By Rabbi Rachel Esserman

Uptown German Jews vs. downtown Russian Jews, gangsters vs. reformers, and business owners vs. unions: these opposing groups were active in early 1900s New York City and form the core of Dan Slater’s impressive “The Incorruptibles: A True Story of Kingpins, Crime Busters, and the Birth of the American Underworld” (Little Brown and Company). Slater manages to cover a wide variety of material, putting it into perspective to help readers understand how the Jewish world came to be filled with criminals (some of whom were willing to support their families by any means possible) and reformers in a city where City Hall and the police department were filled with corruption. 

The work opens with the murder of gambler Herman Rosenthal, a case that changed the face of New York City politics. Slater notes, “The unique circumstances surrounding the murder – namely, the alleged involvement of a cop; an ambitious district attorney; and the fact that Rosenthal had given a confession to that district attorney regarding that cop hours before he was killed – caused the case to become a global sensation. It received more attention than any crime ever had in the city, staying on front pages of papers for the next three years.” However, the author feels that the aftereffects of this murder and the story behind what occurred then have not been explored.

According to Slater, the Lower East Side was filled with crime and Jewish criminals. They included gamblers, prostitutes, horse poisoners, thieves and others who preyed on the innocent and unknowing. The author notes that this behavior originally began in the Pale of Settlement in Russia, where Jews were persecuted and given little opportunity to support themselves. He writes, “Overcrowding and isolation produced certain traits in the ghettoized people, traits that could be invoked to rationalize further negative attitudes toward those people, justifying more isolation and more restrictive laws to control the teeming rabble. For the average citizen trying to get by in such an environment, the choice between paying off the cop or co-religionist shaking you down, versus challenging the extortionists, was pretty easy. Bribery was just business. When the uprooted community settled in New York, this aspect of ghetto culture moved with it, until someone decided to take a stand.”

It was the German Jews who decided to take on this culture and the Tammany Hall political system – with its crooked police, politicians and judges – to help their brethren. One reason behind this attempt was that restrictions were being placed on immigration: claims that Jews brought crime into the country became a resounding cry. Slater notes that the German Jews faced an interesting problem: “In many respects it would’ve been easier for the German Jews to favor curbs on immigration. They stood to lose a great deal should disapproval of the Eastern Europeans rub off on them, at a time when they believed they might be nearing acceptance.” However, many chose to help their co-religionists. But rather than work through regular channels (which were usually corrupt), a group of reformers was recruited whose members often stepped outside the law themselves, closing down gambling parlors and other criminal activities without legal permission. This group, called the Incorruptibles, successfully resisted taking bribes or letting those they believed to be criminals off the hook. 

Unfortunately, the results of their actions were mixed. While they helped prevent criminals from preying on victims, their actions negatively affected the East Side economy, meaning that there was less money flowing into businesses, which created financial distress. Plus, some members of the community saw no problem with business as usual (bribes, etc.) since the same activities that were condemned when done by the poor on the Lower East Side were often found among the richer classes (drugs, use of prostitutes, gambling, etc.). It’s not as if vice belonged to only one section of the community.

A similar problem arose when labor unions used violence against factory owners. When the bosses violently broke up strikes – maiming and/or killing workers – no one complained it was against the law to use force. When the unions used the same tactics on scabs (workers who took the jobs of those on strike), they were condemned and their actions compared to those of gangsters. The same was true when the unions pressured owners to becoming union-only shops. The Incorruptibles hoped to stop these tactics, but were less successful. Slater notes that there were people who believed the unions should be allowed to do what was necessary to protect their members’ livelihoods. For example, he writes that, when labor union members were charged with intimidation, Abraham Cahn, the editor of the Yiddish newspaper the Forward, felt that “given that manufacturers had run thugs against striking workers for years... why weren’t manufacturers charged with crimes?”

In the public’s mind, another difference between gangsters and business owners was how they were portrayed in the press. According to Slater, “Papers reported on the colorful lifestyles of gangsters, and many crime journalists transitioned to screenwriting, where their subjects made ideal movie characters. Romantic figures whose lives were dense with dramatic action, beautiful women, and riches beyond dreaming, gangsters offered moviegoers the vicarious thrill of resisting the corporate and legal domination that controlled their own lives. In turn, this habit of glorification gave license to underworld figures to self-righteously maintain that they were misunderstood.”

“The Incorruptibles” is filled with fascinating characters who worked on both sides of the law. (Since some of them had very similar names, a list of the cast of characters would have been helpful.) The most interesting parts of the book are the ethical questions it raises not only about the needs of immigrants, but who decides what is moral – especially when the same behavior in lauded in one group and condemned in another. Slater does not glorify either reformers or gangsters, but rather gives readers an understanding of why people behaved as they did in difficult circumstances. His work also shows how even the best of intentions can create unwanted results that may be worse than the original problem. While discussing a serious topic, “The Incorruptibles” was also great fun to read. This is popular history at its best.