Joseph A. Riker: The Story of a Black solider from Hastings, NY in the Civil War

On February 5, 1885, the following notice appeared in the [Washington DC] National Tribune.  

Ten months later, this plaintive notice appeared in the Fort Scott (Kansas) Monitor:  

Mrs. Mary Ann Riker of Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, then eighty-five years old, was searching for her son, Joseph who had disappeared years before somewhere in the West. Joseph served in the Union army in the Civil War and Mary, who had been widowed for decades, sought confirmation of Joseph's death to support her application for a military pension available to her as her son's financial dependent. 

The Riker family (sometimes spelled Ryker) lived in Greenburgh dating back at least to 1840. That year, Peter and an unnamed adult female headed a household the included four young males and three young females.  The 1850 census listed Peter (60 years old) and Mary Ann (49) with children Golden (19), Oman (16), Mary (13), Joseph (11) and Sidney (9).  All are listed as "black" by the census taker and Peter, Golden and Oman are described as laborers.  Significantly, Peter was a property owner.   In light of their ages, it is quite possible, although unknown, if Peter and Mary were born into slavery, which was abolished in New York through a gradual process ending finally in 1827. Peter died on Jan. 19, 1851 at the age of 68; Mary Ann never remarried. After Peter's death, the family stayed intact in Greenburgh (post office Tarrytown). In 1860, an oldest son, Alexander (32) was listed in the Riker household and described as a sailor.  Golden, now aged 25, remained with the family, along with Mary (20), Joseph (19)  and Sidney (17).  Indeed, the ages do not match up among the various censuses, but  military records consistently show that Joseph was born in 1839.    

As the secession crisis of 1860 escalated, Westchester County showed the same tendency toward Southern sympathies as New York City.  In the November 1860 presidential election,the county voted for Stephen Douglas and the Democrat-Fusion ticket (54%) over Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln (46%). The county's newspapers, led by Edmund Sutherland of White Plains' Eastern State Journal remained stridently anti-Lincoln, and supported the South and slavery.  While Greenburgh and other towns did fulfill their military service quotas, anti-war agitation persisted as seen in the July 1863 Draft Riots which spread to Westchester County through attacks on military draft offices, including in Tarrytown, and threats against government officials in White Plains, although the county did not see violence against Black residents as in New York City.    

Many Northern Blacks were initially skeptical about the war effort as they were not eager to defend a union that preserved slavery.  That reluctance, however, rapidly changed after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which explicitly made freedom for the enslaved a fundamental war goal along with restoration of the Union.  With Black recruitment into the United States army authorized beginning in January 1863, Massachusetts led the way in forming Black regiments, first organizing the famous 54th (immortalized in the movie Glory) and 55th Massachusetts Infantry regiments, followed by the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry. Rhode Island and Connecticut recruited Black regiments of their own with the 29th Connecticut Infantry and the 14th Rhode Island Heavy Artillery. New York, however, with a Democratic governor, dragged its feet and it was not until late in 1863 when the Union League club sponsored the 20th United States Colored Troops that the first New York Black regiment formed.  Two more New York USCT regiments- the 26th and 31st - would follow.  In the fall and winter of 1863, however, many young Black New York men, impatient to serve, traveled to New England to enlist in the first Black regiments. In her study of Black soliders from The Hills neighborhood of the West Harrison/ White Plains, Dr Edythe Quinn wrote that these men volunteered to fight to "destory slavery; to demonstrate their manhood; and to secure their civil rights, especially the right to vote."  Most men from The Hills joined the 29th Connecticut and 14th Rhode Island Heavy Artillery. [Quinn, Freedom Journey, pp. 29; 70-71]. So far, I've found only five or six Black men from the Town of Greenburgh who enlisted in the Civil War army and Joseph Riker is the only soldier I've identified from the village of Hastings.

Joseph A. Riker was one of these young men eager to fight against the Confederate enslavers and secure rights for his family and people. Mary A. Riker's pension application and newspaper ads state that Joseph first served in the Harris Light Cavalry (2nd New York Cavalry, regiment, named for New York's Senator Ira Harris) as early as 1862. I cannot verify Riker's service in this regiment. He may have had some affiliation with this unit although almost certainly not as an enlisted trooper.  His enlistment and subsequent service in the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry, however, is well documented.

Joseph traveled to Newton, Massachusetts where he enlisted on January 6, 1864, in Company B of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry regiment for a three year term.  His enlistment papers describe him as 5' 5.5" tall with black hair and black eyes and the occupation of "horseman."  The 5th Mass Cavalry was a "colored" regiment although the commissioned officers were entirely white.   The regiment's first companies (each "company" within a regiment was typically 100 men) assembled late in January and Riker must have impressed the officers as he was given the rank of quarter master sergeant and then promoted to first sergeant for Company B on March 31, 1864.  [Note: much of this account of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry is drawn from Steven M. Labarre, The Fifth Massachusetts Colored Cavalry in the Civil War (2016) and also, Massachusetts in the Civil War.] The regiment trained for several months near Boston as volunteers filled out its twelve companies.  The colonel of the 5th Mass Cavalry, Henry Sturgis Russell, was a cousin and Harvard classmate of Robert Gould Shaw, who had fallen the previous July leading the 54th Mass in the charge featured in Glory. Riker's comrades in Company B included Sergeant Charles Douglass, the son of Frederick Douglass, who had previously joined the 54th Mass but left that unit because of illness before enlisting in the 5th Mass Cavalry.  

