Thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers attended the 1909 Hudson-Fulton Celebration – a gathering of the immense, vast and differing communities that made up the population of one of America’s fastest-growing cities at the turn of the century.  Naturally, such a demanding undertaking called for not just one great planner, but a conglomeration of some of the most renowned names in New York society, devoted to the multi-faceted goal of creating the most memorable, educational, and marvelous celebration possible.  This responsibility belonged to the Hudson-Fulton Celebration Commission. 

THE WORKINGS OF THE COMMISSION

When the idea for the commemoration was first proposed and the Commission began meeting in 1902, it consisted of 212 members.  Seven years later, at the time of the festival, membership had inflated to 805 people. ^[i] The Board of Trustees, a committee of up to 100 men elected by Commission members annually, had regularly scheduled meetings on the fourth Wednesday of each month.   General Commission meetings took place once a year, on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of every May.^[ii]  For these massive meetings, the order of business was as follows:

1, Roll call; 2, Reading of minutes not previously read; 3, Election of Trustees; 4, Report of Treasurer; 5, Reports of Committees; 6, Communications; 7, Miscellaneous business.^[iii]

The President of the Commission could call for additional meetings upon the request of the Trustees, which, presumably, would have been the case with increasing frequency, especially in the months leading up to the celebration. 

To keep such an enormous assembly organized, the Trustees elected a set of officers each May that included a president, fifteen vice-presidents, a secretary, and a treasurer.  The function of the president was to “preside at all meetings of the Trustees and of the Commission; [to] appoint all committees; and be Chairman of the Executive Committee and ex-officio a member of all standing committees except when otherwise expressly relieved from such service, and [to] have a general supervision of the affairs of the Commission.”^[iv]  For the majority of the planning, since May 4, 1906, General Stewart L. Woodford, former Congressman and U.S. Ambassador to Spain, was the president.  However, because he spent a great portion of his time in office abroad, vice-president Herman Ridder replaced him as Acting President throughout a significant portion of the major planning endeavors.  In recognition of his efforts, a volunteer committee of Trustees presented him with a gold medal after the celebration on March 11, 1910.  In a letter accompanying the presentation of the medal, the Committee said that it was meant

…not only as a souvenir of the Celebration, but as an evidence of their high appreciation of the great service rendered by [Ridder] to the Commission…[.]  It is clear that [his] long and public-spirited labor of love for the City of New York in helping so superbly, as Acting-President of the Hudson-Fulton Celebration Commission, to carry to success that Celebration, has won for [him] a host of friends, whose admiration for [his] courage, [his] energy, [his] enthusiasm and [his] faith in the success of the enterprise, it is only second to their high personal regard for [him] as a man.^[v]

Despite the fact that he was not the official president, Ridder’s willingness and ability to step into this position of power and lead the group to its ultimate goal ensured the successful outcome of the Commission’s efforts.  Without his dedication, it would have been conceivable that the planning struggles would have collapsed in on themselves in the years leading up to the celebration with the departure of Gen. Woodford. 

The curiously large number of vice presidents is not addressed in the official 1910 report of the Commission to the Legislation of New York, which gives a fairly simple job description for this position: “In the absence of the President or his inability to act, one of the Vice-Presidents, to be designated by him in writing, shall perform his duties and possess his powers.  If he makes no designation, it will be made by the Trustees.”^[vi]  Several widely recognized names of prominent New Yorkers appeared on the list of vice presidents, which read: Hon. Robert B. Roosevelt, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, Major-Gen. Frederick D. Grant, Mr. Morris K. Jesup, Hon. Levi P. Morton, Mr. William Rockefeller, Mr. William B. Van Rensselaer, Hon. Andrew D. White, Hon. Grover Cleveland, Gen. Horace Porter, Hon. Joseph H. Choate, Mr. J.P. Morgan, Hon. Oscar S. Straus, Hon. Seth Low, and Mr. Herman Ridder.^[vii] Many of these men were involved in similar ambitions and organizations outside of their work with the Commission, meaning that some of them had already had dealings and even personal relationships with one another.  In any case, all of these men were eminent New Yorkers, so there is no doubt that they were known to each other prior to working together on the Commission.  Because no official explanation is given for the seemingly superfluous list of officers, a reason can only be speculated.  Presumably, the abundance of vice-presidents was a result of the social and economic standings of many of the members of the Board of Trustees.  Because their presence on the Committee was immeasurably beneficial to the interests of the celebration, it was necessary to provide them with authoritative ranks within the planning process.  It would seem just a bit too ridiculous to allow for fifteen presidents; and furthermore, such a setup would most likely allow for chaotic and unfocused leadership.  To settle this issue, the prominent members of the Committee were placed in the vice-presidency – a position with a lofty title that was still subordinate to one leader, so as not to interfere with the efficiency of the planning process.

