The history of police brutality in America - Part 1
From Colonial Night Watch to Riot Control
Welcome to my freemium newsletter by me, King Williams. A documentary filmmaker, journalist, podcast host, and author based in Atlanta, Georgia. This is a newsletter covering the hidden connections of Atlanta to everything else.
In the wake of the Derek Chauvin verdict and a new slew of high-profile cases of police killings, I wanted to dive into the history of police brutality. In doing so, we will be covering the origins of police, the role of police misconduct throughout US history, and what’s next. This is a miniseries that I hope informs as well as provides a framework on what’s possible for the future.
-King
Written by King Williams
Edited by Alicia Bruce
Rembrandt’s famous 1642 painting, official titled ‘Militia Company of District II under the Command of Captain Frans Banninck Cocq’, but also known as ‘The Shooting Company of Frans Banning Cocq and Willem van Ruytenburch’, but better known as The Night Watch
Part One: What is policing?
——————————————
po·lice /pəˈlēs/ (n):
a) the department of government concerned primarily with maintenance of public order, safety, and health and enforcement of laws and possessing executive, judicial, and legislative powers.
-Merriam-Webster’s dictionary
——————————————
I. Policing in the pre-Colonial world
The police and policing are a function of an advancing/functioning society. Policing throughout history arises as a necessary function due to urbanization, population growth, military conquests, colonization, economic trade, and societal survival. The expansion or contraction of policing powers, duties, and services differs on a kingdom-by-kingdom, country-by-country basis.
Policing in some capacity has existed for thousands of years before the rise of Europe or China, dating back to the various Ancient African societies and Mesopotamia from at least 3000 BCE. The extent of policing has varied widely across time, as well as the functions within these different societies. Policing often was done as a function of the monarchy and/or ruling class of governance. Often these policing matters were enforced by the military and special forces. As many of the social matters were handled outside of the military and the limited court systems of ancient societies. Policing was much more restricted, often enforcing the established order of the monarchy/government.
Policing historically has been much more controlled and often involved being in service of the overall society instead of individualized matters like today. Policing across societies mostly was done via some extension of the military or monarchy. This policing often required the excising of taxes, overseeing properties/land, issuing small punishments on behalf of the ruling class, and dealing with issues of the merchant classes. Upon issues of what we would now consider current-day misdemeanors, individualistic disputes, or petty crimes, these were often handled outside of policing forces. Often these disputes were settled individually or with a local person of higher standing. Outside of a policing force or court system, these disputes would’ve been resolved done by either a member of higher social standing, a religious figure, or a community elder. For aspects that would be considered felonious today such as murder, often a court system or a member of the monarchy directly would settle these matters. But this system also saw mob rule and vigilantism as a direct, and viable way to settle these matters.
Part A: Ancient Greece
The word ‘police’ derives from the ancient Greek word ‘polis’, meaning city. In the time of Ancient Greece, the proto-police force was known as the Crypteia (or Krypteia), which translates as "hidden, secret”. The Crypteia were a group of Spartan men who served as a semi-secret police force on behalf of the State. These were young men between 20-30 years old who had displayed intelligence, and also finished the rigorous militarized youth academy known as the Agoge (this was briefly seen in the movie 300). The Crypteia underwent an arduous training period of being left in the woods during winter by themselves with no shoes, training in stealth, and were granted the license to kill without impunity. The exact length of service, rise/fall of the Crypteia are being still debated but stories of their existence can be found in the works of the Greek philosophers Plato, Aristotle, and Plutarch.
Furthermore, the Crypteia were tasked with stamping out any rebellion and maintaining social order against the Helots. The Helots were an enslaved agrarian people who were outside of the city proper of Sparta and often worked on behalf of service to the elites. The Helots were often victims of training killings by various members of the Crypteia, as the killing of Helots was permitted for sport, according to Aristotle. But often these Helots were victimized for not following Spartan order, which included curfews, and not causing a social ruckus. This system worked until the Helot revolts.
