FoundSF - User contributions [en]

Small Places Close To Home

2026-08-05T05:01:27Z

Ccarlsson: added link per Ken Stein's request

''' Photo Essay '''

''by Ken Stein… With a little help from Eleanor Roosevelt''

'''''All photos © by Ken Stein / All Rights Reserved'''''

''In a recent PBS American Masters episode “Janis Ian: Breaking Silence,” Ian said of her archives, “What I wanted them to do was to communicate a life, not my life, but the life of the times I lived in.” So it is very much in that spirit. ''
:::—Ken Stein, July 2025

[[Image:1958-UN-Declaration-of-Human-Rights-Eleanor.jpg]]

'''Eleanor Roosevelt at the United Nations, 1958.'''

''Photo: United Nations''

:Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?

:In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world.

:Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood [she or] he lives in; the school or college [she or] he attends; the factory, farm, or office where [she or] he works.

:Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.

:Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.

:Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.

:::—Eleanor Roosevelt, speaking at the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, March 27, 1958.

<hr>

So where, after all, did disability civil rights begin? For many, they began in Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Most of the photos here date from 1979-1989. For the Disability Rights Movement, these were key years of “l'entre-deux-guerres.” The years between the successful implementation of the “504” regulations in 1977—which ensured non-discrimination by entities receiving Federal Funds—and the successful passage of the ADA in 1990.

The 1980’s were a time when people with disabilities tasted and enjoyed the first fruits of Independent Living… of the 1977 implementation of both Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); of de-institutionalization; of sexuality and parenting; and of integration in the community, in education, and in civic life.

It was also a time when disability advocates and activists from all over the country took to their legislatures, to the courts, and to the streets, demanding equal access and non-discrimination in areas not covered by 504—in stores, restaurants, hotels, access to housing, public transit, and private employment. Culminating in 1990 with the successful passage of the ADA, when for the first time ever, people with disabilities were granted their civil rights in virtually all areas of public life.

In the 1970s, Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay Area were widely recognized as being both the birthplace and spiritual center of the modern Independent Living Movement.

[[#A Brief History of the Bay Area Disability Rights Movement]]

In the 1980s, that message was carried into the schools and parks of Berkeley, and onto the streets of San Francisco.

And in fact, while it is true that much of the script of this early history had been written in Berkeley, much of the drama was played out on the streets of San Francisco.

<hr>

<big>''“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?”''</big>

[[Image:01 Adam-Bertaina-.jpg]]

'''Adam Bertaina at Disabled Peoples’ Civil Rights Day March And Rally, San Francisco, October 20, 1979. “Keep Our Kids OUT Of State State Hospitals – Support Community Services”'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10156712078310701/?d=n A Gift Of History: Remembering Adam Bertaina]

<big>''“In small places, close to home”''</big>

[[Image:02 Curb-Cut.jpg]]

'''Replacement curb ramp being installed at Shattuck and University Avenue in Berkeley (1985).'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

<big>''“So close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world.”''</big>

[[Image:03 Ed-Roberts-Campus-Curb-Cut IMG 4098.jpg]]

'''Ramp at the Ed Roberts Campus '''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10156222872900701?sfns=mo More]

<big>''“Yet they are the world of the individual person”''</big>

[[Image:04 Sharon-Hamner.jpg]]

'''Sharon Hamner and her daughter in front of Hinks Department Store, Berkeley 1979.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10154979640230701/?mibextid=wwXIfr A Gift of History – The High Cost of No Curb Ramps: Remembering Sharon Hamner]

[[Image:05 Marilyn-Hinks-1980.jpg|450px]]

'''Marilyn Golden at Hinks Department Store in downtown Berkeley.''' From “Let Your Fingers Do The Walking: A Wheelchair Access Guide to the Oakland Berkeley Area,” Ken Stein Editor / Photographer, Access California, City Of Oakland, 1980.

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[[Image:06 TTY.jpg|450px]]

'''TTY machine for Deaf / hard of hearing telephone access.''' On screen: “City Clerk Dept GA (Go Ahead),” ca 1990.

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

<big>''“The neighborhood [she or] he lives in”''</big>

[[Image:07 Carol-Krezman-and-Michael-W-.jpg|450px]]

'''Carole Krezman, Michael Williams and baby Malcolm, ca 1984.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

<big>''“The school or college [she or] he attends”''</big>

[[Image:08 Kids-Carems.jpg]]

'''Two boys playing carems in the Franklin School playground, Franklin School.''' BUSD After-School Program, h/t Elaine Belkind.

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[[Image:09 Laney-College-1980-2.jpg]]

'''Laney College,''' in “Let Your Fingers Do The Walking: An Access Guide To Public Facilities In The Oakland Berkeley Area,” Access California, City Of Oakland, 1981. Chapter heading page for Colleges and Universities, h/t Marilyn Golden.

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

<big>''“The factory, farm, or office where [she or] he works.”''</big>

[[Image:10 Johnnie-Lacy-1975.jpg]]

'''Johnnie Lacy at the Berkeley Center for Independent Living, ca 1977. '''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10155025446855701?sfns=mo More]

[[Image:11 Maud-Steyeart IMG 3926.jpg]]

'''Maud Steyaert on her phone at the Pacific ADA Tech Center, 1990.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[[Image:12 Guy-Guber IMG 3927.jpg|450px]]

'''Guy Guber working on his computer / large print monitor at the Pacific ADA Tech Center, 1990.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

<big>''“Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice”''</big>

[[Image:13 Joyce-Jackson-DPCRD-.jpg]]

'''Joyce Jackson at Disabled Peoples’ Civil Rights Day, October 20, 1979. Joyce is holding one side of a banner reading “Full Rights For Disabled People – Implement 504”'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10155982986435701?sfns=mo Remembering Joyce Jackson]

[[Image:14 Judy-Dadek-and-her-daughter-Emily IMG 3856-(W).jpg]]

'''Judy Dadek and her daughter Emily in front of Berkeley City Hall. Berkeley Tenants Union pro-Rent Control Demonstration, ca 1980.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

<big>''“Equal Opportunity”''</big>

[[Image:15 Kids-Park.jpg]]

'''City of Berkeley Recreation Department Summer Day Camp Program, 1983.''' H/t Elaine Belkind.

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

<big>''“Equal dignity without discrimination.”''</big>

[[Image:16 Jerry-Wolf IMG 3932.jpg|500px]]

'''Jerry Wolf at the UC Berkeley Art Museum looking at the huge wall-size painting of George Washington Rallying the Troops at Monmouth by Emanuel Leutze. '''

In “Let Your Fingers Do The Walking: An Access Guide To Public Facilities In The Oakland Berkeley Area,” Access California, City Of Oakland, 1981. The chapter heading page for Museums and Galleries.

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[[Image:17 KIDS-braces.jpg]]

'''Two boys in a grammar school class examining an old fashioned pair of leg braces.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

From the K.I.D.S. Project (Keys to Introducing Disabilities in the Schools). [https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10152374874445701?sfns=mo The K.I.D.S. Project] taught disability awareness to primary school children, h/t Elaine Belkind.

<big>''“Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.”''</big>

[[Image:18 Homeless-Man IMG 3929.jpg|450px]]

'''A homeless man (who had a severe psychiatric disability) walking down the sidewalk barefoot in the cold, with a dirty torn / stained blanket wrapped across his back. Berkeley CA, ca 1978.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[[Image:19 Deaf-Picket-Signs IMG 3928.jpg]]

'''Deaf Demonstrators at Disabled Peoples’ Civil Rights Day, October 20, 1979.''' Picket signs reading “Deaf In America Wants Full Human Rights–DIA (Love ASL hand Sign)” “Open Communication Overdue,” and “I Need Sign Language To Share Your Laughter”

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10153237340485701?sfns=mo Remembering Disabled Peoples’ Civil Rights Day]

<big>''“Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”''</big>
:—Eleanor Roosevelt, speaking at the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, March 27, 1958. United Nations,

[[Image:20 Kids-Rights.jpg]]

'''Banner: “Disabled Kids Have Rights Too!!” Disabled Peoples’ Civil Rights Day March And Rally,” October 20, 1979.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10154182558600701?sfns=mo Remembering Pam Steneberg]

[[Image:21 Dale-Dahl.jpg|450px]]

'''Dale Dahl at the APTA (American Public Transit Association) Demonstration 1980, holding picket sign: Support 504.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10155410655330701/?d=n Remembering Dale Dahl: A Decisive Moment, And The Gift Of History]

Note: In the years after 504 was passed and before the ADA … The APTA demonstration was protesting the American Public Transit Association’s opposition to putting wheelchair lifts on public buses in their support of the “Cleveland Amendment.” They were holding their annual meeting inside the hotel. The Cleveland Amendment would have allowed local public transit providers to decide whether or not they wanted to make their busses accessible, or to provide an alternative / separate and unequal / “public option” service. The Cleveland amendment lost I believe by one vote.

[[Image:22 Revolt-Jolt.jpg]]

'''Anti-Electroshock Demonstration, Herrick Hospital Berkeley, 1982. '''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

In 1982, NAPA (the Network Against Psychiatric Assault) spearheaded a successful drive to ban electroconvulsive “shock” therapy in Berkeley. The ballot measure was passed by Berkeley voters in 1982, but was later overturned by the courts.

[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153071330555701&set=a.492534855700&type=3&sfns=mo And remembering Leonard Frank ...]

[[Image:22A CIL.jpg]]

'''CIL employees Doug Brown and Gene Turitz holding the Center for Independent Living (CIL) Banner at Disabled Peoples' Civil Rights Day March and Rally, San Francisco, October 20, 1979.''' The Disabled Peoples' Civil Rights Day March and Rally was organized by CIL's Disability Law Resource Center (DLRC / later DREDF). It was held in response to continued non-implementation of Section 504 and a number of unfavorable court decisions, including the Davis decision by the Supreme Court.

[[Image:23 Disability-Buttons.jpg|450px]]

'''Disability Buttons Collection. '''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

[[Image:24 Ken-Stein-Raising-Hell IMG 4554.jpg]]

'''Me [https://www.facebook.com/737785700/posts/10154165964245701?sfns=mo raising hell about rent control] at a Berkeley City Council Meeting ca 1982.'''

''Photo by Jane Scherr, Grassroots Newspaper. ''

[[Image:25 Grassroots-Darkroom IMG 1422.jpg]]

'''At work in the ''Grassroots Newspaper'' darkroom, ca 1980.'''

''Photo: © Ken Stein''

<hr>

<big>'''A Brief History of the Bay Area Disability Rights Movement'''</big> Presentation by Ken Stein, Program Administrator, S.F. Mayor's Office on Disability, Mayor’s Disability Council Meeting, San Francisco City Hall, July 16, 2004.

Four or five years ago, I was working at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, some people from the World Institute on Disability and the Center for Independent Living and I did a series of classes for fifth and sixth graders in the Berkeley public schools about disability rights history, where they interviewed people and we talked about the movement and showed movies and so on. It was a great program.

I started out each of those classes reading this poem. And then later, when I would talk to smaller adult groups I would also start out with this poem. It's by a young girl who is about 10 or 11 years old who is from Poland. It's in a book entitled "Creative Expressions of Augmented Communication." Augmented communication means where people might use a message board or head stick or point with their eyes to type out things on some sort of gadget that gives voice output.