The role of the secretary was much more conventional.  Secretary Col. Henry W. Sackett and Assistant Secretary Mr. Edward Hagaman Hall served primarily to keep records, to issue notices of meetings and to“perform the other duties ordinarily incident to that office, and when directed by the Trustees, affix the seal of the Commission.”^[viii]  Col. Sackett was awarded with a medal alongside Mr. Ridder, with an acknowledgment of his “long and public-spirited labor of love for the City of New York in helping to carry to success the Hudson-Fulton Celebration” stating that his

“associates of the Commission fully appreciate the unique contribution which [he] made to the success of the Celebration.  They understand, in an imperfect way, what it means to give, as [he has] given, many months of [his]time to the patient handling of one perplexing question after another.  It has been to them at all times a source of satisfaction to know that the work of the Secretary of the Commission has been in hands so entirely competent and safe; and most of them are [his] debtors for much personal courtesy and consideration.”^[ix]

It was Mr. Hall’s arduous task to recount – in exact detail – the events of the celebration, along with many of the logistical aspects and planning procedures. 

Though the treasurer’s function was also mostly prototypical – he was to manage all money, securities and deeds, deal with bills and deposits in a manner that was approved by the Trustees, and report the finances to the Trustees at every meeting – he, too, had a highly demanding job.  As the head of a project that cost a total of over a million dollars (a price that would have been unheard of for most events at the time) Mr. Isaac N. Seligman had what must have seemed like an impossible task.  In an examination of the audition report that was issued after the event, it seems that perhaps the numbers were a bit too difficult to handle efficiently; in 1910, the Commission was over $21,500 in debt.^[x] 

COMMITTEES

The treasurer was not alone in handling finances.  Two committees were designated specifically for this purpose: the Ways and Means Committee, which focused on the raising of funds, and the Auditing Committee, which dealt with the Commission’s abundant bills.  The Ways and Means Committee accepted funds from three sources: the State of New York, the City of New York, and voluntary subscriptions, none of which had been solicited.  Interestingly, the auditing report shows that the entirety of the Commission’s debt was a discrepancy in receipts and disbursements among the voluntary subscriptions; the Commission was careful not to spend a penny more than the City or the State had allotted them.  It seems, then, that the public – those for whom the celebration was intended – was the lowest financial priority for the Commission, who knew that, while the City and State had the power to impede on its plans for the celebration, the public had relatively little ability to do so.  

Alongside the two financial committees were 49 others with various purposes – both to organize the planning and to actually plan the events.  One such organizational group was the Executive Committee, which included the officers, whose purpose was to manage the general affairs of the Commission and to appoint sub-committees as they saw necessary.  Outside the Board of Trustees, there were about three thousand New York City residents who made up the Borough Citizens’ Committees, which allowed each borough and several Hudson River villages to represent themselves as committees within the Commission.  As the Commission grew, new committees were formed for each phase of the celebration; thus, there was a Children’s Festival Committee, a Naval Parade Committee, Half Moon and Clermont Committees, etc. 

Notable Members and their Motives

As was mentioned previously, the Commission had an impressive roster of chief members, including some of the most prominent names in New York and national culture.  These were men of wealth, power, and ambition.  They fulfilled a typical profile for leading figures of the time: rich, white, middle-aged, and male.  Because many of them had prospered at the head of the rising role of capitalism that was occurring at the time, most were politically conservative.  Opposed to the Populist ideals that pervaded the countryside, promising relief to farmers from the oppressive monopolies of the corporation boom, these were urban men – men who worked, lived, and, most importantly, made their money in the city.  Industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, primarily a steel man, and William Rockefeller, an oil and copper tycoon, capitalized on their wealth and the weakness of smaller industries, gaining monopolies over raw materials, transportation, production, distribution and marketing.^[xi]  The notorious and indomitable banker James Piermont Morgan controlled his own monumental financial house  – whose word determined whether or not most businesses would make it into the stock market – and three to four others in the city, plus the major railroad and steel corporations.  Alongside these capitalist moguls was Hon. Grover Cleveland, a former President of the United States. 