Serg. Charles R. Douglass - Co. B 5th Mass Cav.

(source: Frederick Douglass National Historic Site Facebook page)

Another Company B soldier, Franklin Jennings, was the son of Paul Jennings who, as a boy, was a personal servant to President James Madison in the White House, and later wrote a memoir of his experiences. [Labarre, p. 62].  The 5th Mass. Cav. found another presidential connection when Charles Francis Adams, Jr., grandson of Pres. John Quincy Adams (and great-grandson of Pres. John Adams), joined the regiment as an officer and later replaced Col. Russell as the unit's commander.  Finally, filling its roster with 37 officers and 893 troopers divided into twelve companies, the 5th Mass Cavalry departed Boston for Washington DC in May 1864. 

Col. Henry Sturgis Russell,

first commander of the 5th Mass. Cav. from Jan. 1864 to Feb. 1865

(source: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/167978081/henry-sturgis-russell)

Col. Charles Francis Adams, Jr.

commander of the 5th Mass Cav. from Feb. 1865

Joseph Riker's military record is uneventful as he was present at all roll calls, and never recorded as wounded or absent on sick leave. He must have been an ideal solider and respected non-commissioned officer.  We must rely on  the chronicle of the movements and campaigns of the 5th Mass Cavalry to tell the story of Riker's Civil War experience in which, as first sergeant, he was, in rank, the senior Black enlisted man in Company B.   

To the extreme dissatisfaction of all the men, the regiment had been "dismounted" from their horses after leaving Boston and were then trained briefly as infantry. After a stop in Washington DC, the regiment was sent to the Union army transit hud at City Point, Virginia on the James River and assigned to picket and guard duty which required extreme vigilence.  On June 15, 1864, the 5th Mass Cav engaged in its first and most significant combat when the 18th Corps - comprised of Union colored troops - attacked a Confederate position blocking the road to Petersburg, Virgina.  After intial confusion, the Black Union soldiers triumphed by seizing the Confederate position and sending their foes in retreat.  

Baylor Farm was a minor clash and Union troops subsequently failed to capitalize on the Black soldiers' achievement but the battle proved significant as the first offensive carried out by Black soldiers in the Civil War's eastern theater.  The performance of the 5th Mass Cavalry at Baylor Farm was debated then and now.  The cavalry regiment was insufficiently trained as infantry and, consequently, 18th Corps commanders were hesitant to rely on the 5th in combat. The 5th was placed in reserve initially but then did engage in fighting, before being returned to a reserve position after the Baylor Farm defenses were captured. The 5th Mass Cavalry. suffered 3 men killed and 19 wounded at Baylor Farm.  

The soldiers depicted in this image of the capture of a Confederate cannon at Baylor Farm may very well have been from the 5th Mass Cavalry.

(source: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015046806710&view=1up&seq=279)

At the end of June, the regiment was assigned to guard Confederate prisoners at Point Lookout, Maryland, where it was stationed for the remaining six months of 1864. To the regiment's great joy, they received horses and were returned to cavalry service during this time. The regiment was sent back to the Petersburg front in late March 1865 in time for the last onslaught on Petersburg. On April 3, 1865, the 5th Mass Cavalry took part in perhaps the most triumphant moment in American history when they joined the first Union troops to enter and capture Richmond. Riker and his comrades would always remember the jubilation of their newly emancipated brethren who shouted "God bless you: We have been waiting for you and looking for you a long time," and cheered the Black troopers as they rode through the liberated capital. The next day, April 4, the regiment had the privilege of escorting and guarding President Lincoln when he came to tour the fallen city and received a liberator's welcome from the city's Black residents. As first sergeant of Company B, Joseph Riker would have had a significant role in all these historic events. [Labarre, p. 130-5]. 

Even as the war ended, the 5th Mass Cavalry remained in service.  As tensions rose with Mexico, the regiment was sent to Texas in June 1865 along with several other regiments, mostly Black, to guard the border. The conditions were appalling and all the regiments suffered greatly with many more men succumbing to illness on the border than had fallen in battle during the war.  Finally, at the end of October, the regiment, along with Riker, boarded ships for Boston where the men were paid and discharged from the army. Some men stayed in Boston long enough to enjoy a triumphant parade in December and deliver their regimental flag to the Massachusetts state house where it remains to this day.

Flag of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry regiment 

 

It is unclear what happened to Joseph A. Riker after his discharge from service. His mother wrote that the family lost contact with him after 1868.  Mary Ann Riker believed that her son had migrated to Kansas, Perhaps like other veterans, including comrades from the 5th Mass. Cav., Joseph sought to claim homestead act land out West. Like many settlers in the West, however, he disappeared, with his mother never learning of his fate or the location of his grave to mourn him. 

