Is Central Park Truly America's Oldest Zoo? The mystery of Martin Van Buren's Tigers.

Nicholas LionRider

Nicholas LionRider

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
Recently I was watching a video on each of the United States presidents pets and throughout America's history many presidents have had very exotic pets including hippos, bears, hyenas, lions, tigers, etc. One that really caught my eye was the story of Martin Van Buren who was gifted two tiger cubs from the Sultan of Oman. The story says that he was gifted them, wanted to keep them at the White House but congress believed they shouldn't be and instead should be viewed in the public where they then placed them in a "local zoo in Washington DC". Martin Van Buren received these cubs in 1837. According to all sources I found the gifted tigers from the sultan and placement of said animals in "a zoo" seems to be truthful though it then begs to the question, what zoo?

If there was indeed a local zoo in Washington DC as of 1837 wouldn't this zoo predate all known historic American zoos claiming to be the oldest or one of the oldest by at least 20-30 years (Philadelphia, Central Park, Lincoln Park, etc.)? I am extremely curious about this because even acknowledging museums and such in the "zoo" category, the oldest museum in Washington DC wasn't built until 1910 (the natural history museum). The national zoo says it was founded in 1889 but even on their Facebook page acknowledged Van Buren's tigers being sent to the zoo.

This mystery has seriously been bothering me because it either means this fact about the tigers is somehow falsified (though as mentioned several sources have validated it as truth). Or the more likely situation that there were in fact zoos prior to Central Park Zoo and stuff not mentioned in the public record besides a few offhand remarks.

Does Central Park Zoo claim to be the "oldest zoo in the United States" with the asterix of "-still around today"? Was National Zoo actually around far longer than they report? If someone can either shed some light on this or provide any additional information I'd be very interested to know.
 
Last edited:
Nicholas LionRider said:
Recently I was watching a video on each of the United States presidents pets and throughout America's history many presidents have had very exotic pets including hippos, bears, hyenas, lions, tigers, etc. One that really caught my eye was the story of Martin Van Buren who was gifted two tiger cubs from the Sultan of Oman. The story says that he was gifted them, wanted to keep them at the White House but congress believed they shouldn't be and instead should be viewed in the public where they then placed them in a "local zoo in Washington DC". Martin Van Buren received these cubs in 1837. According to all sources I found the gifted tigers from the sultan and placement of said animals in "a zoo" seems to be truthful though it then begs to the question, what zoo?

If there was indeed a local zoo in Washington DC as of 1837 wouldn't this zoo predate all known historic American zoos claiming to be the oldest or one of the oldest by at least 20-30 years (Philadelphia, Central Park, Lincoln Park, etc.)? I am extremely curious about this because even acknowledging museums and such in the "zoo" category, the oldest museum in Washington DC wasn't built until 1910 (the natural history museum). The national zoo says it was founded in 1889 but even on their Facebook page acknowledged Van Buren's tigers being sent to the zoo.

This mystery has seriously been bothering me because it either means this fact about the tigers is somehow falsified (though as mentioned several sources have validated it as truth). Or the more likely situation that there were in fact zoos prior to Central Park Zoo and stuff not mentioned in the public record besides a few offhand remarks.

Does Central Park Zoo claim to be the "oldest zoo in the United States" with the asterix of "-still around today"? Was National Zoo actually around far longer than they report? If someone can either shed some light on this or provide any additional information I'd be very interested to know.
Click to expand...
I'm genuinely curious about this as well! I'll try and look into this whenever I can.
 
Last edited:
I think this might be a case of one source reporting on this and then every other article just copies the same description without looking much further into it. We'd need the original letters between Van Buren and Congress, maybe even a transcription of the Congress meeting where they decided the tigers should be sent to a zoo, to clarify this.
 
There was a discussion thread last year about an article posing the question of whether Philadelphia or Central Park Zoo was the first "zoo" in the United States; a very interesting historical review and it was cool to see different people's perspectives on it: Oldest American Zoo - New York or Philly? [United States]

Smithsonian National Zoo did not exist in the 1830's, so "the zoo" or "Washington zoo" would presumably be some local menagerie at the time rather than the zoo that exists today. The Central Park of the mid-19th century - an informal collection of animals on public display - was necessarily unique in that time period; the claim of being the first "zoo" is based on its public 1860 charter that certified it as a publicly owned institution that already had animals before Philly did, though Philly was chartered a year earlier. Traveling menageries were also certainly a thing in the 1830's, a time at which they were actually quite popular. Wikipedia has a citation for a book about menageries and zoological parks that claims a popular traveling menagerie had tigers in the late 1830's, around the exact same time as this story with Van Buren would have unfolded.

