Historian discovers overlooked 1674 mayoral term of Matthias Nicolls, suggesting Mamdani may be 112th mayor, not 111th–implications affect every subsequent successor
A Question of Historical Accuracy: Does Mamdani Become NYC’s 111th or 112th Mayor?
As Zohran Mamdani prepares to take office on January 1, 2026, a historical discovery threatens to complicate the ceremonial simplicity of his inauguration. Historian Paul Hortenstine has made a discovery that could rewrite five centuries of New York City history: the official number assigned to the city’s mayors is wrong, dating back to 1674. The implications extend far beyond trivia; the miscount affects how every subsequent mayor–from Fiorella La Guardia to Eric Adams–is numbered in the historical record.
The Discovery: A Missing Mayoral Term in the 17th Century
According to Hortenstine’s research, Mayor Matthias Nicolls served a second, nonconsecutive term that isn’t reflected in the official record, meaning Mamdani is actually the 112th mayor. Hortenstine, a public policy and history writer living in Washington D.C., said he came across historical documents referring to Nicolls’ second term while researching the ties between early New York City mayors and slavery. An archive of papers belonging to Edmund Andros, the colonial governor of New York, included a reference to Nicolls’ second term in 1675. The discovery raises a fundamental question about how municipal history is recorded and maintained. If a mayoral term can disappear from official records for approximately 350 years, what other historical gaps exist within the city’s administrative archives?
The Domino Effect: A Cascade of Misnumbered Mayors
The miscount has a domino effect: Nicolls’ absence means the number of every subsequent mayor is off by one. Fiorella La Guardia wasn’t the 99th mayor; he was the 100th. Mayor Eric Adams, who frequently declares “I’m 110,” is actually 111. This correction creates an interesting historical paradox: while Adams’ actual numerical position changes, his tenure and accomplishments remain unchanged. The error illustrates how institutional numbering systems–while appearing neutral and technical–actually carry symbolic and historical weight. For mayors who have publicly identified with their numerical position, as Adams famously did, correction creates an awkward situation where their self-identification becomes retroactively inaccurate.
Historical Precedent: Corrections Have Happened Before
It’s not the first time the official list of mayors has been corrected. In 1937, Charles Lodwick, who served from 1694-1695, was inserted retroactively as the 21st mayor. When this happened, everyone jumped up a number, and that’s been the way ever since. This precedent suggests that mayoral numbering corrections, while rare, represent an accepted practice within municipal record-keeping. The 1937 correction of Lodwick’s position demonstrates that institutional accuracy eventually triumphs over convenience, though such corrections require years to emerge from historical obscurity.
Earlier Recognition: Christoph’s 1989 Research
Hortenstine’s discovery is not entirely novel. Historian Peter R. Christoph made a similar revelation in 1989 in his essay “Record of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society,” writing: “Edward I. Koch is the 105th Mayor of New York. The City Of New York Official Directory says so. So does The New York Times. But they are wrong: He is the 106th. Not only is he misnumbered, but so is everyone else after Mayor No. Seven. It is a mind-boggling thought: 99 mayors misnumbered.” That Christoph’s three-decade-old research failed to generate institutional correction suggests that historical accuracy, while valued, faces significant institutional inertia. The fact that multiple historians have documented the error independently underscores its validity while simultaneously highlighting the city’s failure to implement correction.
Municipal Archives Respond with Caution
Ken Cobb, assistant commissioner of the city’s Department of Records, said he knew of no effort to investigate the mistake. He said while he could not find any mention of Nicolls’ second term, he did not dispute Hortenstine’s findings. Cobb’s measured response reflects the complicated position of municipal archivists: they serve as custodians of records but lack unilateral authority to rewrite official designations. Cobb stated: “We’re the keepers of the records. We’re not the creators of the records. It’s a good question. Who noticed this discrepancy? Apparently, this historian did.” This formulation, while technically accurate, essentially defers responsibility. The Department of Records acknowledges the problem but suggests that correction requires authorization from outside the archival function itself.
