Historical records reveal a centuries-old discrepancy in New York City's mayoral count, leaving Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani with a disputed title: 111th or 112th. For decades, the city has listed Nicolls as its sixth and eighth mayor, but his second term went unrecorded.
The miscount began when Mayor Matthias Nicolls presided over court proceedings in 1674, according to documents discovered by Department of Records researcher Michael Lorenzini. The issue lies with how mayors with non-consecutive terms are counted: they're listed twice, similar to U.S. presidents. However, Nicolls' second term is missing from the city's records.
This oversight has a ripple effect throughout history, affecting even modern-day politicians like Mayor Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams. Their actual titles could be lower due to a misplaced entry in the 2010 Green Book or an outdated list of mayors.
Historians believe that New York City's involvement with slavery began during its founding, including Nicolls' family ties to large parts of Long Island, where they owned slaves. The discovery by Paul Hortenstine has sparked debate about how this period should be addressed in the city's history.
While some officials have called for Mayor-elect Mamdani to acknowledge and correct this historical error at his inauguration on January 1st, others think he'll leave it up to the incoming administration. Historians argue that correcting records can lead to more nuanced understandings of New York City's complex past.
The miscount began when Mayor Matthias Nicolls presided over court proceedings in 1674, according to documents discovered by Department of Records researcher Michael Lorenzini. The issue lies with how mayors with non-consecutive terms are counted: they're listed twice, similar to U.S. presidents. However, Nicolls' second term is missing from the city's records.
This oversight has a ripple effect throughout history, affecting even modern-day politicians like Mayor Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams. Their actual titles could be lower due to a misplaced entry in the 2010 Green Book or an outdated list of mayors.
Historians believe that New York City's involvement with slavery began during its founding, including Nicolls' family ties to large parts of Long Island, where they owned slaves. The discovery by Paul Hortenstine has sparked debate about how this period should be addressed in the city's history.
While some officials have called for Mayor-elect Mamdani to acknowledge and correct this historical error at his inauguration on January 1st, others think he'll leave it up to the incoming administration. Historians argue that correcting records can lead to more nuanced understandings of New York City's complex past.
This is wild, a centuries-old mistake and now people are debating what the heck? 
I mean, I get it, history can be complicated but come on... 1674! 
How many times have we had to redo math homework because of that? 
And now, politicians getting their titles questioned because of some entry in a book? 
Like, what's next? People going "Hey, I'm not actually the 111th mayor, I'm just listed as one due to some paperwork issue"? 
Who knew Nicolls' second term was like a ghost from the past? 
It's wild that his family owned slaves back in the day and now it's affecting modern-day politicians. I guess you could say their legacy is, like, totally complicated. 
On one hand, correcting historical records can be super insightful, but on the other hand, it's kinda heavy-handed to make a big deal out of it. Maybe just let Mayor-elect Mamdani get inaugurated without the whole " correct or incorrect" drama? 
, but I mean... who knew Nicolls' second term was a mystery? 
or maybe the original NYC superhero? 
(btw, is it possible to get a recount in this case?) 
. it's like, what else have we gotten wrong about our city's past? and yeah, i can see why historians would want to get the record straight... i mean, wouldn't you wanna be 111th mayor or whatever 
Either way, I'm glad historians are bringing this to light and sparking a conversation about NYC's complex history. It's all good that we're having these discussions – it means we can learn more about ourselves and how we've grown (or not) over time. 
. I mean, yeah, correcting these historical records is important for getting a more accurate understanding of our city's history, but also, can't Mayor-elect Mamdani just own up to it and make it part of his inauguration speech? 
It'd be dope if he acknowledged the issue and paved the way for more nuanced discussions about New York City's complex past. Fingers crossed he does! 
this is crazy! I mean, who knew that Nicolls' second term was even missing from the records? It's wild how a single mistake can have so many ripples throughout history. And honestly, I feel for Mayor-elect Mamdani - he's gotta deal with all this drama on his first day in office 
Do we really want to dwell on historical records when there are pressing social and economic problems in the city that need attention? Shouldn't Mayor-elect Mamdani focus on what matters most – building a stronger, more inclusive New York City for all its citizens?
! I mean, who knew there was a mayor whose second term just vanished from history? It's wild that it affects the way we know other politicians too 
. I'm all for nuanced understandings of NYC's history and how it's shaped who we are today 
that's a whole other can of worms right there... i guess it's good that historians are speaking up about it, but still feels kinda weird when you think about all those ppl who might be affected by this 
how r u supposed to make sense of that in a city thats always talkin bout bein the greatest? 
And now ppl are debating if they should correct it at his inauguration... like, what's up with dat? 
Guess we'll just have to wait & see how it all plays out 
and btw, slave ties to Nicolls' fam is SUPER problematic 
need some real honesty about the city's history ASAP 
But at the same time, maybe it is true that his non-consecutive terms are a thing now? And shouldn't we be looking into why those records got messed up in the first place? 
But I also don't want him to get too caught up in all that history stuff, you know? 
It's all pretty confusing anyway.
.