainly get more passengers if it ran from, say, Euston to Milton Keynes.

Pies – Treasury cost/benefit analysis suggests that large quantities of carbs and gravy would be used more efficiently in the south. 

Northerners – We considered moving the jobs to the people, but decided this way round would work better. Great for house prices, too!

Please note that Her Majesty’s Government has abandoned plans to incentivise Manchester United to move south. But we are hoping to tempt Leicester City to a new home in Surrey.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.