This poem is by Magdalena Raczkowska and it's called "The Different One In Society."

:"I do not like when people pity me.
:Like those ladies in the shops or people in the streets.
:They stare at me as if I were a weirdo.
:I really hate that look.
:I want people to accept me as I am.
:Sometimes I just want to stick my tongue out at them.
:But I never do.
:I think to myself, it's not worth it.
:Often, I ask myself the why don't people want to understand me.
:Isn't it so simple?"

And I like to start out with this poem because I think it expresses feelings that everyone can relate to. I think it points out also that disability is something that affects people of all ages, in all countries. Even though today, we're going to be talking about laws and movements and leaders and struggles, the poem points out that it's important to remember that ultimately, disability rights comes down to something very individual and very personal.

Why is disability rights history important?

History isn't only something that's happened. It's also something that's happening in the present. It's a truism that history really is our key to understanding the present.
This is especially true in the arena of disability rights.

In spite of the passage of a number of disability civil rights laws over the past three decades, much of the public at large, including the media still operates philosophically and attitudinally on the centuries old medical and charity models of disability. At the time the 1963 Civil Rights Act was passed most Americans of all ethnic background got it. They'd seen Black demonstrators being beaten up and fire-hosed by the police in Montgomery and Birmingham. They had learned about racism and inequality, the murder of the freedom riders, understood it all, and have transmitted it down to new generations in the home, in media and the schools, in a civil rights context. For the most part, it's true that people today do not understand disability issues in a civil rights context.

Several years ago there was a movie called "Pay It Forward," where Haley Joel Osment, the boy who was in "The Sixth Sense," was given a homework assignment to do something to change the world.

Well, 30 years ago, I began working at an organization called the Center for Independent Living (CIL). I had no idea at that time that this was an organization that was literally going to change the world. It would change the way that people had thought about people with disabilities for centuries, and it would change the way that people with disabilities thought about themselves.

When I started working at CIL in 1974, there were 12 people working there in a small office on University Avenue. When I left 8 years later, there were 30 departments, over 100 employees, a million dollar annual budget, and it had become a model for what would eventually become currently over 400 independent living centers across the country, as well as a major international movement.

Throughout history, the biggest problem for people with disabilities, just like other minority groups, has been the stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination that they've faced.

I think those are ideas well expressed in the poem I read earlier.

However, in speaking about disability, we tend to use shorthand by referring to "attitudes." But to really understand disability rights, we need to get back to the basics.

'''A stereotype''' – A way of thinking about a person or group that follows a fixed common pattern, paying no attention to individual differences.

'''Prejudice''' – An opinion formed without knowing the facts, or by ignoring the facts, an unfair or unreasonable opinion. Unreasonable dislike or distrust of people or feeling uncomfortable around people just because they belong to a group that's different from one's own.

'''Discrimination''' – The practice of treating certain groups of people unfairly or unequally because of prejudice, as in discrimination against minority groups.
The stereotypes that people have about a certain group results in prejudice and discrimination.

And what about civil rights?

Civil rights are laws that ensure the rights of all citizens (regardless of race, religion disability, or gender), to vote, to enjoy life, liberty, property, and equal protection under the law. That is, the right to not be treated differently than others just because of one's race or sex, or sexual orientation, or disability.

We take a lot for granted today, and a lot has changed for many of us since we were children. And we're talking about some very recent history. I think it's particularly surprising that in this land of "liberty and justice for all," it took over 190 years for a civil rights act to be passed and 215 years for a comparable law, the ADA (the Americans with Disabilities Act), to be passed for people with disabilities.

When I was growing up in the 1950s and '60s there were virtually no children with disabilities in schools. Many children with disabilities were either kept at home or sent to special schools or at most, were in segregated classes in public schools or in institutions. Housing wasn't accessible, people with what were regarded as having severe disabilities weren't expected to work, and even if they wanted to, nothing was accessible. Buildings weren't accessible, bathrooms weren't accessible, there were no curb cuts, offices where people worked weren't accessible. Millions of children with developmental, physical, and psychiatric disabilities were labeled, institutionalized and warehoused for their entire lives.

As the folk singer Carolyn Hestor sang about her own family, in the early 1960s:

:"My little sister Donna
:was sent to school today.
:They locked the door behind her
:and they threw the key away."
:And that's the way it was.

I grew up near Chicago, Illinois in a town called Skokie. I remember when we first moved there, there was a big golf club nearby, the Evanston Golf Club, which had a big wooden sign on the front gate, "RESTRICTED." That meant that they would let anybody in the public join, but they wouldn't let Blacks or Jews be members of that golf club. That would be against the law now but it wasn't then.

At that time there would be ads in newspapers about jobs for "women only" or "men only" and it wasn't against the law to pay women less than men were paid for the same job.
There was a GI Bill that millions and millions of Americans reaped the benefits of after World War II, but Blacks were excluded from the benefits of that law, and were denied housing, maintaining a segregated society.

One thing that made a big impression on me at the time when I was young in Skokie, was that one time in the Skokie News there was an article about a woman who had taken her ten year old son who had cerebral palsy, to the miniature golf course in nearby Morton Grove. The manager told them they would have to leave because it would upset the other miniature golfers if they saw someone with a disability at the golf course. They would have to leave.

That would be against the law now, but it wasn't then. So what changed? Well, in large part, what happened was the 1960s.

Recently, I had the pleasure of re-viewing a movie called "Berkeley in the '60s," a documentary. And what I found most fascinating about that film was that the very first scene in that movie isn't in Berkeley at all, it's in this building – San Francisco City Hall. The House Un-American Activities Committee, HUAC, was holding hearings in the Supervisors' Chambers two floors below us. Well, what the movie showed was demonstrators being fire hosed by the San Francisco Police and Fire Department, being dragged down the steps, in the rotunda of this building.

Subsequent to that, the FBI made a promotional video about the communist danger in this country, and kids all over the country saw that and said, "Hey, that's where I want to be!"

And they came running to San Francisco and they came running to Berkeley. This is a demonstration put on by Berkeley students.

I know this seems kind of tangential, but really, there is a parallel between Berkeley in the 60's drawing young people from all over the country, and the national publicity about the local disability rights movement drawing people here with disabilities as well. And it's also more than that, because it's also true that to understand the disability rights movement of the '70s, we need to understand Berkeley in the '60s. There is a super direct connection.

What was going on during that time of course was that civil rights was a huge issue.
Berkeley students, a number of them had been down South to register Black voters, they'd come back north, they were organizing, there were huge protests at the Sheraton Palace Hotel, and it was a huge victory for the civil rights movement when the Sheraton Palace Hotel agreed to hire black workers.

It was also a major threat to the status quo. The directors of the University didn't want these kids distributing literature on campus and the Free Speech Movement was essentially born. The Free Speech Movement was modeled on the African American civil rights movement, which had a huge overflow impact on the development of other movements to follow – the women's rights movements, the gay rights movement and as we're talking about today, the disability rights movement.

The reason I talked about all of that at some length is because in 1962, Ed Roberts started going to school at Cal. Ed Roberts was somebody who had a severe disability who lived for the most part in an iron lung. His Department of Rehabilitation (DR) counselor had told his mother there was no point in him being a client because he could never get a job. Well, as it turned out 15 years later, Ed was the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation, but at this time he was a student entering Cal.

And this was the newspaper article that accompanied his admission to the school.
[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10162209354935701&set=a.10151749787240701&type=3&mibextid=wwXIfr The Headline That Speaks Volumes].

The article I believe is from the Berkeley gazette, December 5th, 1962. It shows Ed in a bed, and the headline reads, "Helpless Cripple Attends U.C. Classes Here in Wheelchair".
Well, what were they going to do with somebody who was in an iron lung, in an inaccessible city? They put him in a hospital and he stayed at Cowell Hospital when he wasn't in classes, and it worked out really well, and he did very well at Cal.

In the second year they said, "Well, this seems to be working out OK . . . We'll let some other disabled students come here and they, too, can stay in the hospital." By 1967, there were 12 students with disabilities in what was now the Cowell Residence Program. And what was going on around them of course was that the campus was going nuts with the Free Speech Movement. Students were out on campus every day demanding no "In Loco Parentis," which means we don't want the university to be our parents. We're adults, living in a hospital, with nursing charts and dating patterns being recorded, and it was no way to live. And unfortunately, there were no options out in the community.

It was clear to all of them that they were not living independent lives, and they understood very well the barriers that were keeping them from living out in the community. Basically, they were living out the medical model in the very midst of all of this turmoil for freedom and self-determination.

In 1972, Ed Roberts discovered that there was some federal money that they might be able to use to set up a program. What they did was to set up U.C. Berkeley's Physically Disabled Students Program (PSDP). Later the name was changed to DSP, the Disabled Students Program. It would allow students with severe disabilities to live out in the community. It offered housing assistance, personal care assistance / attendant referral, benefits counseling, etc.

In the past, services for people with disabilities had been provided to people in a very fragmented manner. Go here for this, go there for that, and these services were provided by non-disabled professionals who didn't know or understand what people with disabilities really needed or wanted. Basically, they were running on attitudinal models that were based on very low expectations.

So this organization, the U.C. Physically Disabled Student Program, was set up and run by people with disabilities themselves. It provided a whole variety of services under one roof that would help people to live independently in the community. They also had a wheelchair repair department. Before the independent living movement, people with disabilities weren't expected to be out living in the community. Wheelchairs were made for being used in hospital corridors, so they'd always be breaking down because they weren't designed for sidewalk use. So "wheelchair repair" became very important and some people in the community began designing wheelchairs that worked a lot better.

PDSP was based on three basic principles:

:That those who know best the needs of people with disabilities and how to meet those needs, are people with disabilities themselves;
:That the needs of people with disabilities can be met most effectively by comprehensive programs that provide a variety of services under one roof; and that
:People with disabilities should be as integrated as possible, as fully as possible, into the community.

And it worked out great. In fact, it was the very first organization of its kind in the world, and it was very successful.

But because of funding it could only provide services for students, and it couldn't provide these services for people moving into the community. So they set up an organization called the Center for Independent Living which opened its doors in 1973. And just like PDSP, what it did was, it provided a variety, a wide variety of core services under one roof to enable people to live independently in the community.

They had attendant referral, housing assistance, wheelchair repair, van modification, orientation & mobility training, deaf services, blind services, job placement, etc.
As I said earlier, even the idea of living independently was a new idea. By and large, people with disabilities were thought of as sick and helpless and pathetic, to be helped by charity and the goodness of people's hearts. People with disabilities weren't expected to live out in the community, to go to school like other kids, take buses, shop in stores, work.

I think it's worth pointing out that as one of the great early disability advocates, Judy Heumann once said, "Independent Living isn't doing everything by your self; it's being in control of how things are done."

Pretty soon, the idea spread and now there are over 400 independent living centers in the country.

