A Small Historical Error With Big Symbolic Implications
The matter of a mayor’s number might seem ceremonial, but for a city as old and storied as New York, those numbers carry meaning. They help mark eras of leadership, record political transitions, and anchor moments of civic history.
Nicolls, long recognized as the city’s sixth mayor, did not serve just one term. The archival documents show he held the office in 1672 and again in 1675. According to modern counting standards used for positions like the U.S. presidency, these non-consecutive terms would each receive their own numerical designation. In other words, he should have been counted twice.
Because that second term was never given its proper number, a ripple effect followed. Every mayor after Nicolls has technically been off by one.
Earlier Clues That Went Unaddressed
Interestingly, this is not the first time a historian has flagged the error. In 1989, Peter R. Christoph published research raising questions about why New York’s mayoral history appeared to skip a number during Nicolls’s era. Christoph wondered how the city’s long succession of mayors—nearly one hundred at the time—had managed to retain an incorrect count without a correction.
At the time, his findings were noted but didn’t lead to a formal change. Historical records often take years, even decades, to be revisited, especially when the issue does not directly affect governance. With the discovery resurfacing during a high-profile administration change, there is renewed interest in addressing the inconsistency.