1867 map showing the location of Mrs. Riker's home along Farragut Ave. near what is now Ravensdale Road. The Saw Mill River is on the right.  The Riker house bordered a quarry and was close to a small pond that still exists.  Source: Hastings Historical Society and https://www.hastingsgreen.org/protect-our-woods/restoration-hastings/boutilliers-brook

Joseph's mother, Mary Ann, never remarried after becoming a widow in 1851. Beginning in 1885, Mary Riker, then 85 years old, began applying to the federal government for a pension. Mary's application claimed that Joseph was wounded in the head, and contracted dyspepsia and pleurisy during his service at Richmond in 1864. Mary asserted that Joseph's death in Kansas in 1884 to 1885 resulted from illnesses contracted during military service. The War Department, however, responded that Joseph's military records showed no record of any wounds or diseases during his time in the army.  Certainly, Joseph's complied service record show him present for duty at all recorded roll calls.  The much needed pension was never awarded.

Source:  National Archives, Joseph A. Riker Pension File. 

The Riker family continued to own property in Hastings for several decades.  In 1893, the Rikers lost a home and lot near the corner of Ravensdale and Farragut to a tax foreclosure. The Riker family appeared to have held property in Hastings, primarily in the Ravensdale Road neighborhood, until at least 1940 when the the Riker landholdings were subject to tax foreclosures by the Town of Greenburgh and Village of Hastings-on-Hudson.

Background:

For the story of the families of Black Civil War soldiers in the North and their fight for justice during and after the Civil War, see, Holly A. Pinheiro, Jr. The Families Civil War: Black Soldiers and the Fight for Racial Justice (2022)

For the story of the Westchester County Black experience during the Civil War with a focus on The Hills community, see. Edythe Ann Quinn, Freedom Journey: Black Civil War Soldiers and The Hills Community, Westchester County, New York (2015)

For an excellent book-length account of the career of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry along with profiles of many of its officers and troopers, see: Steven M. LaBarre The Fifth Massachusetts Colored Cavalry in the Civil War (2016)

Greenburgh Property Tax Rates - 2022 EDITION

Get your Greenburgh Tax Rates here! All in one place! Compare.. compare... The following chart compiles 2022 tax rates for the Town of Greenburgh  (villages and TOV), county, schools and fire districts, in pretty much all the various configurations I could find. It does not include sewer districts and other such small add-ons. Nor do these rates reflect STAR or similar Veterans deductions. Just the raw rates found at http://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates . Who are the Greenburgh tax winners and losers? In the villages, the lowest tax rate goes to Elmsford villagers who live in the Greeenburgh Central school district. And in unincorporated, the lowest rates, by a wide margin, belong to those lucky householders in the Pocantico Hills school district with N. Elmsford Fire Protection Distrct. And the highest taxes? In the villages that honor goes to Ardsley villagers.  But the distinction for the property highest property tax rates in Greenburgh (possibly the world), goes once again to the unincorporated denizens of the Ardsley School District and the Hartsdale Fire District. Congrats guys!

NOTES:

I. TAX RATES AND TOTAL TAXES DO NOT APPLY STAR DEDUCTIONS (BASIC STAR REDUCES $80,270 FROM THE HOME'S ASSESSED VALUE FOR SCHOOL TAX CALCULATION ONLY) II. TOTAL TAXES DO NOT INCLUDE SEWER AND OTHER SMALL TAX DISTRICT ADD-ONS (TYPICALLY ABOUT 3% OF THE TOTAL TAX BILL) III. ALL TAX RATES ARE PER MILL (DIVIDE HOME'S ASSESSED VALUE BY 1000 AND MULTIPLE RESULT BY TAX RATE) IV.  FOR TOV: RESIDENCES ARE MOSTLY ESTIMATES AS THE TOWN HAS IGNORED MY REQUESTS FOR THE TOTAL OF RESIDENCES IN THESE VARIOUS CONFIGURATIONS.

92AD Primary: Looking at the Voters and Asking if Vaccinations Decided the Outcome

A.  Various 92AD Primary Voter Demographics.  

Updated voter rolls provided by the Westchester County Board of Elections offer some general information about the 92AD Democratic voters in the June 2022 primary.  

1.   Democratic primary voters are Old(er) and Mostly Female

                                                   TOTAL            MEDIAN AGE                 %FEMALE  
92AD Registerd Voters              92,222                       51                                    54%
92AD Registerd Democrats       47,214                       51                                    59%
Dem. primary voters 6/2022      10,694                       63                                    61%   

Note: while 10,694 92AD Democrats voted in the June primary, only 10,370 actually voted for assembly candidates (with 9 votes discarded as irregular).  
   