Part B: Europe
The Romans didn’t have police in ancient Rome. The Roman army was often an occupying force in other countries and also within their mother country. The Roman army acted at the behest of whoever was leading it, which changed their functionality constantly. In Rome, often the wealthy would contract out their own protection. During the reign of Augustus, there were what was known as vigiles, the vigiles were a mix of the police force and fire department. But due to the logistics of both tasks and the limited functionality of Roman policing, it did not last long.
Part C: Other societies
In all of the great societies, the royal guard/military often acted as a local occupying force for the protection of the monarchy and what they deemed of importance. Ancient Egyptians are considered to have the first recognized police force in human history. Ancient Egyptian policing resembled an early version of policing we would see through the rest of history until the 1800s. Ancient Egyptian policing was done at the behest of the Pharoah guarding things important to the royal family, and of overall benefit to the kingdom. Police in Egyptian society was also tasked with overseeing territories, acting on behalf of the kingdom, and tax collection. This Egyptian form of policing is also seen in the pre-European ascendant great societies of ancient China, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, the Aztek, the Inca, and India, to name a few.
II. Colonial America
In the early days of the US, there was no police force. Policing during the Colonial era of the US was mostly informal, part-time, for-profit, and privately funded. The United States as we know it begins in 1607 with the establishment of Jamestown in Virginia and by 1636, the first proto-police force, the night watch, is formed in Boston. In British North America, policing was initially provided by local elected officials. These officials were often tasked with mostly ensuring that volunteer militia staffs were met and avoided attacks from Native Americans.
The pledge system and other holdovers from England
The system of policing in America was a holdover from the policing of England. Britain in the 1600s was embroiled in a series of turmoil at home and abroad. England in particular was attempting to colonize the world leaving the American colony mostly left on its own. As a result, the easiest form of governance would be to maintaining the systems of governance that already were in use in Britain.
The frankpledge system
The frankpledge system was a feudal land system dating back to the Medieval Ages of Europe. It is an advancement to the mutual pledge system, common to Europe at the time. The frankpledge system was an Anglo-Saxon system of shared responsibilities in what is known as a surety (yes, this where the use of sureties in finance comes from). Under suretyship, this required (mostly) men to be responsible for each other’s actions as part of the protectors of the society and ensuring that each person’s debt obligations were always paid to the society. Under frankpledge, duties included day/evening patrols, defending against invaders, protecting community assets, settling conflicts amongst each other, and if necessary, ensuring community members stand to hold in-person trials.
Shires, the precursors to modern-day Sheriffs
Shires were a British system of land allotment. These duties were related to land ownership, actual financial arrangements, community laws, and community punishments. Shires were also a carryover of the frankpledge system which saw the division of land into smaller parcels of governance. This is the precursor to the US county-city system still in use today. Often, shires were given the name after the first name, for example, the shire of York was shortened to Yorkshire. Within Yorkshire, there are several smaller towns and cities. These shires would have one person appointed as the top law enforcement officer on behalf of the monarchy and was known as a Sheriff. That Sheriff would have several people (often volunteers) working on behalf of maintaining social order, collecting taxes, as well as dealing out punishment within the shire.
Kin Watch/Kin Policing
This system was maintained in what is known as a kin watch or kin policing. This kin watch system had serious pros and cons, on one end, it forced the community to work to protect and police itself. This policing and protection often caused a deviation of rules, standards, and procedures across various local communities. The key for a time to the success of the kin watch in England was its decree of all able-bodied adult men over the age of 12 become part of a tithing (not to be confused with religious tithing), which derived its name from its grouping of 10 men + a thing. In that system, these men in groups of usually 10 go out in the community as a group to patrol the land.
In the US kin watch/policing often devolved into a small group of men who were either paid to do so or were selected to do so by the community. Kin watch/policing also ran into the reality that eventually people get tired of wanting to participate or simply wanted to leave the group. It also allowed for judgment to be made on people often without standardized legal or physical protection from harm (see the Salem Witch trials).
Part A: The Constables
Policing in early Colonial America primarily used the frankpledge system, kin watch, and the shire system of land allotment. This system relied on the colonists to not only police themselves but also defend the land from Native American attacks.