It was very clear to the founders of the independent living movement that there was a lot more to be done than what they were doing. What good was it to live in the community if you were unable to get anywhere if there were no curb cuts, if transportation wasn't accessible? If schools weren't accessible? If people could discriminate against people with disabilities in getting jobs, and there were no laws against it?

So early on, the leaders of the disability movement worked to create laws that would ensure accessibility and civil rights. Early on, at CIL, a department called the Disability Law Resource Center was set up that later incorporated as the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), which is the organization I worked at for ten years prior to coming to working for the City of San Francisco. DREDF has had a very proud role in the drafting, passage, and implementation of every major piece of disability civil rights legislation of the last 30 years.

As I mentioned earlier, the disability rights movement owes a huge debt to the Black civil rights movement. The disability rights leaders modeled their movement on the Black civil rights movement . . . working to get laws passed, having demonstrations, singing freedom songs, you name it.

And here we come to 504.

In 1973, Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act. There was a section of that law, Section 504, which is only a sentence or two long, and what it said was that any entity that receives any Federal money may not discriminate against people with disabilities. That included all public schools and universities and city and state governments. But by 1977, four years later, the rules that needed to be written to explain what that law meant, the Regulations, had never been issued and approved by the government. And so the law couldn't take effect.

In April 1977, a lot of people with disabilities around the country organized demonstrations about that. The largest demonstration in the country was organized by leaders at the Berkeley Center for Independent Living. The demonstration was here at the San Francisco's Federal building, 50 United Nations Plaza, at the offices of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW).

The sit-in lasted for 28 days. Over 100 people sat in at that demonstration, and it still holds the record for the longest sit-in of any federal building in U.S. history. For the first time, a broad range of disability groups had joined together in coalition, as would also be the case with the ADA.

Also, now is a good time to point out of the important role of women in key leadership positions of the movement. There were people like Judy Heumann and Kitty Cone and Mary Lou Breslin, Cece Weeks, Debbie Kaplan, Diane Lipton, Arlene Mayerson, and Suzie Sygall, and many many more. And that's really something very different from other early rights movements. From the outset, women have held powerful leadership positions in the disability rights movement.

The 504 sit-in was successful. The demonstrators got the regulations signed that they wanted to get signed. And it's super-important that that happened, because what they got was a definition of disability that included physical and psychiatric disabilities, it included alcoholism and a history of drug abuse, and it did not allow for the provision of "separate but equal" as being okay, as the Carter administration had proposed. In opposition to the Carter administration, the demonstration resulted in all of those things being a part of the law. It's what people were sitting in for, for 28 days.

So why is this so important? —Why it's so important is because these 504 Regulations were the exact model, almost an identical overlay, for the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) and its implementing regulations, which passed in 1990. The ADA made it against the law for private companies, including stores and restaurants, as well as city and state governments, and private employers, to discriminate against people with disabilities. So for the first time in our nation's history, people with disabilities were brought under the broad umbrella of the Civil Rights Act, which protected other groups.

I need to emphasize that I've only given a tiny piece of disability rights history. There were things going on before what happened in Berkeley and San Francisco, and there's a lot that's gone on since. In 1940, the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) organized on a national level to fight for their rights. It was the first time that people with a specific disability had done so. Decades later, NFB served as the model for other organizations of people with disabilities.

Jacobus Ten Broek, the first president of the National Federation for the Blind, once said, "Of course we cannot be required to love one another. But we can be prevented from expressing our hatred, our superstitions and our prejudices in terms of public law and social policy. We cannot require the sighted to embrace the blind as brothers, but we can stop them from placing obstacles in their path."

What the independent living movement has shown is that the greatest barrier to the integration of people with disabilities, lies not in the disability, but in the physical, attitudinal, and communication barriers that stand in their path. What the disability, independent living, and civil rights movement has done, has been to help knock down a lot of those barriers.

While a lot has changed, a lot remains the same. Today, just as was the case in the 1950s, as well as when 504 was passed, as well as when the ADA was passed, too many adults and young people with disabilities are being unnecessarily warehoused in institutions, and we still see too many media images showing people with disabilities as either being pitiable or else on the flip-side of that coin, inspirational. And there's still a lot that needs to be done.

Nonetheless, we have a lot to brag about. As was pointed out earlier, several years ago we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the 504 Demonstrations. We put on a party for over 600 people at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, we served dinner and we showed a video history of the demonstration that we had produced, and we produced an hour-long radio documentary on the history of 504. We also used that opportunity to get video histories of people that were at the demonstrations. I was the Chair of that committee. We also put out a commemorative book, in which I wrote:

<blockquote>"Those of us who participated in the 504 sit-in, those of us who have shared in the growth and development of any of the multitude of independent living, disability access and disability rights organizations, those of us who have participated in and supported public policy development and advocacy, or who have demonstrated for the rights of persons with disabilities over the past three decades, all of us have reason to be proud and reason to celebrate. It is no exaggeration to say that we each have participated in and have been an integral part of one of the greatest and most successful people's movements of the 20th century."</blockquote>

The effort continues and we can all be proud to be a part of it.
Thank you.

<hr>

''For the past half century Ken Stein has actively worked to further the cause of Independent Living, Disability Access, and Disability Rights. From 1971-73 he was an early staff member of Bonita House, Berkeley's first Halfway House for persons diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities; and before that was a volunteer at Napa State Mental Hospital. He began working at Berkeley’s Center for Independent Living in 1974, and was the Program Administrator at the City of S.F. Mayor's Office on Disability from 2002 until his ‘retirement’ in 2013. For the ten years prior, he was the Manager of the National U.S. Department of Justice ADA Information Hotline at DREDF (The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund). Over the past six decades, Ken’s speaking, writing, photography, and collection of artifacts have greatly informed and given voice to the history of the Bay Area Disability Rights Movement.

[[category:Dissent]] [[category:East Bay]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Downtown]] [[category:Tenderloin]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:Housing]] [[category:Media]]

Oral History: Aaron Peskin

2026-07-24T04:25:28Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Oral History '''

''Interviewed by Chris Carlsson for Shaping San Francisco on July 16, 2026.''

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/aaron-peskin-oral-history-july-16-2026" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'''Full length interview (2 hours)'''

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/peskin-on-airport-runway-fight" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'''Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin describes the unlikely success of the new Board of Supervisors in derailing the plans of then-Mayor Willie Brown and the rest of the establishment to radically expand the runways for SFO in the SF Bay. (3 minutes)'''

''Video: Shaping San Francisco, 2026''

[[category:Oral Histories]] [[category:Power and Money]] [[category:Famous characters]] [[category:North Beach]] [[category:Telegraph Hill]] [[category:East Bay]] [[category:1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:2010s]] [[category:2020s]] [[category:Mayors]] [[category:Transit]]

San Francisco Airport

2026-07-24T04:23:32Z

Ccarlsson: added dedicated clip of Peskin

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Chris Carlsson''

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/sf-airport-1941-and-clipper-cove-from-lost-landscapes-no-1" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'''Footage from SFO in 1941, followed by images of the PanAm Clipper circling around in Clipper Cove off Treasure Island.'''

''Video: from "Lost Landscapes #1, 2007" courtesy Prelinger Archives''

[[Image:outofsf$china-clipper.jpg]]

'''China Clipper at Treasure island in 1939. '''

''Photo: Private Collection, San Francisco, CA''

In 1915, San Franciscans were thrilled and then horrified by the aerial acrobatics of Lincoln Beachey as he did stunts over the bay as part of the [[PPIE: A Festival of Empire Wrapped in Technological Hubris|Panama-Pacific International Exposition]]—until plunging to his death during a failed trick. Just west of the Exposition grounds was the city’s first airfield, a military post on Crissy Field in the Presidio.

[[Image:Crissy-field-1920s.jpg]]

'''Crissy Field in the 1920s.'''

''Photo: Private Collection, San Francisco, CA''

Commercial air traffic was still a couple of decades away. For a brief time it was projected that Treasure Island, built originally for the [[Treasure Island Fair: Golden Gate International Exposition|Golden Gate International Exposition in 1939-40]], would be converted to an airport after the World’s Fair. [[The China Clipper|The ''China Clipper'']] was based on newly built [[TI 1938|Treasure Island]] in 1939. But when WWII interceded, Treasure Island became a naval base with navy taking over the original terminal building and the hangars.

Plans were floated in the 1920s to build an airfield in India Basin over the [[Islais Creek Remembered|Islais Creek marshes]].

[[Image:1928-birds-eye-vie-of-proposed-China-Basin-airport-by-JR-Miller-and-TL-Pflueger SFMOMA.jpg]]

'''1928 view of proposed China Basin airport by J.R. Miller and Timothy Pflueger.'''

''Image: courtesy SF Museum of Modern Art''

Eventually, the city of San Francisco purchased the tidelands at the eastern edge of the Darius Ogden Mills estate (which was eventually subdivided and became the town of Millbrae) in San Mateo county, and there opened the airport as [[Mills Field|Mills Field]] in the late 1920s. On June 9, 1931, the name was changed to San Francisco airport and was soon added to the purview of the City’s Public Utilities Commission.

[[Image:Mills Field 1928 pub 2011.032.0077 0.jpg]]

'''Mills Field, 1928.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

[[Image:Mills Field Municipal Airport of San Francisco pub 2011.032.0028 0.jpg]]

'''Mills Field Municipal Airport of San Francisco, c. 1929.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

In the early 1930s, 350 acres of tidelands was “reclaimed” and by 1935, the airport had extended its runway C from 1,900 feet to 3,000 feet.

[[Image:San Francisco Airport 1935 pub 2011.032.0172 0.jpg]]

'''San Francisco Airport, 1935.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

[[Image:Passengers board United Air Lines Douglas DC-3 at San Francisco Airport 1938 pub 1997.52.050.002b 0.jpg]]

'''Passengers board a United Airlines Douglas DC-3, 1938.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

The airport construction also created a basin for the amphibious planes that were still a common part of early air travel. Pan American chose the San Francisco Airport as its location to do the first regularly scheduled trans-oceanic air service. The flight took off from the San Francisco airport and 59 hours later, after four stops, it landed in Manila, Philippines. The plane was so heavy that when it took off from the airport it had to fly under the cables of the East Bay Bridge that had not been completed yet. The plane, [[The China Clipper|China Clipper]], became instantly famous and set off a rage of new toys, beer and food all with the name China Clipper.

[[Image:San Francisco Airport 1939 9000 foot seawall defined a seaplane harbor and 315 acre extension of airfield pub 2009.104.037 0.jpg]]

'''San Francisco Airport, 1939. A 9000-foot seawall defined the new seaplane harbor and provided a 315 acre extension of the airport.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

[[Image:Pan American Airways Boeing 314 flying boats moored at San Francisco Airport 1946 pub 2000.058.1407 0.jpg]]

'''Pan American Airways Boeing 314 flying boats moored at SF Airport, 1946.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

After WWII, the rechristened San Francisco International Airport (SFO) began its inexorable expansion, with a new terminal building, a new control tower, and expanded runways all taking shape.