2.   When did June primary voters vote?
Primary Day (6/28) voters          7,982           75%
Absentee Voters                             720             7%
Early Voters                                 1,943          18%          

3.  More about Dem primary voters and age:

 Voter Age

 

Oldest zip code: Hartsdale 10530 - 1,281 voters, median age 69 years old

Youngest zip code:  Dobbs Ferry 10522 - 1,002 voters, median age 59 years old

B.   WAS IT ALL ABOUT VACCINATIONS?

Tom Abinant's  history in Albany of promoting anti-vaccination legislation was the most striking issue in the campaign to distinguish the candidates from each other in contrast to their their generally similar voting records as Democratic office holders. Abinanti tried to refocus voters from his past vaccination agitation by emphasizing his recent votes in Albany in favor of bills to expand eligible vaccination providers and promote access to COVID vaccinations. 

Can we measure the impact of voters' concern about Abinanti's vaccination legislation history?  Can we even conclude vaccination issues were a factor in the outcome, decisive or not? 

We don't have opinion polling but we have available data that reveals some rather suggestive trends, although, admittedly, without probative cause and effect. 

First, the New York State Department of Health provides current vaccination rates organized by zip code, separately measuring the percentage of recipients of "one shot" and residents who have a "completed vaccine series."  Using the updated voter rolls, we can match electoral districts to zip codes. This approach has its problems: for those electoral districts which cross zip code lines, I assigned the electoral district to the zip code where the majority of June 2022 primary voters resided.  In addition, when zip codes were not entirely within 92AD, I assumed that the indicated zip code vaccination rate also applied to 92AD voters.  

By dividing zip codes into those won by Abinanti and those won by Shimsky, the differentiation in vaccination rates among the zip codes in the two lists is immediately apparent.  In the "one shot" column, Shimsky won the highest vaccination % zip codes (I'm splitting 10591 into Tarrytown and Sleepy Hollow although we have only the same vaccination rate for each village).  With the exception of small Yonkers 10701, Shimsky won only the very high one-shot vaccination rate zip codes.   Conversely, Abinanti won zip codes with a one-shot vaccination rate below 98% and most of these zips by a comfortable margin (again with the exception of Yonkers 10701).  

Here's another way to illustrate Shimsky's advantage in higher rate one-shot vaccination zip codes by grouping zip codes into one-shot vaccination percentage ranges: 

For "complete series" vaccination rates, the differential between Abinanti and Shimsky zip codes becomes somewhat less glaring because of the strangely low "complete series" rate in Dobbs Ferry 10522 (Dobbs has the biggest gap between one-shot and "complete series" rates among all 92AD zip codes) which allowed Abinanti's Hartsdale 10530 to slip past Dobbs.  Still, Shimsky dominated the highest "complete series" zip codes, winning all three 90%+ zips by wide margins.  We can use the grouping approach from above for another perspective:

But correlation does not mean causation.   While Shimsky prevailed convincingly in higher vaccination rate zip codes, we cannot absolutely conclude without opinion polling whether vaccination rates played a factor in voters' choices. Still, given the prominence of the issue in the campaign, and the data depicted above, it is reasonable to wonder if voter awareness of Abinanti's anti-vaccination past ended his political future. 

92AD Campaign Finance Finale

The candidates have filed their "July Periodic" campaign financial disclosures which allow us to examine the total 92AD Democratic primary campaign funds raised and expenditures.

1. The Big Picture (Nov. 1, 2021 - July 15, 2022):

"Start": Abinanti's assembly campaign account cash-on-hand as of 11/1/21 and Shimsky's transfers from her county legislator campaign account.  Cash-on-hand (the right column) is the amount of money left in each candidate's campaign account as of July 15. 

Abinanti had a financial advantage to start and maintained that  advantage with higher fund raising throughout the campaign. In addition, Abinanti also benefitted from greater "outside" spending, as noted in previous posts.  

2. Looking closer at funds raised:

Most of Shimsky's funds raised (77%) came from individuals, mostly "large" itemized donors identified on the financial disclosures (generally donors giving $100 more more) and even some "small" non-itemized, unidentified donors.  Her reliance on PAC, LLCs (partnerships, generally law firms) and companies was light compared to Abinanti who received 44% of his funds during the campaign from individuals, although he did increase his individual donation pace significantly over the course of the campaign.  Shimsky had advantages in both the number of large/itemized donors and a huge margin in in-district itemized donations.  

The Ractliffes list the same address in Greenwich CT.  The reason for their affiliation with Abinanti (cumulative donations of $16,008) is not known to me.  The same can be said for Leah Waldman of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, although her family appears to have real estate interests.  The Lawpac, Ractliffe and Waldman donations each exceed the $4,700 campaign donation limit, resulting in a cumulative overage of $9,304 not usable for the primary and to be applied to Abinanti's general campaign account.  

Judith McHale was a diplomat in the Obama administration and prominent attorney, as well as a noted friend of Hillary Clinton.  As I noted previously, the Kearney family and their business have contributed cumulatively $7,000 to Shimsky's campaign. 

3.  More About Spending 

Damaris Mone is Abinanti's campaign manager.  I can't figure out what Robex does related to campaigns. Mad Dog is a campaign consultant (and presumably not Chris Russo).  