Policing during the Colonial era initially started out on a volunteer basis, which proved to be unreliable. This quickly evolved into a system that was done mostly by elected officials and local militias. These officials in the US were known as Constables, the predecessor to a police chief. While the ones who did the street-level “policing” were known as the Watchmen. Constables and Watchmen were a holdover from England, in an era before the gas lamp and the expansion of mass electricity. In the pre-electrified London, the night time required a security force to keep people safe at night on the streets. Back in the states, these loose configurations of men on “night watch” were volunteers who worked in shifts, mostly trying to keep colonists away from prostitution or gambling.
These constables were either elected in their local towns or appointed by some higher-ranking government official. Constables were not paid positions, they did not wear special uniforms, and their powers varied widely, with some having the power to issues subpoenas, while others had full policing powers.
Part B: The Night Watch
Policing in the colonial days of the US was an informal, part-time, oftentimes volunteer-based effort, as well as a for-profit, privately funded system. Colonists relied on a very localized militia-based system of proto-policing known as the “night watch”. The night watch consisted of volunteers who mostly surveilled other colonists engaging in activities of vice.
Constables often would oversee the watchmen who slept on the job, didn’t show up for work, or drank alcohol while on duty. Every available adult male was supposed to take turns on watchmen duty, but this frequently was evaded by richer colonists who simply paid for other colonists to watch their posts. The job was also not ideal and generally, those who did stay on duty were trying to avoid active military service, while some joined the night watch forcibly as punishment. Police worked on a contingent basis, and pre-industrialization people simply stopped working when they felt like it.
Part C: The Founding Fathers were against a national police force
This is in many ways why police reform on a national level is nearly impossible. The founding fathers were against the idea of a nationalized police force. They left in the constitution the ability for local municipalities to develop and maintain and enforce their own system of policing. This is why to this day there are typically no uniform standards of policing, data collection, and others. Prior to the forming of the modern police departments in the 1800s, most governance was extremely localized, depending on the whims of the local community. This became problematic for a lack of uniform standards and enforcement across boundaries within the same state.
On the national level, the closest thing to a national police force was the U.S. Secret Service, which wasn’t founded until 1865. Additionally, the legislation was founded to be on Lincoln’s desk the night he was assassinated, and for a time, was the main investigative unit for the US. It wasn’t until the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, that the Secret Service was to become the private police force for the President.
III. As America grew, so did the need for police
Policing in America grew as a function of urbanization, industrialization, and population growth. This growth happened mostly in northern cities and/or around large shipping destinations. While in the South, not only was there a less industrial economy, it was also less developed on an infrastructure level. Regardless of whether it was North or South, policing in the US prior to the Civil War had three main functions:
Social Order: vagrancy, loitering, riot control, public drunkenness, Black Codes
Protection of Property: slave catching, docks and factory watching, private business/residential protection, protecting of high-value tools and physical assets
Political Force: voter suppression/intimidation, tax collection, political pressuring
Both of these systems were primarily for the protection of property, whether that property was other human beings or physical goods. Policing prior to the Civil War was for the establishment of protection against, losses, damages, theft, stopping vice, and maintaining social order. Policing in the pre-formalized era was primarily a means to maintain a social order that did not interrupt businesses nor those of upper-class society. These two worlds of policing won’t meet until the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction in the 1870s.
Policing in the South
In the South, policing is much closer to the militia style of government that early colonists had and relied on third-party pseudo law enforcement styles of bounty hunting (slave catchers). The southern version of law enforcement was much more physically punitive and more widely accessible for any white citizen. The southern version of law enforcement often used police in the absence of slave catchers and plantation overseers. This loose framework deputized whiteness, allowing for any man, woman, or child regardless of socio-economic status to be elevated above that of an enslaved person. Policing in the South was much less about protecting a space as it was a protected racial hierarchy of white people.
Policing in the North
Northern policing advanced much further because it needed to. Northern policing was developed to protect cities first, businesses second, and societal order third. Northern policing advanced decades faster because it focused on creating a more uniform structure, and a structure with supporting local laws, as well as lawmakers who continue to ensure stability. By the 1800s, policing in the North is already showing the signs of what will become organized policing nationally. Northern cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston have similarly uniformed departments with rules, procedures, weapons, uniformed clothing with identifying markers, and a military-inspired system of internal rankings.