[[Image:San Francisco Airport curbside entrance 1948 pub 2011.032.0213 0.jpg]]

'''San Francisco Airport curbside entrance, 1948.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

[[Image:Lobby and ticket counters at San Francisco Airport 1948 pub 2011.032.0210 0.jpg]]

'''Lobby and ticket counter at SF Airport, 1948.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

[[Image:Nearly completed new terminal at San Francisco International Airport 1954 pub 1997.52.045.008 0.jpg]]

'''Nearly completed new terminal at SF International Airport, 1954.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

[[Image:Passenger lobby at San Francisco International Airport 1954 pub 2011.032.0406 0.jpg]]

'''Passenger lobby at San Francisco International Airport, 1954.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

[[Image:SF Airport Aug 28, 1954 wnp010.10117.jpg|800px]]

'''Open house at the San Francisco Airport, August 28, 1954.'''

''Photo: OpenSFHistory.org wnp010.10117''

[[Image:San Francisco International Airport 1959 pub 2011.032.0502 copy.jpg]]

'''San Francisco International Airport, 1959.'''

''Photo: courtesy San Francisco Airport Museums''

In the late 1990s during the first Dotcom tech boom, SFO became the nation’s 9th busiest airport. SFO found itself confronted with chronic delays, which were blamed on the old mid-century runways, no longer separated enough to accommodate a higher flow of airline traffic. [[Mayor Willie Brown|Mayor Willie Brown]], the consummate deal-maker, embarked on a campaign to build new runways into San Francisco Bay in order to allow expansion of the airport. But strong opposition by Supervisor Aaron Peskin and a panoply of local environmental groups, plus the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, ultimately derailed the plans. Air traffic has fallen considerably since those booming times, and SFO now ranks 21st in airport business. Oakland and San Jose airports have also taken up some of the pressure on SFO.

[[Image:Map of existing SFO runways.jpg]]

'''Existing runway configuration at SFO.'''

[[Image:Map of sfo runway plans.jpg]]

'''Expansion plans as laid out by Mayor Willie Brown in the 1990s, defeated by environmental and political opposition.'''

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/peskin-on-airport-runway-fight" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'''Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin describes the unlikely success of the new Board of Supervisors in derailing the plans of then-Mayor Willie Brown and the rest of the establishment to radically expand the runways for SFO in the SF Bay.'''

''Video: Shaping San Francisco, 2026''

In the early 2000s the city-owned facility completed its most recent expansion, adding a dedicated International Terminal, as well as building a 6-mile automated shuttle train system, and running an [[BART to SFO, Caltrain to Downtown: How One Happened and the Other Didn’t|extension of the BART train system]] directly to the airport.

San Francisco International Airport is a bastion of union labor in the Bay Area. Nearly everyone working there belongs to one of over a dozen unions associated with the airline business, from machinists and pilots to flight attendants and custodial workers at the airport. Still, in 1981 the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) went on strike at the beginning of the Reagan Administration, and threw up a picket line at SFO. They were all fired by the government which sought to make an example of them to intimidate organized labor more generally. Their union was destroyed after a few months and a lack of solidarity from other airport unions.

After the 9/11 terror attacks in New York and Washington DC a radically ramped up security system was put in at SFO as at all airports nationwide. It was no longer enough to pass through the metal detectors that had existed for years. Now a whole theater of police state “security” had to be performed, from taking off shoes, hats, belts, and jackets, to removing everything from pockets, prohibiting all containers of liquid, and so on, all while standing in long, slow-moving lines. (Since 2017 the government has begun offering frequent travelers a way to get pre-checked and avoid some of the worst of the humiliating and pointless Transportation Security Administration rituals.) The absurd system of color-coded warnings implemented by the ominously named “Department of Homeland Security” quickly became a meaningless joke. Repeated breaches of the security system at most airports underscores the reality that the whole system is designed to teach-and-test docility and obedience to the average traveler and has very little to do with anything that might be called “public safety.”

In January 2017, the incoming Trump administration promulgated draconian new rules to prevent immigration by Muslims, even banning green-card holders and people already holding valid visas and en route to U.S. airports. Thousands of people quickly besieged airports around the country, including SFO. For several days prior to a federal court judge reversing the ban (something that would happen twice more in the year), thousands of Bay Area residents marched, sang, chanted, and occupied the lobby of the International Terminal in a stirring rebuke to the xenophobia and racism that had taken over the government.

[[Image:Jan-29-2017-sfo-protest-P1090282.jpg]]

'''Protests against the Trump Muslim ban rocked SFO in January 2017.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

[[Image:Jan-29-2017-sfo-protest-P1090267.jpg]]

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

[[Image:SFO.JPG]]

'''SF International Airport 2009.'''

''Photo: LisaRuth Elliott''

[[Image:SFO-from-air 20150402 133601.jpg]]

'''SFO, 2015.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

[[Image:PSA stewardesses c 1970s via Kim Lee FB.jpg]]

'''PSA stewardesses in the 1970s during the height of sexist advertising campaigns of the era, before the gender integration of the field and the renaming of the job "flight attendant.."'''

''Image via Kim Lee, Facebook''

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/peoples-history-of-sfo-eric-porter-nov-8-2023" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'''Eric Porter, author of the recent ''A People’s History of SFO'', gives a deep look at SFO—San Francisco International Airport—'''which has come a long way from its muddy beginnings as Mills Field in the 1920s. Functioning as the center of the Bay Area’s modernizing transportation networks, SFO’s evolution illuminates fraught questions of access and employment discrimination, while becoming an “infrastructural manifestation of a succession of regional colonial presents, layered on top of sinking concrete, steel, and landfill upon mud.” And today’s airport, with rising bay waters lapping at its shores, confronts us with the implacable role of air travel in climate change, which no amount of
berms and protective seawalls will solve.

''Video: Shaping San Francisco''

[[Image:SFO-early-1960s sfm001-01221.jpg]]

'''SFO, early 1960s.'''

''Photo: SFMemory.org''

[[Image:Butler-Aviation-Operations-1950s sfm005-10861.jpg]]

'''Butler Aviation Operations, 1960s.'''

''Photo: SFMemory.org''

[[Image:SFO-PAA-sfm001-01222.jpg]]

'''SFO, early 1960s.'''

''Photo: SFMemory.org''

[[Image:SFO Jan 1966 Radar, Control Tower men with binoculars sfm005-10834.jpg|800px]]

'''SFO, January 1966, Air Traffic Control before computers!'''

''Photo: SFMemory.org sfm005-10834''

[[A UFO Blimp-napping over Daly City? August 16th, 1942 |Prev. Document]] [[Mills Field |Next Document]]

[[category:Transit]] [[category:San Francisco outside the city]] [[category:1910s]] [[category:1920s]] [[category:1930s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2010s]] [[category:2020s]] [[category:dissent]] [[category:South Bay and Peninsula]]

Oral History: Aaron Peskin

2026-07-23T06:43:47Z

Ccarlsson: Created page with "''' Oral History ''' ''Interviewed by Chris Carlsson for Shaping San Francisco on July 16, 2026.'' <iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/aaron-peskin-oral-history-july-16-2026" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe> category:Oral Histories category:Power and Money category:Famous characters c..."

Workingmen’s Party of California

2026-07-21T20:16:01Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by William Issel and Robert Cherny''

[[Politics of Business|continued from part two]]

[[Image:P03-04Riot-1877-Chandler.jpg|800px]]

'''Rioting workers at site of [[Old City Hall of SF|Old City Hall]], today's [[WEEDS|Main Library]], in Civic Center'''

''Image: Robert Chandler, via [http://www.sanfranciscohomicide.com/ "Chinatown Squad" (click 'books' link) by Kevin J. Mullen]''

Ralston’s resignation as bank president came on the heels of a run on the bank that had become a virtual panic. At the same time that the [[BANK OF CALIFORNIA and WILLIAM RALSTON|Bank of California]] closed its doors, silver mining stocks fell sharply. Many who had succumbed to the mania for silver stock speculation lost heavily. By 1876, seven thousand San Franciscans received assistance from the city’s benevolent associations. The following year the nation plunged into a depression, compounded in California by declining yields from the Comstock and by a drought that caused the failure of the grain harvest. This, in turn, reduced the need for labor both for harvesting and for loading on the docks. Unemployment affected at least 15 percent of the city’s work force, perhaps more. In July 1877, a railroad strike in the east and announcement of wage cuts for California railroad workers prompted a mass meeting sponsored by the Workingmen’s party of the United States, a small socialist group. Held on the [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|“sand lots”—open, sand-covered building sites near city hall]]—the meeting attracted eight thousand. Before long, the socialists lost control of their meeting and the crowd became a mob, roaming the city, attacking Chinese laundries, and beating those Chinese unfortunate enough to come within the mob’s reach.(17)

Anti-Chinese Antagonism

Antagonism toward the Chinese did not spring full-grown from that mob in July 1877. On the contrary, it had developed and gathered force for more than two decades. State legislation aimed at Chinese miners appeared in 1855. With the increase in unemployment following completion of the transcontinental railroad, anti-Chinese meetings took place on San Francisco sandlots as early as 1870. “Anticoolie” organizations appeared at about the same time, sponsored initially by the Knights of St. Crispin, an organization of shoemakers. San Francisco public officials responded to this growth of anti-Chinese sentiment by passing a series of discriminatory ordinances. They closed down the Chinese school but denied Chinese children access to the public schools. They defined the carrying of baskets on a pole across the shoulders as a misdemeanor, an action aimed at Chinese peddlers. They required all lodging houses to have 500 cubic feet of air for each resident and made tenants equally culpable with landlords for violations. Police never enforced the ordinance outside Chinatown, but enforcement in Chinatown soon produced such crowding of the city jails as to put them in violation of the ordinance. Supervisors thereupon passed the “queue ordinance,” requiring that the hair of all jail inmates be cut to within an inch of their scalp (depriving the Chinese of their queues) in an effort to encourage payment of a fine rather than serving a jail term. Mayor William Alvord, elected as a candidate of the Taxpayers' and Republican parties, vetoed the queue ordinance in 1873 when it first passed; [[Mayors 1850-1897|Mayor Andrew Jackson Bryant]], a Democrat, signed it into law in 1876. Another 1873 ordinance levied stiff license fees on laundries that made deliveries on foot, a measure intended to harass Chinese laundry operators. Supervisors passed this ordinance over the mayor’s veto. In 1876, rising unemployment again brought mass meetings aimed at the Chinese—the largest drew twenty-five thousand people—and a revival of the anti-coolie clubs. Just as in 1870, these brought in turn municipal actions aimed at pacifying the citizenry by enforcing the cubic air ordinance, reviving the queue law, and discriminating against Chinese laundries in the granting of laundry licenses.(18)