Red Horse is the top  political consultant firm for New York Democratic candidates, and had worked for George Latimer, according to City & State.  Ditto Consulting appears on the same City & State list and is a key player in Westchester, having been retained previously by Latimer and Mimi Rocah. Shimsky's working with these consultants shows how connected she is with the Democratic Party establishment.

Abinanti funneled most of his campaign expenses through an AMEX credit card. His financial disclosure filings are confusing, but it appears that he both itemized campaign expenses on his filings and also listed the corresponding credit card payments for those same expenses.  Presumably the AMEX payments match up with actual listed campaign expense.  It's impossible to tell.  

4.  How much money was spent on this campaign for each vote?

In the narrowest sense, we have the spending numbers listed in (1) above: Abinanti: $148,768 and Shimsky at $96,131.  With the most recent vote totals of Shimsky 5,645 and Abinanti 4,716, we find Shimsky spending a thrifty $17.03 per vote with Abinati paying retail at $31.55 per vote.  But as we've discussed in prior posts, the NYC real estate/finance moguls' Voters of NY Inc, PAC invested $28,200 in three mailers to boost Abinanti. The Greenburgh Town Democratic Committee also spent $10,453 on mailers in support of Shimsky. And then there is the shrouded puzzle of how much Abinanti spent on the campaign using his state assembly office funds to pay for well-timed "constituent outreach" mailers and even a robocall.  Applying a very modest estimate of $50,000 (we know that Abinanti expensed $77K for "bulk mail" in 2020 and almost $68K in 2021) toward the recent campaign, we can reasonably  estimate that Abinanti spent  (and had spent on his behalf) a cumulative amount approaching $230,000 toward his failed reelection bid. 

Next post:  looking at the demographics of who actually voted 

  

Once More: Greenburgh's Confederate Monument - even back in 1897, not everyone was so pleased with this immense problematic memorial

I'm taking a moment from local politics to return to my preoccupation with Greenburgh's Confederate Monument inspired by some recent research findings. 

First background: five years ago, I called attention to the sixty foot tall Confederate Monument that has stood for 125 years in the south-west corner of the Mount Hope Cemetery, hiding in plain sight, near the intersection of Jackson Ave and Saw Mill River Road, within unincorporated Greenburgh but inside the Hastings-on-Hudson zip code.   

Prompted by my inquiries, Town Supervisor Paul Feiner proposed the possibility of the monument’s removal but quickly withdrew that idea when then Hastings-on-Hudson Mayor Peter Swiderski objected.  Swiderski argued that the monument represented reconciliation and should remain undisturbed.  Mt. Hope Cemetery also rejected any change in the monument’s status.  Shortly after his initial proposal, Paul Feiner received an apparently serious threat on his life.  Although I questioned the reconciliationist framing of the monument, any attention given to the monument and its fate quickly faded.

Three years later, in the wake of Charlottesville and then the George Floyd protests which spurred public calls across the South to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces, I raised the issue once more. I sought the input of the Greenburgh Human Rights Advisory Council. The GHRAC - to my surprise - affirmed Swiderski's reconciliation interpretation and argued that, as the  monument stood on private property (Mount Hope Cemetery), it should return to its quiet obscurity and be left alone. I argued against this reasoning, and concluded my response writing:  

The “leave it alone” arguments summarized above from politicians, historians, and even a human rights advocacy group may be correct and the only practical response but still leave me uneasy.  It does not sit well with me that my town hosts the largest Confederate Monument in the North, private property or not.  I don’t have an answer or even a concrete proposal for what do to with the monument.  There is no public will for its removal and practicalities would interfere even if this were the case.  Contextualization through construction of markers explaining the monument is a possibility. Or perhaps raising funds for a monument to honor the men remembered in Dr. Quinn’s work.  Or maybe education through teaching the monument and its context in local schools is the best response. In any event, we need further public discussion and not to continue to ignore our history. 

There was no further public discussion. While over the past two years Confederate monuments have been removed from public spaces across the South, Greenburgh's (admittedly complicated) Confederate monument stands undisturbed.  

It turns out that I was not alone in challenging the reconciliationist framing of the monument.  Recently, I found even more strident objections to the Confederate monument coming from Union army veterans 125 years ago.  It is true that several Union army veterans groups participated in the monument's 1897 dedication ceremony in cooperation with Confederate veterans living in the New York area.  However, at least one "Grand Army of the Republic" veterans post bitterly objected.

In the (White Plains) Westchester News, on May 22, 1897, the following appeared, the same day as the dedication ceremony at the Mount Hope Cemetery: 

[copy courtesy of the Westchester County Historical Society]

The James Cromwell G.A.R. Post #466 was founded in 1884 and placed the much more modest soldiers/sailors marker and accompanying cannon in the White Plains Rural Cemetery.  These veterans refused to forget the repellant cause - sundering of the union and, implicitly, preservation of slavery. -for which the "rebels" brought catastrophic war upon the nation, resulting in an excess of 700,000 military dead, and even more deaths of enslaved people ensuing from dislocation, disease, and neglect.  