The question is, then, why did all of these affluent men feel that the Hudson-Fulton cause was worthy of their limited time and beloved money?  In order to answer this question, it is necessary to note the intended purposes of the celebration.  In its official report, the Commission states that its intention was to create an educational, non-commercial event that would “promote the assimilation of [New York’s] adopted populations” – that is, it was geared toward the inclusion of immigrants, “to make them feel that the Celebration belonged to them as much as to the older inhabitants….”^[xii] Interestingly, the report links historical education of immigrants to an increase in prosperity:

The power of tradition has been one of the most fundamental and conservative forces of all peoples of all times.  As a body propelled through space tends to travel in a direct line unless diverted by some force other than that which drives it, so a people naturally tends to follow the impulses of the past and to adhere to tradition unless turned therefrom by other influences.  Therefore the ingrained history of a nation, which in a broad sense we call tradition, serves as a balance wheel, tending to restrain sudden and spasmodic departure from the normal mode of progress.  Historical culture thus materially promotes the welfare of the Commonwealth.^[xiii]

The nod to conservative values is unsurprising.  The leaders of the Commission were conservative men whose livelihoods depended on the continuation of a conservative economic system.  Thus, the celebration was an opportunity to portray these types of principles in a light that would appeal to a vast population.  Liberal ideals denounced the corporation as detrimental to the well being of those who did not work for them – namely, the working class.  The celebration would attract audiences from all classes, not just those with whom its leaders generally interacted, thereby providing a venue by which the wealthy could present themselves favorably to those who might resent their prosperity.  It was an attempt to dismiss accusations that they were greedy and out of control; their argument was that, as heads of this magnificent, diversified event, such an indictment against them would be ludicrous.

In addition, the official Commission report names international friendship as a motivation for the celebration, nodding to the U.S.’s Dutch origins and France’s assistance during the American Revolution, among other influences.^[xiv]  Though this pacifistic intent is admirable, one must consider other possible motivations for the inclusion of international presences.  Undoubtedly, the Commission members had the image of their city in mind as they planned the event.  New York was, at the time, still seen as a growing city, still on the verge of being a leading one.  The celebration was a chance to disprove this misconception, as New Yorkers saw it.  With the city presented (and embellished) at its best during the festivities, people from all over the world would come to see New York’s glorious skyscrapers, its diverse and enlightened culture, and the impressive U.S. military.  In addition, it gave the individuals behind the event a chance to flaunt their own accomplishments and perhaps even garner some personal gains as a result.  After having practically become the owners of the United States, international recognition would have been immeasurably tempting in the eyes of many Commission members. 

However, it cannot be assumed that the wealthy Commission members only had purely self-serving motives.  It is probable that, as a result of their extreme affluence, many of these men felt a civic duty to “give back” to the city that fostered their prosperity. Because of their prominent roles in New York society, many of these men were seen as the city’s father figures – they not only exercised control over the city, but they could provide it with direction and guidance.  After all, the rich men of the early twentieth century had more than enough money to live luxuriously; much of the excess went into philanthropic endeavors.  Though skeptics often view philanthropy as a venue for fame and positive attention, some of these gifts clearly did not fall under such a classification.  J.P. Morgan, in particular, was known for his under-the-table generosity.  According to one story, Morgan set up a trust fund for the rector of his church, telling him to mention it only to his wife.^[xv]  He donated substantial amounts of money to his church, the Lying-in Hospital, numerous museums, and Harvard University without ever having had a building named after him.^[xvi]  This type of quiet charity is not a plea for public admiration, but a simple desire to help others.  Even Morgan’s gifts, totaling between $5 and 10 million, were dwarfed by fellow Commission Vice-President Andrew Carnegie, whose benefactions totaled around $350 million.^[xvii]  Though it is possible that these men pursued philanthropy for self-promotion, there is evidence otherwise.  It is plausible, even likely, that the wealthy men of New York viewed their prosperity as an advantage that obligated them to use it for the good of the city.  Since some of them controlled large portions of the city’s economy, the city depended on them to survive and thrive, and these men were well aware of that fact.

The exact ratio of genuine community servitude to more personal aspirations that inspired the Commission can never really be known.  What is definite, however, is the fact that this group of men came together to create an unbelievable event that had significant, positive effects on New York City, regardless of the motivations of individual planners.