By July 1877, mass meetings at which speakers declaimed against the supposed evils of Chinese immigration had become staples of San Francisco life. The appearance of an anticoolie club at the socialists' rally in July 1877 surprised no one, but the riot that followed added a new element. Many in the mob knew that in Pittsburgh a crowd recently had put the torch to cars and buildings of the Pennsylvania Railroad. In San Francisco, the mob tried to burn Chinatown; they had been told for a generation that the Chinese caused low wages and unemployment. Although the mob failed to reach their objective, they frightened the city's commercial and political leaders. The next day a large group of the city’s business elite met with the mayor and police chief. William Coleman, leader of the [[Committee of Vigilance of San Francisco|Vigilance Committee of 1856]], took the chair. Mayor Bryant announced that city police could not cope with the emergency, and Darius O. Mills, head of the reorganized Bank of California, proposed a Committee of Safety under Coleman’s leadership. Faced with illegal actions by a mob, the city’s commercial leadership responded as it had twenty years before—it undertook extralegal action of its own. The committee rapidly enrolled 5,500 members, collected more than 2,000 rifles and carbines, and secured pledges of $75,000; Coleman also had 6,000 hickory pick-handles converted into impromptu police clubs. After patrolling the city for a few days, the Pick-Handle Brigade disbanded, considering its immediate work complete.(19)

Denis Kearney and the Workingmen's Party

[[Image:Denis-kearney.jpg|300px|right]]

'''Denis Kearney'''

A month later, [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|Denis Kearney]], one of the members of the Pick-Handle Brigade, tapped the emotions that had motivated the July mob in order to build a political movement with himself at its head. Kearney, an Irish-born drayman, later stated that he had no sympathy with the July meeting because he was “opposed to strikes.” Drawn into politics, by his own account, because the deplorable condition of city streets made his draying business difficult, in August he took a leading role in the formation of the Workingmen’s Trade and Labor Union of San Francisco, a group intended initially as a “price club.” The organization expanded in October as Kearney harangued crowds at sandlot meetings, his message usually the same: the rich used the Chinese to drive down wages, workingmen suffered from both the millionaires atop Nob Hill and their minions in Chinatown, monopolies must be destroyed, and—always his closing—“The Chinese must go.” Not the first to advocate burning Chinatown or destroying the docks where Chinese immigrants entered San Francisco, Kearney repeated slogans long popularized by members of the city’s political establishment. Kearney, however, tied anti-Chinese rhetoric to attacks on the city’s business elite and gathered huge crowds who seemed eager to do his bidding. The police repeatedly arrested him for inciting to riot, and martyrdom increased his fame. By early 1878, the Workingmen’s Party of California (WPC) had become a major political force, both in San Francisco and elsewhere in the state.(20)

[[Image:Kearney-as-Brutus.jpg]]

'''Denis Kearney presented as martyr for the cause in contemporaneous editorial cartoon, c. 1878'''

The WPC reached the height of its state power in mid-1878 and remained a potent force in city affairs through the end of 1879. In January 1878, the new party elected its candidate to fill a vacant assembly seat across the bay in Alameda, won another assembly seat the next month, swept municipal elections in Sacramento and Oakland in March, and scored victories in other municipal elections in April and May. In June, the entire state voted to elect delegates to a constitutional convention. Throughout the state, Republican and Democratic party leaders coalesced on a joint slate, termed “nonpartisan” but in reality bipartisan and anti-WPC. Nonpartisan delegates formed the largest group in the convention, numbering eighty-one of the 152 delegates; the WPC counted fifty-one, and the rest wore various party identifications. Of those not aligned with the WPC, a number affiliated with the Grangers, who held antimonopoly views similar to those of the WPC. Although the WPC and the Grangers might have formed a majority, they achieved no real coalition. The convention met for some five months and produced a document that Henry George described as “a mixture of constitution, code, stump-speech, and mandamus.” George felt it was “anything but a workingman’s Constitution” because it disenfranchised transitory workers, levied a poll tax, and entrenched vested rights in land. Conservative groups, however, reacted with alarm to provisions on taxation and corporations. The new constitution also contained many restrictions on the Chinese and on the right of corporations to employ Chinese workers, sections quickly declared contrary to the U.S. Constitution and hence void. The ratification election in the spring of 1879 saw intense efforts on both sides, with the WPC and Granger groups working for approval and business groups and traditional political leaders opposed. Large majorities favoring ratification in agricultural sections of the state overcame opposition of urban areas, and the constitution took effect.(21)

[[Image:The-tables-turned-on-Kearney-FID3.jpg]]

'''Kearney is taunted by caricaturized Chinese while he's incarcerated for inciting riots against the Chinese population...'''

''Image: The Wasp''

September 1879 saw elections for both state officials and San Francisco city officers. The WPC and the Republicans shared in the victories statewide, the Republicans taking the governorship and the WPC candidate winning as chief justice of the state supreme court, the San Francisco city election, like so many events in the late 1870s, seemed almost a return to the chaotic 1850s when politicians settled with gunshots controversies they could not resolve through politics. The WPC chose Isaac S. Kalloch, pastor of the Baptist Metropolitan Temple, as its candidate for mayor. His nomination provoked strong opposition from Charles de Young of the ''Chronicle'', which had previously been the only paper in the state even mildly supportive of the WPC. De Young published repeated attacks on Kalloch, likened him to “an Unclean Leper,” revealed he had once stood trial for adultery, and added other charges. Kalloch used his pulpit to reply in kind, labeling the de Young brothers “moral lepers [leprosy seemed a popular charge] . . . hybrid whelps of sin and shame, . . . [and] hyenas of society.” He brought the de Youngs’ mother into the fray by referring to their “bawdy house breeding” and “guttersnipe training.” The next day Charles de Young shot Kalloch in the chest and side, but the minister survived and won the election from his sickbed. Undaunted, de Young published a pamphlet repeating charges of Kalloch’s licentiousness, and in late April 1880 Kalloch s son shot and killed Charles de Young. A jury acquitted young Kalloch when a witness—later convicted of perjury—claimed de Young had fired first. Kalloch. as mayor, faced a hostile majority on the Board of Supervisors (Republicans held three-quarters of the seats), and by the time he left office, the WPC itself had died.(22)

The WPC and the Voters

During its heyday, the WPC commanded the loyalty of half the voters in San Francisco. James Bryce ascribed this success to support

<blockquote>by the Irish, here a discontented and turbulent part of the population, by the lower class of German immigrants, and by the longshore men, also an important element in this great port, and a dangerous element (as long ago in Athens) wherever one finds them.</blockquote>

Bryce added, however, that Kearney also drew support from “the better sort of working men, clerks, and small shopkeepers,” no doubt the group Henry George referred to when he wrote that Kearneyism attracted “people who never joined the clubs or visited the sand-lot . . . people who were so utterly disgusted with the workings and corruptions of old parties as to welcome ‘anything for a change.’” The Democratic party virtually disappeared in San Francisco—“scarce a grease spot was left to mark its place” according to one prominent Democrat—as the WPC seized the support of normally Democratic voters. Bryce, George, and others agreed that the WPC benefited greatly from the attention given it by the newspapers, especially the Chronicle, which supported the movement until Kalloch’s nomination.(23)

If the vote to ratify the constitution and Kalloch’s vote for mayor are used to analyze the base of WPC support among the voters, patterns emerge that verify the observations of both Bryce and George. Table 7 summarizes the WPC strength by ward and also includes the mean Democratic vote for 1873-1877.(24) The WPC clearly drew the bulk of its support from the same areas that had given the Democrats majorities before 1879, and the WPC did poorly in areas that had been—and remained—Republican. In nearly every instance, however, the WPC provoked a more cohesive response than had the Democrats. In working-class areas along the waterfront and south of Market Street, the WPC received a larger share of the vote than had the Democrats; in middle-class and upper-class areas, the WPC did worse. The sharpening of class antagonisms by Kearney cut through some of the non-economic bases for party affiliation that had previously operated.

[[Image:Table-7 WMP Chap-6.jpg]]

'''Table 7, showing Workingmen's Party vote distribution.'''

By August 1881, Kearney himself admitted that “there is no Workingmen’s Party now.” The WPC plunged to its nadir as rapidly as it had soared to its zenith. The reasons for the party’s decline include the Kalloch–de Young shootings, splits within the WPC leadership over party policy and over alliance with the national Greenback party, and general disappointment over the outcome of the WPC agitation. Kearney, most observers agreed, lacked the ability to build a permanent organization, and, equally serious, he lacked the depth to propose and implement measures that would relieve the economic suffering that gave him his South of Market base. Henry George, as early as 1880, understood that Kearneyism posed no serious threat to the political order. He found the new constitution “destitute ... of any shadow of reform which will lessen social inequalities or purify politics.” WPC candidates, he felt, “have been no more radical than the average of American politicians.” Most important, Kearneyism contained no viable alternative to the economic and social factors that produced both the July Days and Kearney. The WPC proposed instead, George wrote, “merely the remedy which their preachers, teachers, and influential newspapers are constantly prescribing to the American people as the great cure-all—elect honest men to office and have them cut down taxation.” At the same time that the WPC suffered schisms and the younger Kalloch stood trial for shooting de Young, the elder Kalloch faced a hostile majority on the Board of Supervisors, the economy of the city slowly improved, and the level of unemployment fell. The WPC had fed on the distress of depression, and the unemployed and destitute had thronged to the sandlots to hear Kearney speak. With the return of more prosperous times, Kearney proved unable to attract the crowds of earlier days, and the WPC lost even this base.(25)

Despite the sound and fury of Kearneyism and the WPC, within two years it signified but little for the city’s politics. Bryce expressed surprise at the ease with which such volatile political currents returned to familiar channels:

<blockquote>The game of politics between the two old parties goes on as before. . . . The city government of San Francisco is much what it was before the agitation. . . . After all. say the lawyers and bankers of San Francisco, we are going on as before, property will take care of itself in this country, things are not really worse so far as our business is concerned.</blockquote>

“Neither,” Bryce continued, “are things better,” and for a time in the 1880s, they became worse.(26) San Francisco politics during the 1880s differed from previous patterns in one major regard: power was concentrated more than before (or after) in the hands of one person, Christopher Augustine Buckley.