Predictably, the Cromwell Post veterans' defiant resolutions elicited outrage from the notorious Eastern State Journal:

[Eastern State Journal, June 5, 1897]

Published for years by Democratic Party officeholder and boss Edmund G. Sutherland, the Eastern State Journal had been Westchester County's "official" newspaper during the Civil War when it railed against President Lincoln and sympathized with the Confederacy.   In Freedom Journey, her excellent book about Black Civil War soldiers from Westchester's The Hills community, Dr. Edythe Quinn recounts Sutherland's relentlessly racist editorializing.  Throughout the Civil War, Sutherland printed at the top of his local news page his declaration that "Mr. Lincoln is not the United States Government. The Government is ours, and we owe allegiance to it; Mr. Lincoln is not ours, and we do not owe allegiance to him."  Sutherland died in 1883, but his newspaper reliably projected the forgive and forget approach toward the Civil War in ascendance precisely at the time that Jim Crow became de jure entrenched across the land in the wake of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision the prior year.  

As Lost Cause sentimentality prevailed, along with acceptance of racial segregation, unquestioned for a century, the protests of veterans like the members of the Cromwell GAR Post were drowned out. This legacy of false reconciliation, paid for with Jim Crow and segregation, haunts us still today.  To ignore Greenburgh's Confederate Monument is to ignore Westchester County's complex and problematic past with respect to the Civil War specifically, and with respect to race and American history generally.  

 

Abinanti v. Abinanti (2020) ...and v. Feiner (2021)

For more context on Abinanti's loss in last week's primary, we have two recent Democratic primaries for comparison:

1.  Abinanti v. Jennifer Williams in June 2020 for 92nd Assembly District.  

With nearly double the turnout, the 2020 assembly district race is not helpful to compare absolute vote totals but instead is interesting as a baseline to measure variations in the drop in Abinanti's support two years later. With Abinanti's district wide vote percentage falling 10%  from 2020, we can see that this decrease was not evenly distributed.  The decrease in Greenburgh (16%, with Edgemont eviscerated) was only slightly offset by a 6% increase in Abinanti's vote margin in the Town of Mount Pleasant.  

Greenburgh's incorporated villages (minus Elmsford), as expected, led the way in abandoning Abinanti, -26% overall, with preciptious plunges exceeding 30% in Hastings, Dobbs Ferry and Ardsley.  Just as in Mount Pleasant (excepting Sleepy Hollow), Abinanti did however see increases in support across "North Greenburgh" (essentially TOV north of Dobbs Ferry Road with Elmsford). I don't have an explanation to offer.  "South Greenburgh" - Hartsdale, Ardsley and the horrifically named "Hartsley," and now shorn of Edgemont-  are areas within Shimsky's County legislative district #12 and all showed various levels of lowered voting for Abinanti. ["Hartsley" is the precious name with which the Greenburgh Town Democratic Committee has burdened the extensive Ardsley school distict neighborhoods outside of Ardsley village. Hopefully, it will never gain currency.]   

2.  Paul Feiner v. Tasha Young in June 2021 for Greenburgh Town Supervisor.  

Turnout in the Greenburgh Supervisor race in 2021 was more comparable, but Feiner's 61% victory (65% when taking out Edgemont) makes comparisons ambitious. The only really eye-catching number is the gap between Abinanti and Feiner in Hartsdale and the Ardsley school district TOV, which Feiner won collectively with nearly 80% of the vote last year. 

Of course Mt. Pleasant wasn't part of the 2021 campaign; nor were the new Yonkers electoral districts involved in  2020 or 2021 

The information is this chart is interesting (to me) although not particularly enlightening.  If anyone can come up with "lessons learned" from all this, please comment below.  

 

Primary Analysis-palooza Part I: voters who know MJ, vote for MJ

With the exception of about 200 uncounted absentee ballots, the County Board of Elections has collected the 92 Assembly District primary voting numbers.

First the total and breakdown by town/city, with turnout.

These numbers vary slightly from the expected script. Yes, Shimsky was likely to win Greenburgh, but her hitting 60% in the town that Tom Abinanti has represented, in one way or another, for 33 years, and with such high turnout, exceeded the most optimistic forecast.   Abinanti did well in Mount Pleasant, but to win this primary, he really needed to push that margin toward 70% and get a bigger voter turnout.   With 374 votes, Yonkers was a non-factor other saving Tom perhaps 250 to 300 votes through the gerrymandered trade of Edgemont for these remnants of Yonkers.  In the end, Shimsky's victory margin was sufficiently large to render irrelevant the widely suspected Abinanti maneuver to defenestrate his Edgemont antagonists from 92AD  and exchange them for presumably more favorable Yonkers voters in anticipation of this contested primary.  Apparently even the gerrymander gods have a limit to their cynicism.    

We can break down the 92nd AD results in several ways.  Let's start with Mount Pleasant:

While Abinanti dominated the Town of Mt. Pleasant, there was very low turnout outside of the villages and he narrowly lost Sleepy Hollow.  This Mt. Pleasant success, however, came nowhere close to offsetting Shimsky's Greenburgh advantage. 

