New York City’s Municipal Archives has revised their list of mayors’ terms to include the missing second term of Matthias Nicolls, and the difficulty of counting mayoral terms points to a larger issue in the city’s history.

When researching the terms of the mayors, I noticed that the city’s list neglected the second term of Matthias Nicolls from 1674 to 1675.[1] This means that the terms of mayors have been misnumbered, and I believe that Mayor-elect Mamdani should be the 112^th mayor, not the 111^th.

Michael Lorenzini of the Municipal Archives discusses the city’s list in a blog post titled On Mayors and the Counting Thereof. He painstakingly reviews official city publications, starting with the Manual of the Corporation of New York City in 1841-42 up to today’s Green Book, which includes mayors and their terms. He also shows the messiness of original documents and how difficult it is to catalog primary sources and create a numerical list of mayors, including burgomasters and acting mayors.

Under Dutch rule, New Netherland was led by a Director-General appointed by the Dutch West India Company. In a political settlement between leading merchants and Director-General Peter Stuyvesant in 1653, two burgomasters (similar to a mayor) were appointed to simultaneous annual terms in New Amsterdam. The first two were Arent Van Hattem and Martin Kriger. The practice continued under Dutch rule until 1665, but also from 1673 to 1674, when the Dutch reestablished control of the colony.

In an illustration of the continuity of political power, Cornelius Steenwyck served as burgomaster twice and was later appointed mayor the same number of times (1668-1670 and 1683-1684). Steenwyck’s terms as burgomaster overlapped with English control of the province. On September 8, 1664, the Dutch, including Steenwyck as burgomaster, surrendered the colony to the English. However, the city government, including burgomasters, continued. On February 2, 1665, city officials chose Oloff Van Cortlandt as burgomaster and Cornelius Steenwyck continued as burgomaster from the previous year. The English Governor Richard Nicolls granted approval. However, that summer Governor Nicolls revoked the burgomasters and other aspects of the city government. On June 12, he disbanded the Dutch form of government and appointed Thomas Willett the first mayor with other officials, including five aldermen and a sheriff, of “His Majesty’s Towne of New Yorke.”[2] New York City at that time was Manhattan and continued to be so until consolidation of the five boroughs in 1898. Other towns had their own government, sometimes including mayors.

For acting mayors, I have noted three: William Beekman, 1681-1683, Gerardus Stuyvesant, 1744, and Phillip French, who was briefly acting mayor in 1702 and then was appointed mayor. Stuyvesant and French served when the previous mayor died while in office. Beekman served when the appointed mayor, William Dyre, went to London to pursue exoneration. City merchants brought a court case in New York City in April 1681 against Dyre with the charges of illegal collection of customs and treason, which led to Dyre sailing to London to appeal to the Crown. The charges were dismissed. The provincial governor, Edmund Andros, was called to London at the time as part of a political dispute by merchants against his governance.

Lorenzini concludes that by the current method of counting mayors, Mamdani will be the 112^th. He writes:

The initial question was, should Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani be counted as the 111th or 112th? But the answer has proven far more complex. The numbering of New York City “Mayors” has been somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent. Maybe he should be number 118? If the Dutch Burgomasters were counted in the same way we count Mayors serving non-consecutive terms, another fifteen would be included so the Mayor-elect might be number 133. There may even be other missing Mayors. As far as employees at the Department of Records and Information Services can tell, no government agency has been tasked with “counting” Mayors. The numbers have been more a matter of convenience. One thing for certain is he is not Mayor 111. By our current Anglo-centric numbering practice (not including Acting Mayors) it does appear that on January 1, 2026, Mayor Mamdani should be Mayor number 112.

While the numbering of mayoral terms is an interesting and difficult issue, I raised it in the hopes of drawing attention to the history of slavery in New York City, of which Matthias Nicolls played a crucial role.

Nicolls (1626?-1687) came to New York City sometime in 1664 and was one of the most powerful officials in the province.While mayor, Nicolls held three important positions: a member of the governor’s council, provincial secretary, and mayor of New York City. Nicolls first term as mayor was from 1671 to 1672 and his second appointment was from 1674 to 1675. Nicolls served as provincial secretary to the colonial governor from the founding of the English colony in 1664 until 1680. Nicolls also sat on the colonial governor’s council—the supreme governing body of the colony—from 1667 to 1680. He also worked in private practice as an attorney.[3]

One of Nicolls most notable achievements was compiling the Duke’s Laws, the legal code of the Province of New York.[4] The laws were unevenly enforced, but they did codify slavery for the first time. In his recent book Taking Manhattan, historian Russell Shorto states that in 1665 Nicolls “took on the task of creating a legal code for the colony that mixed features of the English and Dutch systems.” Shorto writes that the code turned slavery from “what had been an informal practice in New Netherland into a legalized institution.”[5] A transcript of the law regarding slavery:

No Christian shall be kept in Bondslavery, villenage or Captivity, Except Such who shall be Judged thereunto by Authority, or such as willingly have sould, or shall sell themselves, In which Case a Record of such Servitude shall be entered in the Court of Sessions held for that Jurisdiction where Such Matters shall Inhabit, provided that nothing in the Law Contained shall be to the prejudice of Master or Dame who shall by any Indenture or Covenant take Apprentices for Terme of Years, or other Servants for Term of years or Life.[6]

Looking at other involvement with slavery, Nicolls sold an enslaved man in September 1676.[7] The transaction is found in a letter from Nicholas Blake to Nicolls about a ledger of transactions between the two men kept by Blake. In the section of the ledger that listed Nicolls as a creditor, Blake credited his account “by the sales of a Negro for 27.5.00.” Currency at the time was the New York pound, shilling, and pence.

While the numbering of New York City mayors’ terms is a fascinating topic and draws much-deserved attention to the incredible centuries old documents at and work by the Municipal Archives, hopefully it also leads to consideration of how slavery was interwoven with political power from the beginning of New York City.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Second appointment as mayor by Governor Andros on November 10, 1674. History of the State of New York, Vol. II, p.273-274

[2] The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674, edited by Berthold Fernow, Vol. V, p.183-185, 248-249

[3] Peter Cristoph on Nicolls in The Andros Papers 1674-1676, p.xvii; The Duke’s Province: A study of New York Politics and Society, 1664-1691, contains information on Nicolls and William Dyre, p.34, 44, 98-99, 141, 157-163; Select cases of the Mayor’s court of New York City, 1674-1784, p.195 and 526

[4] Taking Manhattan, p.295; Historical Society of New York Courts, link

[5] Taking Manhattan, p.295

[6] Historical Society of the New York Courts, transcript of the Duke’s Laws

[7] Andros Papers, 1677-78, p.62-63;