Notes

17. Lavender, ''Nothing Seemed Impossible'', pp. 376 — 377, 382 — 383; Lyman, ''Ralston's Ring'', pp. 275, 285-288, 320; Hittell, ''A History of the City of San Francisco'', pp. 421—424; Charles A. Levy, “Working-Class Life in San Francisco: An Examination of Social and Economic Dislocation Caused by the Depression of 1877—1879," seminar paper, San Francisco State University, 1977, pp. 6 — 7; Shumsky, “Tar Flat and Nob Hill," ch. 3, esp. p. 126; Cross, ''A History of the Labor Movement in California'', pp. 88 — 90; Saxton, ''Indispensable Enemy'', pp. 113 — 114; Michael Kazin, “Prelude to Kearneyism: The July Days in San Francisco, 1877,” ''New Labor Review'' 3 (1980):5 — 47. 
18. Eaves, ''A History of California Labor Legislation'', chs. 3 — 5, esp. pp. 136—138, 142 — 145, 148 — 149; Mary Roberts Coolidge, ''Chinese Immigration'' (New York, 1909), chs. 4, 5; Wollenberg, ''All Deliberate Speed'', pp. 30 — 34. See also Stuart Creighton Miller, ''The Unwelcome Immigrant: The American Image of the Chinese, 1785—1882'' (Berkeley, 1969), esp. ch. 7; and Trainer, “Chinese as Medical Scapegoats.” 
19. Kazin, “July Days”; Robert V. Bruce, ''1877: Year of Violence'' (Indianapolis, 1959), ch. 8 and passim; James A. B. Scherer,'' “The Lion of the Vigilantes”: William T. Coleman and the Life of Old San Francisco'' (Indianapolis, 1939), pp. 267-278; Saxton, ''Indispensable Enemy'', pp. 113 — 115; Cross, ''A History of the Labor Movement in California'', pp. 88-93; George, “Kearney Agitation,” pp. 437-438. 
20. Among the numerous accounts of the Workingmen's party of California (WPC) are J. C. Stedman and R. A. Leonard, ''The Workingmen’s Party of California: An Epitome of Its Rise and Progress'' (San Francisco, 1878); George. “Kearney Agitation,” esp. pp. 440 — 441; Bryce, ''American Commonwealth'', 2:425 — 448; Winfield J. Davis, ''History of Political Conventions in California, 1849—1892'' (Sacramento, 1893), pp. 365 — 421; Roney, ''Frank Roney'', pp. 268 — 308; Ralph Kauer, “The Workingmen’s Party in California.” ''Pacific Historical Review'' 13 (Sept. 1944):278 —291; Shumsky, “Tar Flat and Nob Hill,” chs. 6, 7; Neil L. Shumsky, “San Francisco's Workingmen Respond to the Modern City,” ''California Historical Quarterly'' 55 (Spring 1976):46 —57; Cross, ''A History of the Labor Movement in California'', ch. 7; Saxton, ''Indispensable Enemy,'' chs. 6, 7; Doyce B. Nunis, Jr., "The Demagogue and the Demographer: Correspondence of Denis Kearney and Lord Bryce,” ''Pacific Historical Review'' 36 (Aug. 1967): 269-288, esp. pp. 278-279. 
21. Carl Brent Swisher, ''Motivation and Political Technique in the California Constitutional Convention, 1878-1879'' (Claremont, Ca., 1930), chs. 2 — 8, esp. ch. 2; Kauer, “Workingmen's Party,” pp. 282-286; George, “Kearney Agitation,” pp. 445-446; Bryce, ''American Commonwealth'', 2:436-439; Bancroft, ''History of California'', 7:370-406; Eaves, ''A History of California Labor Legislation'', pp. 150-160. 216; Davis, ''History of Political Conventions'', pp. 381-385; Dudley T. Moorhead, “Sectionalism and the California Constitution of 1879,” ''Pacific Historical Review'' 12 (Sept. 1943):287-293; Young, ''Journalism in California'', ch. 12; A. Russell Buchanan, ''David S. Terry of California: Dueling Judge'' (San Marino, Ca., 1956), ch. 11. 
22. Irving McKee, “The Shooting of Charles de Young,” ''Pacific Historical Review'' 16 (Aug. 1947):271—284, esp. pp. 280 — 281; Kauer, “Workingmen's Party,” pp. 287-288; George. “Kearney Agitation.” p. 447; Bancroft, ''History of California'', 7:412, 420. 
23. Bryce, ''American Commonwealth'', 2:433 — 435; George, “Kearney Agitation,” pp. 442, 444; Buckley, “Reminiscences,” ''Bulletin'', Dec. 25, 1918, p. 9; Alexander Callow, Jr., “San Francisco's Blind Boss,” ''Pacific Historical Review'' 25 (Aug. 1956):264. 
24. Levy has calculated the rank-order coefficient of correlation between these two measures of the party’s strength at +0.965; “Working-Class Life in San Francisco,” pp. 22, 23; part of this analysis is based on Levy’s paper. 
25. Kauer, “Workingmens Party,” p. 289, George, “Kearney Agitation,” p. 449; Bryce, ''American Commonwealth'', 2:430-431, 443-445; Cross, ''A History of the Labor Movement in California'', pp. 125 — 128, 130. 
26. Bryce, ''American Commonwealth'', 2:44 1, 445.

<hr>

'''Other articles on the 1877 Workingmen's Party and the heated politics of that time:'''

[[Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor|Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor]] / [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|1877 unemployed in the sandlots]] / [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California]] / [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party of California]] / [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation]]

<hr>

[[Image:San-Francisco-1865-1932 cover.jpg|220px|left]] Excerpted from ''San Francisco 1865-1932'', Chapter 6 “Politics in the Expanding City, 1865-1893”

[[Christopher Buckley and the Politics of Urban Growth |continue reading]]

[[category:1870s]] [[category:1890s]] [[category:1880s]] [[category:Power and Money]] [[category:San Francisco 1865-1932: Politics, Power, and Urban Development]] [[category:Downtown]] [[category:Labor]] [[category:Chinese]] [[category:Irish]] [[category:Civic Center]]

WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California

2026-07-21T20:15:30Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Nicholas Sean Hall''

''Originally published as ''The Wasp's "Troublesome Children": Culture, Satire, and the Anti-Chinese Movement in the American West'' in [http://www.jstor.org/stable/41936500 California History, Vol. 90, No. 2] (2013); excerpted with permission.''

[[Image:Vampires or Landlords of SF Wasp July-Dec 1882 10431247 10152326625848978 928577850712092137 o.jpg|720px]]

'''The Vampires or Landlords of San Francisco.'''

''Image: Shaping San Francisco''

The Workingmen's Party of California (WPC) had its roots in the primarily German socialist organization on the East Coast and evolved directly out of frustration with the two-party establishment. Although both major political parties had included opposition to the Chinese in their platforms by 1871, six years later California's white working-class men had had enough of their perceived inaction. During the Gilded Age in California, fear of "yellow peril" and resentment of monopoly capital grew in tandem. White resentment of Chinese immigrants and their alleged capitalist puppet masters spawned a briefly successful political party—the WPC—based on a simplistic, double-sided platform of anti-monopolism and Chinese exclusion.

In the summer of 1877, the Great Railroad Strike spread from the East to the West Coast by workers unhappy with wage cuts during the failing economy. The crisis prompted the eastern Workingmen's Party to attempt—though feebly and unsuccessfully—to take leadership of the labor revolt in major cities throughout the nation. The government responded by calling out local militias to put down the strikes. In July 1877, a peaceful [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|sandlot sympathy rally]] by San Francisco workers descended into an anti-Chinese riot. Rioters clashed with police, broke into more than twenty laundries, and set fire to the [[Pacific Mail Steamship Company|Pacific Mail Steamship Company]] docks. After two days of lawlessness, a vigilante army of 4,000 volunteers led by William T. Coleman, a member of San Francisco's Republican leadership and head of the 1856 Vigilance Committee, took to the city's streets to restore order. Either hoping to avoid an all-out massacre, as had occurred in Los Angeles six years earlier, or spurred by wire reports of a "second civil war" between labor and capital from eastern cities, the "pickaxe brigade" sought to avoid similar atrocities on the streets of San Francisco.(49)

Following the riot, the city's workers opted for more diplomatic means of expressing their discontent. Although bipartisan efforts to end the nationwide railroad strikes by force stimulated the establishment of the WPC, the new party also grew out of objections to the violence Coleman and his men had employed in quelling the anti Chinese riot. Headed by [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|Denis Kearney]], an Irish Catholic immigrant and drayman who gained notoriety as a sandlot orator in the aftermath of the summer riot, the WPC flew the dual flags of immigration restriction and anti-capitalism, blaming the nation's economic woes on the corruption of the railroad companies and the Chinese immigrants they had imported. From the outset, the party conducted all of its rallies and publicity under the banner "The Chinese Must Go!"(50)

Like the anti-coolie clubs before it, the WPC tried to balance its rhetoric between legal means of persuasion and threats of vigilante violence. In October, Kearney and a contingent of his followers marched to the front porches of the Nob Hill elite and, most notably, the Big Four. In their speeches party leaders exhorted their constituents to procure the group's ends by musket should the Central Pacific Railroad not heed their demand to send all its Chinese workers into the ranks of the unemployed. The city's establishment, led by Republican mayor Andrew Jackson Bryant, responded to the ominous speeches by arresting Kearney and other WPC leaders time and again—raising their bail on each occasion—but this served only to increase Kearney's popularity.(51)

[[Image:WASP The-First-Blow-at-the-Chinese-Question.jpg|400px|left]]

'''The First Blow at the Chinese Question'''

''Image: Bancroft Library''

At first, the ''Wasp'' sympathized with the WPC. Its December 7, 1877 cover lauded the party's "first blow at the Chinese question." The cartoon features a workingman, carrying the sign "Working Men's Procession, Nov. 29th," punching a Chinese man in front of a Chinatown business. The workingman is portrayed as rowdy but performing a valuable community service. Like ''Coming Races'', the image's satire lies in its semiotic conflation of the literal and figurative uses of the word "blow." Rather than tackling the problem through legal channels, the workingman literally has taken the law into his own hands. Keller also depicts a distorted reflection of the Chinese immigrant in a window storefront, literally portraying the Chinese immigrant as a bogeyman who imperiled California's future.

Korbel soon soured on the WPC and especially on Kearney. Though he did not oppose the WPC's position on Chinese immigration, as a businessman he feared the party's virulent anti-capitalism. Wary of the horrific and well-publicized brutality of the 1871 Chinese massacre, his publication took on a moderate stance critical of anti-Chinese radicals and government reluctance to restrict trans-Pacific immigration. The Wasp began to ridicule the party's leader. Kearney's outrageous speeches and bombastic behavior did not help his cause with the local publications. In April 1878, when he bestowed upon himself the title of lieutenant general, the ''Wasp'' began publishing caricatures of him as a jackass in military garb.(52) In its parody, the weekly walked a fine line between both anti-Chinese and anti-Kearney views. Whereas most of San Francisco's press—including the ''Argonaut'', the ''Wasp''’s main illustrated rival—opposed the WPC, the ''Wasp'' focused on satirizing the party's means but not its ends.

In ChineeMushGo!!, a title mocking Chinese immigrants' attempts to linguistically assimilate into San Francisco life, the ''Was''p illustrates Kearney in the midst of one of his trademark tirades on a "Sand Lot Platform" at the San Francisco waterfront. Two steamships are moored behind him. Kearney stands with his back turned to the ship "To China," onto which two white men force a solitary Chinese man. In front of Kearney, who appears nearly apoplectic, a stream of Chinese immigrants flows off the ship "From China." The lead immigrant reflects the Wasp' s position on the party's bloviating leader: instead of fearing Kearney's tantrum, he thumbs his nose at the WPC leader, suggesting that Kearney's hysteria was powerless in the face of the determination of Chinese workers to come to America.