Next Greenburgh:

The first surprise is that Abinanti actually won Unincorporated Greenburgh (TOV) and by a large margin, larger than Shimsky's winning % for the entire assembly district.  Other than a tie in West Hartsdale, he won each of the six "areas" that the Greenburgh Democratic Party defines for TOV Greenburgh.  These "areas," while somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent, still give a sense of the breadth Abinanti's success in Greenburgh TOV, especially north of Dobbs Ferry Road. Abinanti's problem, however, again like in Mount Pleasant, was weak turnout in his areas of voting strength.

Conversely, look at Shimsky's villages vote count, and especially those turnout rates (25%) compared to TOV (20%) and Mount Pleasant (19%).  I highlighted Hastings' turnout for obvious reasons. With turnout rates 40% higher than any other village or area in 92AD, Hastings packs a punch double than might be expected from its relatively small population.  And these villages (except tiny Elmsford) went decisively for Shimsky.  With Abinanti winning Mount Pleasant and TOV Greenburgh comfortably, Shimsky's huge margins in five Greenburgh villages decided the outcome.  

There are other ways to contextualize the vote in Greenburgh.  I think the division of Greenburgh into (i) Rivertowns (Hastings, Dobbs, Irvington and Tarrytown), (ii) North Greenburgh (effectively north of Dobbs Ferry Road, with the village of Elmsford, and (iii) South Greenburgh (Hartsdale, Ardsley school district in TOV, and formerly Edgemont) is useful, and reflects generalizations of "communities" in Greenburgh.

Here we see even more starkly Shimsky's triumph in the four Rivertowns which, collectively, elected her and thwarted Abinanti.  If the Martians had landed and zapped the four Rivertowns and their votes on the eve of the election, Abinanti would have won. We also see, again, that Abinanti was very strong in North Greenburgh (Fairview, Fulton Park, Orchard Hill, Elmsford and its school district TOV neighborhoods, Valhalla and Pocantico Hills school districts neighborhoods, East Tarrytown and East Irvington) but lost "South Greenburgh" with Hartsdale, Ardsley Village and its school district's large TOV neighborhoods. These are areas that Abinanti dominated against Jen Williams two years ago and where Paul Feiner is voted for like a local hero. This discrepancy, between Abinanti's performance in these TOV areas, between two years ago and today, leads us to one more configuration to understand the primary results.  

Shimsky as incumbent: while Abinanti has held elected office in Greenburgh for 33 years, Shimsky is also an incumbent having represented the County #12 district in the county Board of Legislators (BOL) for the past twelve years.  While Abinanti has represented the entire 92nd assembly district for the same twelve years, Shimsky, his successor in the BOL, has represented the 46% of the 92nd assembly district's registered Democrats who live also in County #12. And do those County #12 Democrats appreciate her. I titled this blog post "voters who know MJ, vote for MJ" for a reason:

And here is perhaps the key to the outcome of the race. While Abinanti enjoyed name recognition throughout the district, he could not compete with the apparently overwhelmingly positive impression of Shimsky among the Democratic electorate who reside in her county legislative district: effectively Irvington, Dobbs Ferry, Hastings and Ardsley villages, and most of Hartsdale and the Ardsley TOV school district. Again, Abinanti won among the larger swath (54%) of 92AD voters who live outside County #12 and among those whose knowledge of Shimsky was low. However, for those familiar with both Shimsky and Abinanti as their elected officials, Shimsky's comparative favorability overwhelmed any positive impressions of Abinanti, and persuaded those County #12 residents to choose Shimsky for their assembly member.  

In Part II, I'll compare Abinanti's performance in 2022 with his success in the 2020 primary and the victory of his ally, Paul Feiner, in Greenburgh's supervisor primary last year.  Also, a look at the demographics of the voters.   

Not so close after all: Shimsky prevails comfortably over incumbent Abinanti

Tom Abinanti was first elected to public office in Nov. 1989.  When he completes this current term in the state assembly, Abinanti will have held elective office representing parts or all of Greenburgh for 33 consecutive years.  There have been two state senate losses (1996 and 2000) mixed in, but those campaigns came on off years and did not interrupt his officeholding streak.  Tonight, Greenburgh rejected Abinanti's latest re-election bid, and may have brought down the curtain on the seventy-five year old politician's decades-long career.

Enough about Abinanti, who will surely enjoy accolades celebrating his years of public service, in the coming months.   Praise tonight belongs entirely to Mary Jane Shimsky whose campaign took down the six-term incumbent in the Democratic Party primary for New York's 92nd Assembly District by a margin that exceeds the predictions of local self-appointed experts (coughs).  

With about 114 of 127 election precincts reporting, the unofficial Democratic Party results have Shimsky with about 5000 (55%) votes and Abinanti about 4100 (45%).   This margin will narrow slightly as absentees ballots  - which favor Abinanti - continue to be counted but not enough absentees are left to move Abinanti forward significantly.