Supporting Evidence: The New York Historical Society Confirms the Finding
A spokesman for the New York Historical society said a preliminary search of the museum’s archives found three references to Nicolls’ 1674-1675 mayoralty in “The Iconography of Manhattan Island,” a history of New York based on primary sources and seemingly confirming Hortenstine’s theory. The New York Historical Society’s confirmation adds institutional weight to Hortenstine’s scholarship. The fact that multiple primary sources document Nicolls’ second term suggests that the omission from official mayoral lists represents a deliberate choice at some point in the record-keeping process, rather than accidental loss.
Political Considerations: Will Mamdani’s Administration Address the Issue?
A Mamdani spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment, leaving unclear whether the incoming administration intends to address the historical correction. This silence raises strategic questions: Would Mamdani prefer to be inaugurated as the 111th mayor, a number that carries more symbolic weight? Or will his administration embrace the correction as an example of fidelity to historical accuracy? Randy Mastro, the first Deputy Mayor, said he had never heard of the missing mayor, adding: “I think we will leave this issue for historians and, for a change, the next administration.” Mastro’s comment suggests that the Adams administration deliberately chose not to implement correction, potentially deferring the decision to Mamdani’s team.
The Broader Historical Question: What Gets Recorded and Why
The Nicolls disappearance raises larger questions about historical institutional memory. Why did a mayoral term–a matter of public record–vanish from official documentation? Possible explanations include: administrative errors in compiling lists, deliberate omission due to Nicolls’ unpopularity or association with controversial policies, or simply the practical challenges of maintaining accurate records during the colonial period when documentation standards were inconsistent. Research into Nicolls’ second term might reveal uncomfortable historical truths about early New York governance. Given that multiple historians have noted connections between early mayors and slavery, Nicolls’ omission might reflect deliberate historical suppression rather than accidental loss.
Practical Implications for Inauguration Protocol
The ambiguity creates logistical questions for Mamdani’s January 1 inauguration. Will official documents describe him as the 111th or 112th mayor? Will the correction be announced during ceremony, creating a peculiar historical footnote to his swearing-in? Or will officials proceed with the traditionally understood 111th designation while deferring historical correction to a future moment? According to THE CITY’s reporting, Mamdani will be New York’s 112th mayor, though still the 111th person to serve. This distinction–between mayoral term number and individual count–reveals how the numerical system functions. The correction acknowledges Nicolls’ nonconsecutive terms (following the presidential convention of counting nonconsecutive terms separately) while recognizing that fewer individuals have actually held the office.
Looking Ahead: Precedent for Future Correction
The fact that correction occurred in 1937 with Lodwick’s inclusion suggests that municipal leadership eventually aligns official records with historical accuracy, though the process moves slowly. Whether Mamdani’s administration will accelerate this process remains uncertain. His appointment of Lina Khan–the former Federal Trade Commission chair known for rigorous institutional reform–as a transition co-chair might signal receptiveness to administrative accuracy and institutional accountability. However, the political costs of correction–explaining why one’s numerical position differs from traditional understanding–may discourage action.
Historical Irony: Progressive Politics and Historical Fidelity
There exists a peculiar irony in the potential timing of this correction. Mamdani campaigned on themes of transparency, democratic accountability, and institutional reform. His administration’s approach to a straightforward historical question–will we accurately record mayoral succession?–will signal whether such campaign rhetoric extends to unglamorous administrative domains. Correcting the record would represent institutional fidelity but also create ongoing public confusion about mayoral numbering. Leaving it uncorrected perpetuates historical inaccuracy but avoids administrative complication. The choice Mamdani’s team makes will reveal something about how the new administration approaches the tension between transparency and administrative practicality. As New York City approaches its 111th–or 112th–mayoral inauguration, the unresolved question of historical accuracy lingers, awaiting administrative decision and reminding citizens that even the most straightforward facts about institutional history contain layers of complexity and contestation.