Here is part of the Philly vs Central Park article that explains this:

The United States [...] was still a frontier country with mostly agricultural interests. In this atmosphere, the traveling circuses and menageries were much more popular. According to Vicki Croke, “Occasionally someone would display a bear at a tavern, and by 1720, sea captains were bringing exotic animals to big ports like New York and Boston. By 1768, Americans had seen a lion, a polar bear, and a leopard in shows. In 1789, a tiger, orangutan, sloth, baboon, buffalo, and reptiles were put on display in New York. Traveling shows and menageries were flourishing here by 1813, bringing in the country’s first zebra (1805), rhinoceros (1826), giraffe (1837), and hippo (1850)” (143–44).
Click to expand...

However, @SerriGaming is right that this should probably be taken with a grain of salt unless it's corroborated by a valid source somewhere. The Presidential Pet Museum's website appears to be the source cited by other articles, but I can't find citations for the claim on their website.
 
@Coelacanth18 briefly mentioned this, but Central park is probably one of america's oldest surviving zoo. There were collections of animals that were shown to the public and those don't really exist now. So debunking the zoo would be interesting, but it doesn't change the status of Central park/Philadelphia.
 
CheeseChameleon1945 said:
@Coelacanth18 briefly mentioned this, but Central park is probably one of america's oldest surviving zoo. There were collections of animals that were shown to the public and those don't really exist now. So debunking the zoo would be interesting, but it doesn't change the status of Central park/Philadelphia.
Click to expand...
It was never about claiming Central Park or anything wasn't the oldest "living" zoo. Was just often confused how there are clear mentions of zoos existing prior they are just no longer around. Cause I would even claim any "permanent menageries" that existed qualify as zoos. Like if PT Barnum permanently kept tigers in a cage for public viewing in a Baltimore building, to me thats equally a zoo if we are also counting Roger Williams park being a park that kept guinea pigs and a peacock.
 
Nicholas LionRider said:
It was never about claiming Central Park or anything wasn't the oldest "living" zoo. Was just often confused how there are clear mentions of zoos existing prior they are just no longer around. Cause I would even claim any "permanent menageries" that existed qualify as zoos. Like if PT Barnum permanently kept tigers in a cage for public viewing in a Baltimore building, to me thats equally a zoo if we are also counting Roger Williams park being a park that kept guinea pigs and a peacock.
Click to expand...
Ah, I catch your drift. It just felt like you worded it that at first but thanks for explaining.
 
I imagine it's a case of the person using "zoo" incorrectly. Exotic animals were certainly on display well before Philly or Central Park started, centuries before Tiergarten Schonbrunn opened even. But that doesn't mean they were a zoo. A collection of animals isn't even necessarily a zoo.
 
TinoPup said:
I imagine it's a case of the person using "zoo" incorrectly. Exotic animals were certainly on display well before Philly or Central Park started, centuries before Tiergarten Schonbrunn opened even. But that doesn't mean they were a zoo. A collection of animals isn't even necessarily a zoo.
Click to expand...
Certainly what makes a zoo a zoo has been debated here many times and I think will continue to be debated into the future.
 
Zooplantman said:
This article debunks the story and offers an explanation of how this mistaken "history" came about. But what is the truth?
The Best (and Worst) Presidential Pets in American History, Ranked
The Washington Post tells the same story
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/02/17/white-house-cats-biden-socks/
Click to expand...
It's good at least some places debunk it. Its easier to explain stuff if its just a tall tale. Only thing I will say is then there are a lot of "scholarly sources", reputable historians and places that need to actually stop saying its a truthful story. National Zoo, many historians, White house archives, and many .gov websites all pass this story around as a factual event. So much so some scholarly article sites even cite stuff like the presidential pets websites and other articles as their sources.
 
Nicholas LionRider said:
It's good at least some places debunk it. Its easier to explain stuff if its just a tall tale. Only thing I will say is then there are a lot of "scholarly sources", reputable historians and places that need to actually stop saying its a truthful story. National Zoo, many historians, White house archives, and many .gov websites all pass this story around as a factual event. So much so some scholarly article sites even cite stuff like the presidential pets websites and other articles as their sources.
Click to expand...
Could be an interesting research project for someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top