These preliminary numbers show that Shimsky took down Abinanti by racking up an imposing 60% margin in Greenburgh. Abinanti held Mount Pleasant with at 55%, but he really needed huge turnout and a more decisive margin in his current hometown which has only 1/3 the Democratic voters as does Greenburgh.  Turnout was minuscule in the newly added Yonkers precincts and which proved not to be a factor in the outcome. 

We'll deep dive into the election data when it becomes available.  

UPDATE:
Final numbers from the Westchester BOE:

Shimsky  5,533   (55%)

Abinanti  4,558   (45%)  

Be prepared for a long primary night - make sure your lawyers are primed and well-oiled!

Early voters and absentee ballots returned (so far) totals appear below

The initial impression is dire news for the Tom Abinanti.  In his Mount Pleasant redoubt, his highland troops are slow to heed the blast of his war horns.  While comprising 25% of 92AD registered Democrats, Mount Pleasanters are barely 17% of pre-primary voters.  Greenburghers, over-voting their numbers by more than 8%, instead are filling the breach.  A grim tomorrow indeed for Tom is foretold, one may think.  However, not so fast.   A closer look at the gathering in Greenburgh promises hope for Tom and his unsteady northern alliance:

Within Greenburgh, we find the following pre-primary vote breakdown:

Indeed, the balance within Greenburgh surprises as TOV (unincorporated Greenburgh) - areas previously of particular strength for Abinanti - are outperforming Shimsky's Rivertown strongholds.  With particularly strong pre-primary numbers from Hartsdale and the TOV Ardsley school district (44% of the TOV turnout, nearly 23% of the Greenburgh total, with a median age of more than 72 years old) Paul Feiner's loyal host of white haired walkers is shambling to battle and, perhaps, may save Tom from catastrophe.  

Rest well, for a long and uncertain primary night approaches.   

 

Real Estate Super PAC deploys $28,000 to back Abinanti with last minute mailer blitz

Financial disclosures posted this evening show that Voters of NY Inc. is sending out three mailers in the last week of the campaign to bolster Abinanti's campaign.  Each mailer costs $9,406.80 for a total of $28,220.40.   

The first of the three mailers arrived today and is below:

This mailer, which prioritizes promoting Tom as a "safe streets and safer neighborhoods" candidate,  identifies itself as being "paid for and authorized by Voters of New York, Jeff Leb, Treasurer." 

What is Voters of New York (the same as Voters of NY Inc), who is Jeff Leb, and why are they spending $28K to promote Tom Abinanti's re-election campaign? 

According to this Jewish Voice article,  Jeff Leb is a lobbyist whose "firm specializes in zoning, land use issues, budgetary matters, and legislative issues" and "is ranked by City & State as one of the top lobbyists in New York."  As well as treasurer of Voters of New York, Jeff Leb is also treasurer of Common Sense New York. The two groups are successors to PACs with similar names that were also led by Leb and funded by real estate developers to battle progressive candidates in New York City council races in last year's primaries. 

Since May 3, 2022, Voters of NY has raised $679,000 from the following donors

 

Extell Development Co. is owned by developer Gary Barnett.  WLZ Properties is William Lie Zeckendorf's company.  No one can figure out who is behind Ancel Holding Group.  

Voters of NY is sending out mailers on behalf of twelve state assembly incumbents facing primaries next week and is targeting Working Families Party and/or DSA endorsed candidates. Those mailers, like the one above sent on behalf of Abinanti, emphasize a "safety" message. 

So why is Voters of NY getting involved in 92AD and backing Abinanti?  The Jewish Voice article quotes Jeff Leb as saying that “'none of our funders in the [Common Sense] PAC played an active role in the operation or direction of Common Sense and they did not pick the races we engaged in.'”  If this is true, presumably Leb handpicked Abinant's campaign to support.   I messaged Leb through twitter to ask why his PAC is funding Abinanti mailers and received in reply a friendly but bland and uninformative response about the "best candidate" with the "vision to improve Westchester" etc.  It appears simply that Shimsky, as a WFP-endorsed candidate challenging an incumbent, fits, at least superficially, the profile of the type of candidates that Leb and his funders choose to target. 

The 92AD race just doesn't fit Leb's typical profile.  Shimsky is not a DSA radical compared to Abinanti and, except for the "Clean Slate" bill (related to sealing criminal records), which Abinanti adamantly opposes, and Shimsky says she supports, their positions on on public safety issues seem indistinguishable.     

The Vote of New York effort adds to the amount of outside spending on this campaign. Besides, the previously reported out-of-district donations each candidate has received, as well as PACs, partnerships, and corporations located in various places, the candidates have benefitted from spending that does not appear on their financial reports: several Abinanti mailers and even a robocall funded with state assembly money (potentially upwards of $150,000), funds allocated by the Greenburgh Town Democratic Committee for mailers for Shimsky ($20,000), and now the Vote for New York mailers ($28,200) for an estimated total approaching $200,000 of true "outside" spending so far.