[[Image:WASP Chinese-Mush-Go.jpg|720px]]

'''ChineeMushGo!!, July 26, 1879'''

''Image: Bancroft Library''

While white supremacy was normative in late nineteenth-century American life, the eastern press did not show much sympathy for California's "Chinese problem." In September 1879, ''Harper's Weekly'' published ''Political Assassinations'' as its cover illustration. The image shows an African American freedman on the left ("South"). The subheading "The Mississippi Plan" references the 1875 plan of the state's Democrats to expel or silence both black and white Republicans through violence and terror. A Chinese man occupies the right side ("West") , the home of "The California Plan" and the "Sand Lots."(53)

[[Image:Harpers Political-Assassinations.jpg|360px|right]]

'''Political Assassinations—Taking the Consequences, Harper's Weekly, September 13, 1879'''

''Image: The Huntington Library, San Marino, California''

The black man ambles by notices of the August 1879 murder of Captain Henry M. Dixon, an independent candidate for Yazoo County sheriff, who had been shot to death by J. H. Barksdale, a candidate for chancery clerk. The Chinese man walks past posted reports of the attempted murder the same month of Isaac Kalloch (the WPC's candidate for mayor of San Francisco) by ''San Francisco Chronicle'' managing editor Charles DeYoung.(54) The notices also indicate that Californians are a "bad lot" for whom " Denis Kearney is Boss." In the cartoon's caption, Nast points out the lawless hypocrisy of the South and West: "'The Nigger Must Go' and 'The Chinese Must Go'—The Poor Barbarians Can't Understand Our Civilized Republican Form of Government." Both sections of the cartoon share the phrase "mob law"—the vehicle for the sometimes figurative, and other times literal, assassinations of both African Americans in Mississippi and Chinese in California. The illustration makes clear that East Coast publications saw their region as more civilized and accepting of its minority groups than did the American West, ignoring a long history of racial violence in the Northeast.

In addition to caricatures of Chinese immigrants, the ''Wasp'' also lampooned the hypocrisy of white San Franciscans who supported the anti-Chinese movement politically while conducting business for their goods and services. Undoubtedly, many people who economically sustained the Chinese in these ways were among the weekly's readership. With a braying Kearney jackass at its center, ''The Chinese Must Go! But Who Keeps Them?'' portrays scenes of white San Franciscans patronizing Chinese businesses, including laundries, the predominant independent Chinese enterprise in California. Two scenes illustrate whites buying goods from the Chinese proprietor of a cigar factory and a fish peddler. Only one scene, in the lower left, features whites performing a service—providing transportation—for the Chinese. The cartoon posits that Kearney has missed the point: instead of placing the blame for coolie immigration on the shoulders of the wealthy, specifically, and capitalism in general, he should first look to the working-class men and families who benefited from and helped sustain Chinese immigrant ventures.

In reality, however, the ''Wasp''’s publisher himself was complicit in "keeping" the Chinese in California. The Chinese owned and worked in over 90 percent of San Francisco's cigar-making factories. Korbel profited directly from enterprising and hardworking Chinese immigrants at his cigar-box manufacturing business. A businessman first and foremost, he was willing to criticize the very practices in which he partook in order to sell as many issues as possible and maintain a healthy bottom line.(55)

[[Image:WASP Chinese-Must-Go-But-Who-Keeps-Them.jpg|720px]]

'''The Chinese Must Go! But Who Keeps Them?, May 11, 1878'''

''Image: Bancroft Library''

The ''Wasp''’s staff did not always agree with the weekly's opinions and, at times, conflicting messages resulted in the same issue. The writer and wit [[The Wickedest Man in San Francisco: Ambrose Bierce|Ambrose Bierce]], who was hired by Korbel in 1881, opposed both the anti-Chinese and anti-Mormon sentiments in the West. Though he never directly challenged the ''Wasp''’s recurrent ridicule of both groups, he took issue with such views in his written editorials. Always the misanthrope, Bierce even favored allowing Mormons to practice polygamy free of persecution, declaring "Name o' God, let 'em polygam! They do not force upon others a plurality of wives!"(56) He also objected to the belief of West Coast denizens that their own intimate knowledge of California's "Chinese question" was more grounded than that of citizens and lawmakers in other regions of the country. As Congress debated the [[Chinese Exclusion Law|Chinese Exclusion Act]], Bierce wrote in the Wasp in March 1882: "Without any consuming ambition to be brickbatted as a Chinophile, I venture to point out that the claim to infallibility, which our people base their superior knowledge of the practical workings of Chinese immigration, as compared with eastern ignorance thereof, is mostly nonsense. It commonly occurs that the clearest, most logical and most practical view of social and economical questions is taken from outside by observers whose interests are not directly affected. Might it not be true in this instance that the Massachusetts looker-on sees the game more clearly than the players?"(57)

Despite such expressions of ambivalence concerning the Chinese, the WPC gained a major political foothold, winning a number of seats in the legislature in the fall of 1878. That year also saw a convention to revise the outdated state constitution of 1849, written in haste at the height of the Gold Rush.(58) WPC delegates dominated the convention's left wing, in which they organized a committee on Chinese immigration. John Miller, head of the committee, gave voice to its members' resentment of the East Coast's dismissive attitude: "If they say this is not an evil, and the Chinese are as good as any other class of immigrants—that we are making a great noise and confusion about nothing—let us send over four, or five, or ten thousand of these people . . . belonging to the diseased and criminal classes ... and see how they like it. There would be no surer way of changing their views upon the Chinese question."(59) As we have seen, the ''Wasp'' shared Miller's sentiment, one that may have had some basis in fact; not only did the eastern press show little interest in publishing any commentary on the West's "Chinese question," it also showed little reluctance to portray California as irrational and violent.

As it did with all issues of concern to San Franciscans, the Wasp offered its opinion and analysis of the convention's proceedings. In its two-page center illustration, ''The Constitutional Pump'', a sole figure represents the conference's varied contingents: the WPC, the clergy, women, the Temperance Party, and members of the two major political parties. To his right, the ''Wasp'' (in literal, entomological form) observes the scene through binoculars from its perch atop a fence.

[[Image:WASP Constitutional-Pump.jpg]]

'''The Constitutional Pump, November 2, 1878'''

''Image: Bancroft Library''

As the figure pumps the state capital, out spew a number of documents identifying a range of issues: women's rights, Chinese exclusion, temperance, the eight-hour day. These issues appear to crush the white female representing the "Old Constitution," imbuing her with nineteenth-century beliefs about white feminine virtue. "Help!! I am going down!!" she cries, as the bills drown her and run into the sewer.

The cartoon also contains two significant inset illustrations. In the upper right comer, a moneybag with an oilcan's handle and spout bears the inscription "Daily supply of oil for the pump," a reminder to the taxpayer of the convention's daily costs. In the upper left corner, a Chinese immigrant blocks the blast of a cannonball from the "constitutional convention" with a "Burlingame" shield. The drawing implies that the expenditures of the new constitution would be all for naught: with an intransigent federal government unwilling to renege on its agreement with a foreign nation, quixotic clauses in the new constitution outlawing Chinese immigration would be a costly waste of time.

The indispensability of cheap Chinese labor belied the simplistic rhetoric of the WPC's "Chinese Must Go!" rallying cry. This proved to be a major factor in exposing hypocrisy within the party's ranks, leading to its swift fall from political influence. In addition to party infighting and corruption, police found San Francisco's mayor, the WPC's Isaac Kalloch, hiding 250 Chinese laborers in a warehouse at Page and Gough Streets. Kearney lost his momentum through squabbles with his subordinates and prolonged absences as he traveled throughout the East Coast to promote the greenback movement.(60)

The ''Wasp'' did not hesitate to take credit for Kearney's and the WPC's undoing. In Keller's 1882 cartoon ''Siesta'', a muse ("The Illustrated Press of America") lulls a number of satyr-like figures to sleep. In a typically demeaning rendering, swine commiserate on the lower right, one the "Chinese Question" and the other "Polygamy." A Mormon goat reclines next to porcine characters. Keller represents the "Indian Question" as a rattlesnake; the venomous reptile of the American West symbolizes the violent threat posed by America's indigenous peoples. He portrays the Southern Pacific Railroad as a vulture and the powerful corruption and avarice of emerging industrial capitalism ("Stocks") as the bull and bear. Behind the political figures in the foreground lies the skeleton of a donkey with a sword plunged into its chest. Kearney's trademark hat sits atop the sword's handle, accompanied by the note "Killed by the Wasp." Here Keller portrays the illustrated press generally through the simile of musical accompaniment and the Wasp specifically as the vehicle to lull both the powerful and problematic to sleep.

[[Image:WASP Siesta.jpg]]

'''Siesta, January 13, 1882'''

''Image: Bancroft Library''

The ''Wasp'' and the Closing of the Gate

With Congress debating Chinese exclusion in 1882, the ''Wasp'' did what it did best: it published finely drawn cartoons rendering in caricature the threat posed by the "Chinese menace." In ''Uncle Sam's Nightmare'', Uncle Sam rests in his bed as the Mormon goat ("Polygamy") weighs him down and a trio of female Mormon goats watches in the background. A weight with an Asian face and the inscription "Chinese Question," supported by "Chinese hordes" behind it, creates an even heavier burden on the national symbol as he rests, oblivious to the imminent threats of immigration and polygamy.

More than anything else, however, what stands out is the construct of the two caricatures. Mormons resembled the American mainstream in race and national origin; cartoonists had to invent a stock character to represent them. But the very difference of the Chinese made it necessary only to exaggerate their putatively threatening cultural characteristics. For example, the repeated portrayal of Chinese eating rats symbolized their willingness to work for starvation wages. Chinese exoticism offered satirical artists the opportunity to render instantly recognizable stereotypes clothed in black humor.

[[Image:WASP Uncle-Sams-Nightmare.jpg]]

'''Uncle Sam's Nightmare, March 24, 1882'''

''Image: Bancroft Library''

While the ''Wasp'' regularly marked certain social groups as "problem" and subjected them to mockery and opprobrium, it took special pains to embed in its cartoons memorable, satirical messages about the West's "Chinese problem." The weekly's owners and staff knew well the attitudinal tenor of their readership and the emotional cues to which they would respond. After the Great Compromise, Korbel no longer used his weekly as a platform for his own political agenda, but rather to maximize his bottom line. As a cultural formation of western American society, ''The Wasp'' helped to amplify already smoldering grievances among the white working class west of the Rockies. It functioned as a major catalyst in the racist hysteria that culminated in the 1882 legislation heralding a sixty-one-year period of near-complete cessation of Chinese immigration to the United States.

[[WASP: Racism and Satire in the 19th Century|part one... "Racism and Satire in the 19th Century"]]

[[WASP: The Case of the Chinese|part two... "The Case of the Chinese"]]

<hr>
Notes

49. Saxton, ''The Indispensable Enemy'', 113-14. For more on the Great Railroad Strikes of 1877, see Eric Foner, ''Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877'' (New York: HarperCollins, 1988) , 583-85.

50. Saxton, ''The Indispensable Enemy'', 17, 112.

51. Pfaelzer, ''Driven Out'', 77-78; Saxton, ''The Indispensable Enemy'', 118-119.

52. West, ''The San Francisco Wasp'', 14-15.

53. For more on organized Democratic violence begun during Mississippi's 1875 campaign, see Foner, ''Reconstruction'', 559-63.

54. For more on Barksdale murdering Dixon, see the ''New York Times'', Aug. 21, 1879. For more on the feud leading up to the DeYoung shooting Kalloch, see Saxton, ''The Indispensable Enemy'', 139-40.

55. West, ''The San Francisco Wasp'', 20.

56. ''The San Francisco Illustrated Wasp'', Aug. 30, 1884.

57. ''The San Francisco Illustrated Wasp'', Mar. 24, 1882.

