George Washington Plunkitt, one of the best-known leaders of New York City’s Tammany Hall political machine, was very serious when he connected patriotism to getting a government job after Tammany won an election. However, his idea of patriotism was different from the traditional understanding of love for one’s country. For Plunkitt, patriotism meant loyalty to the political party and active participation in helping that party achieve victory.
In Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, Plunkitt defended the spoils system, a practice in which government jobs were given to party supporters after an election. He argued that people who worked hard for a political party deserved rewards when that party came into power. According to Plunkitt, these workers spent their time, energy, and money helping candidates win elections. Therefore, he believed it was only fair that loyal supporters should receive government positions. To him, denying them jobs after they had contributed to victory would be unjust.
Plunkitt often referred to this system as an expression of patriotism. He believed that citizens showed patriotism by becoming involved in politics and supporting their party. In his view, people who campaigned, organized voters, attended meetings, and helped secure electoral victories were serving the public in a meaningful way. Because of this service, he felt they should be recognized and rewarded. Rather than seeing government jobs as positions that should be awarded solely on merit or qualifications, Plunkitt viewed them as benefits earned through political loyalty and hard work.
The seriousness of Plunkitt’s beliefs is evident in the way he spoke about the subject. He did not present his arguments as jokes or exaggerations. Instead, he carefully explained why he thought the spoils system was necessary for effective political organization. He argued that political parties could not function successfully without dedicated workers. If there were no rewards for service, fewer people would be willing to devote themselves to campaigning and organizing. Government jobs, therefore, served as incentives that kept party members motivated and active.
At the same time, many reformers strongly disagreed with Plunkitt’s position. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, civil service reformers argued that government jobs should be awarded based on merit, education, and competence rather than political connections. They believed that the spoils system encouraged corruption and inefficiency. From their perspective, patriotism meant serving the public interest rather than serving a political party.
Despite these criticisms, Plunkitt remained committed to his views. His writings show that he genuinely believed patronage strengthened democracy by encouraging citizens to participate in politics. While modern readers may view his ideas as self-serving or corrupt, Plunkitt saw them as practical and fair. Therefore, it is clear that he was very serious about the connection between patriotism and obtaining a job after Tammany won an election. He believed political loyalty and active support deserved tangible rewards, and he defended this principle as an important part of democratic participation.