In northern cities, increasing urbanization rendered the night-watch system completely useless as communities got too big. This results in the first publicly funded, organized police force in Boston in 1838. This differed from the police departments that emerged in the 1700s, as the Boston PD had full-time, tax-payer supported officers on duty. Philadelphia is credited as creating one of the first, if not the first known day watch in 1833, while New York would install a day watch in 1844. While Boston is often credited with establishing the first full-time police force, other cities such as Richmond, New York, and Philadelphia, all claim to be the first.
Part A: Policing in the early days was often corrupt
Policing according to Dr. Gary Potter, professor at Eastern Kentucky University, during the formalization of the police forces in the 1800s, this push to police formalization also formalizes police corruption. Policing during this time was still a private matter, but the social unrest of the 1820s and 1830s would provide the cover for convincing the public to buy into the notion of a police force for everyone.
Having a uniformed police force solved the important problem of both economic interests and political security. Boston by the 1800s was a large shipping and commercial center, with a growing base of immigrant labor from Europe. Boston, like Philadelphia and New York, grew by leaps due to the ancillary economic growth because of these shipping ports. As a result, these businesses also became subject to a host of property crimes, theft, fraud, and damages.
Prior to the formalization of police forces, policing was generally done with some form of graft accompanying it. Most officers did not make enough to justify taking a volunteer/part-time position and this led to many officers taking on various jobs relating to protecting businesses. Depending on the officer and department, policing was seen no different than being petty thugs. In fact, frequently in policing, there were officers who worked in cahoots with thieves, vagrants, and others looking to get over on businesses. This factored into businesses hiring people to protect their property and safeguard the transport of goods. This was alongside a backdrop of growing social inequality and a labor force that had yet to be protected by unions or labor rights.
Part B: Social unrest of the early-mid 1800s
Historically, social unrest has led to an increase in policing, that policing then proceeds to increase in economic, political, (and sometimes) societal support.
By the early 1800s, across the US, there is growing economic insecurity developing. A series of economic recessions and financial crises beginning in the late 1700s will lead to a long-term yo-yo of the US economy. This includes financial panics of 1797, also 1819, then 1825, and a major one in 1837, which would be a factor in wanting a force to control uprisings. This isn’t to mention an overall major recession from 1815-1821 as a result of the US-France’s Napoleonic Wars, the war of 1812, and increased conflicts with Native Americans nationwide. In the South, the Haitian war for independence from 1791-1804, and a series of high-profile slave revolts strikes fear into the slavery-dependent society. While in the North, the growing wave of anti-immigrant sentiment against Irish Americans and earlier white American immigrant groups is causing many battles to erupt in the streets.
In the North, these economic factors in combination with social unrest and the unscrupulous nature led to a push by varying members of the business community to seek political lobbying to establish a more powerful police force. In northern cities, these white immigrant workers would often be at odds with each other as much as they were with their employers. The business community quickly realized that without a strong system of laws, to coincide with a judicial system and on-the-ground policing system, society would inevitably collapse on itself.
Part C: Policing was needed to preserve the free market
The impetus for the police to become formalized was to stop riots happening in the 1830s. In cities such as New York, political venues such as Tammany Hall would be representative of how politics and policing work.
If people wanted things passed in the city legislature, a simple bribe would work. Businesses and business leaders quickly began to use lawmakers to create new laws that could be implemented by police and reinforced with a court system to maintain society. These laws often related to workers and employers, often resulting in strikes, protests, and riots. The free market system could not sustain itself and needed a built-in security system to deal with social unrest in down periods of the economy. The police weren’t formalized to actually solve crimes or even protect people, but to maintain social order.
Part D: Police formalized as anti-riot agents
America’s 1800s clashes on labor vs management/ownership continued in the northeast. The Broad Street Riot of 1837 in Boston is seen as the galvanizing force in creating the US’s first established police force. The Broad Street Riot was a result of continuing anti-Irish/Catholic sentiment by already established White Americans in what is known as white nativism. During a funeral for a volunteer Yankee fireman, a fight broke out, that fight snowballed into a giant street fight, that street fight turned into a riot. The fighting and looting were beyond the control of the police, which included 10,000 spectators or nearly 1/5 population being involved in riotous activities. This riot led to the burning of the Irish community in Boston. The Broad St riot was used to justify the need for police and the creation of the fire department the following year. While Philadelphia in 1844, saw a series of clashes between varying European ethnic groups dubbed ‘the nativist riots’ that caused the city to be put under martial law. But since there was no municipal police force then, the US army is called in. This causes an actual live ammunition battle between the military and civilian forces in the nation’s 2nd largest city. During the battle, the rioters bring a canon, then engaged in a series of shooting canons back and forth with the US military.
IV. Sir Robert Peele of England is the forefather of modern policing and professionalism
Sir Robert Peele is considered the father of modern policing in the world. Peele and his efforts to legitimize police work are still alive in police departments across the globe today.
Peele was the son of a wealthy family of a textile manufacturer and politician. He was one of the earliest examples of a local businessmen-turned-politician in the ‘modern’ era of industrialization and is one of the founders of the modern British Conservative Party. Peele was able seen as both a rising star in the Tory Party (which still exists today) and a reformer of many British laws. including the repeal of several anti-Catholic laws in England at the time. But it wasn’t until the passage of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 that Peele was able to act on his ideas of reforming the police. Peele’s reforms were so radical and successful that eventually, these ideas make it over to America nearly a decade later.
Part A: ‘Peelian Principles’ and the formalization of law enforcement
Britain in the 1820 and 1830s was going through a similar economic and social upheaval as the US. Under Peele’s watch, the police became an organized interior governing force. Peele began a series of upgrades to provide a more uniform experience. Peele sought to develop the first tactical uniforms and a visual rank/badge system associated at the time with the English military. Under Peele’s watch, policing went from one of a reactionary service to a proactive organization, with a focus on instilling trust and providing ethics within law enforcement in what was now known as ‘Peelian Principals’. Principles that Peele himself may not have formally written but may have been arranged by joint Commissioners of the London Metropolitan Police Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne. These principles provide the framework for how much of present-day policing in the US still operates.
Via The New York Times - 4/15/2014
PRINCIPLE 1 “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”
PRINCIPLE 2 “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”
PRINCIPLE 3 “Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.”
PRINCIPLE 4 “The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.”
PRINCIPLE 5 “Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”
PRINCIPLE 6 “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”
PRINCIPLE 7 “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”
PRINCIPLE 8 “Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.”
PRINCIPLE 9 “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”
As Peele formalized the London Police force, he felt the job was to prevent crimes, but not punish them. Peele also believed those police officers should be visually distinctive from everyday citizens. Peele also believed that anyone who attempted to be an officer should be held to higher standards of conduct. This led to less hiring of petty thugs, criminals, and anyone who wanted to just do the job. This cut down on the number of people who wanted to become an officer for nefarious reasons. Peele’s focus on hiring new officers shifted towards those who were professional, more educated, and would be considered ‘incorruptible’. This also included not carrying firearms.
Part B: Why US police are different from British police
Peele was very against police using firearms which carries over to today. While the American police force decided to use firearms, UK lawmakers and law enforcement agreed that weapons would be mutually destructive for society. However, in the US cops used firearms unofficially decades before they officially became of use in the late 1800s. While early American police officers began carrying firearms despite widespread public fears of the police.
While during this time early American police departments also grappled with how much force to use and how to carry out their duties. This was due to the perception of police during the 1600 and 1700s. And during this early period of standardization in the US, this need to become a uniformed and armed quasi-military force did not sit well with many residents. Even the use of a uniformed badge system to identify officers to each other as well as to the public was a point of contingency in the US. Police were also seen as agents of antagonization due to many being involved as enforcement vehicles for big business and political leaders.
Despite these fears, the first era of American policing had begun and nothing would be the same.