58. Saxton, ''The Indispensable Enemy'', 124-27.

59. Carl Swisher, ''Motivation and Political Technique in the California Constitutional Convention, 1878-1879'' (Pomona: Pomona College Political Science Monograph Series, 1930), 21.

60. Saxton, ''The Indispensable Enemy'', 146, 152, 171.

'''Other articles on the 1877 Workingmen's Party and the heated politics of that time:'''

[[Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor|Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor]] / [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|1877 unemployed in the sandlots]] / [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California]] / [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party of California]] / [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation]]

[[category:media]] [[category:1870s]] [[category:1880s]] [[category:Power and Money]] [[category:Racism]] [[category:Chinese]] [[category:dissent]] [[category:labor]] [[category:Irish]]

1877 unemployed in the sandlots

2026-07-21T20:15:08Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Chris Carlsson''

[[Image:Labor1%241877-mob-in-civic-center.jpg]]

'''July 23, 1877 unemployed rally in Civic Center sandlots facing the construction of [[Old City Hall of SF|City Hall]].'''

''Image: Bancroft Library, Berkeley, CA''

<div>
<flashmp3>http://www.archive.org/download/IrishV.Chinese1877/IrishAgainstChinese.mp3</flashmp3>
</div>

''Dramatization of Irish couple arguing over the anti-Chinese agitation in San Francisco in 1877. Original recording by Haight Ashbury Community Radio project, 1980.''

''"Bedraggled and wretched, they stood endlessly in the winter rain. They trailed through the streets of the white men's section begging a handout at the charity kitchens; they clamored on the City Hall steps for half a days labor setting cobblestones or cleaning the city sewers. They waited in the sandlots for a word from [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Kearney or Kalloch]].”''

Mrs. Anna Smith was a regular speaker among the unemployed in the sandlots of San Francisco. Born in 1835 in New York state, she was put out to domestic service as a child, worked in a shoe factory which shut down during the depression of 1857, worked in a girls' seminary and public school, was a nurse for the Union Army during the Civil War, husband died in Missouri and she ended up scrubbing and ironing from Denver to San Francisco in time for the depression of 1875. In SF she tried work as a cook, housekeeper, and finally found herself unemployed. One reporter found her “well informed on matters connected with the labor question.” She frequently spoke publicly at the sandlots, adjourning by announcing that “she wanted something to keep her jaws going and give her tongue a rest,” and supposed “all present felt the same.”

[[Image:New City Hall and sand lot c 1880 Thomas P Woodward collection courtesy Society of California Pioneers.jpg|800px]]

'''New City Hall and sand lot, c. 1880, a few years after the riots of 1877.'''

''Photo: from the collection of Thomas P. Woodward, courtesy Society of California Pioneers''

'''Other articles on the 1877 Workingmen's Party and the heated politics of that time:'''

[[Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor|Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor]] / [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|1877 unemployed in the sandlots]] / [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California]] / [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party of California]] / [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation]]

[[The Workingmen’s Party & The Dennis Kearney Agitation | Prev. Document]] [[BURNETTE G. HASKELL|Next Document]]

[[category:Labor]] [[category:1870s]] [[category:Irish]] [[category:Civic Center]]

Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor

2026-07-21T20:14:30Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Gia Vogerl''

[[Image:Common-Sense-Masthead 081836.jpg]]

'''Radical Spiritualist newspaper of the 1870s.'''

The historian Hubert Perrier noted that many francophone Sections [of the Workingmen's Party of the United States] focused much of their energy on supporting refugees in the aftermath of the Paris Commune. San Francisco’s French Section did not remain neutral, but prisoner solidarity work nevertheless sustained their activity in later years. Many francophone Sections sent money to former Communards and served as a stopover or even final destination for exiles. East Coast ports provided the easiest entry for Communards who had escaped into exile, some of whom eventually took the railroad across the continent to try life in San Francisco. Benjamin Flotte arrived through this route, as did former gold miner Émile Bée who returned to California after the Commune. Yet San Francisco internationalists went a step further.(6)

Numerous Communards were imprisoned on the Pacific penal colony at New Caledonia, near New Zealand. San Francisco became a hub as the first friendly port of call for those who escaped on passing American ships. Escapees thus followed the wake of Bakunin’s transpacific flight from Siberia. Upon arrival they could expect material support and lavish public receptions by the local International. Henri Rochefort, François Jourde, and Paschal Grousset received banquets in their honor upon their arrival in Spring of 1874. One hundred and forty “French Republicans” attended one such banquet on May 25. A standing committee was established to prepare welcome receptions for all future escapees from the prison islands.(7)

Present at one of these banquets was Charles Caron, a founding member of New Orleans’ International French Section. That Section apparently suffered a split after Caron and his associates passionately argued for creating a socialist colony. Caron’s visit to San Francisco may have been intended to strengthen connections with old Icarians like J.R. Lafaix who remained active in the city. Icarians would later build on these connections to establish a new colony in California.(8)

Commemorations of the Commune provided continuing visibility for the local International. An 1875 anniversary banquet reported in local newspapers and the radical Spiritualist paper ''Common Sense'' helped inspire a new burst of activity. The March 18 celebration was filled with multi-lingual speeches, bringing together “French, Americans, and a few Germans.” The banquet helped spark a revival of internationalist activity. A month later, Dashaway Hall hosted the first in a series of weekly meetings to “discuss the relations of Capital and Labor, employers and employed, laws affecting production and exchange, etc.” under the auspices of the “International Workingmen.” B. F. French, a member of the American Section’s executive committee in 1872, took the chair of the first meeting and participated in the followups. After several meetings, attendees resolved to create a “Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform” to carry out public debates; French was elected first vice-president.(9)

<big>'''Consensus Challenged'''</big>

From its founding and through the split in the International Workingmen’s Association, the local English-language American Section stood firmly against Chinese labor and immigration. Local French and German Sections joined them. This stance, however, placed the American Section at odds with the majority of “Yankee Radicals” affiliated with the International elsewhere, particularly those overlapping with Spiritualist circles. It is thus quite notable that for a brief period starting in the mid-1870s, some San Francisco internationalists joined Healey in turning away from demonizing Chinese workers. Notably, a number of Spiritualist radicals continued their local activity and moved to oppose racial exclusion, aligning them with their East Coast brethren. Perhaps continued discourse at ongoing workingmen’s Lyceums on how to achieve workers’ emancipation helped soften participants’ racist views.

[[Image:William-N-Slocum 081911.gif]]

'''William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'''''

One speaker and participant at the Dashaway Hall “International Workingmen” meetings was William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'' with his wife Amanda. W.N. was journalist by trade, an old Republican Spiritualist and abolitionist who broke with the Republican party as it catered increasingly to business interests. Alongside bits of Spiritualist discourse and reports on Spiritualist meetings, ''Common Sense’s'' pages were filled with reports and articles pertaining to temperance, free thought, and anti-monopoly politics. The paper’s title referred to Thomas Paine’s famous revolutionary pamphlet. The Slocums’ paper provided frequent accounts of meetings by San Francisco Lyceums and various interconnected reform movements.(12)

Amanda’s close involvement with ''Common Sense'' was part of a [[Women in Printing|broad movement of women publishers and typographers]]. Women participated in the printing trade since its inception in the 15th century, even as their vital role was often overshadowed by male counterparts. Family-run print shops required involvement from wives and daughters of the men named on the marquee. They participated in all steps of the process from typesetting to editorializing. Widows commonly ran such enterprises after their husbands died. Independent-minded women found ways to learn the trade despite exclusion from formal apprenticeship systems. One journal estimated that half of working compositors in US towns were women in the mid-nineteenth century. Clara Dixon produced her first political pamphlet using a “toy typesetting device” and later published anarchist newspapers in San Francisco in the early 1890s. Early feminist movements were buoyed by women-run periodicals.(13)

During San Francisco’s early years, the succession of all-male typographical unions forbade contract shops from hiring women. Patriarchal chauvinism was often articulated through economic excuses; “feminizing” the profession would lead to lower wages. During labor disputes owners often took advantage of these fears by hiring white women to set type. In response, labor-minded white women joined with sympathetic male counterparts to demand union membership and “equal pay for equal work” as a means to short-circuit employers’ threats. A Women’s Typographical Union was founded in New York in 1868. The next year the International Typographical Union’s convention lifted its outright ban on women’s membership, though the aforementioned dispute over Susan B. Anthony’s seating at the National Labor Union underlines the vitriolic debates involved. Four years later the ITU recommended all locals admit women on an equal basis, yet inclusion was merely optional for another decade. Many locals, including San Francisco’s, persisted in excluding white women until the ITU formalized gender inclusion in its constitution by the 1880s. A pronounced gender-pay gap persisted outside of union shops. Notably, despite similar arguments made for including non-white members, racial inclusion remained off the table for the time being.(14)

The white women who moved west seeking greater autonomy for themselves included many typographers. San Francisco emerged as a notable center. The city’s first women-run and typeset literary magazine, ''The Hesperian'', was founded in 1858. Lisle Lester took over editorship in 1863 and renamed the publication to ''Pacific Monthly''. In 1865 she attempted to form a Women’s Typographical Union but the effort failed and the ''Pacific Monthly'' folded in 1868. Women were only able to obtain work at low-paying non-union shops. Continued exclusion prompted Agnes Peterson to found the Women’s Co-Operative Printing Union the same year as the ''Pacific Monthly'' ended. The WCPU put out a weekly newspaper and provided job-printing services for a wide-array of books, pamphlets, legal briefs, and more.(15)

[[Image:Womenprinting grayscale.jpg]]

''Image from ''West Coast Journal, May 18, 1870'' sourced at Bancroft Library''

Flora Chaney and her then-husband William (aka Dr. W.H. Chaney) were another couple closely associated with ''Common Sense''. Both Flora and William were agents for the paper, “authorized to receive subscriptions.” They were prominent lecturers in and beyond San Francisco’s reform scene and Flora was noted as a talented public-speaking instructor. In early 1875 the Slocum’s purchased the office and printing equipment of a Women’s Pacific Coast Publishing Company founded by a former leader of the WCPU. Amanda and Flora ran the shop together, maintaining it as a “women’s office.”(16)

Later that same year, Flora was pregnant. In June she shot herself in a failed suicide attempt after William rejected becoming a father. According to a contemporary newspaper account, he attempted to convince her to abort the child. She refused. William later claimed the child wasn’t his. He insisted he was in fact sterile and that Flora had other lovers, perhaps within their broad Spiritualist community of Free Love supporters. William soon distanced himself from those local Spiritualists that promoted Free Love and had nothing to do with raising Flora’s child. Flora was taken into the Slocum home, where she gave birth to a son who would become one of San Francisco’s most famous radicals: [[JACK LONDON|Jack London]].(17)

Alongside the Slocums, ''Common Sense’s'' management included one Albert Kendrick. During the paper’s run Albert married the Medium and close associate of Victoria Woodhull, Laura Cuppy Smith (who took Albert’s surname). Laura was a trance speaker who first arrived in San Francisco in the 1860s and was one of the first prominent women orators in the city. Notices and accounts of her speeches were frequent matter for ''Common Sense''. She was also one of three trance speakers sent to present the first petition for women’s suffrage to the California state legislature. Laura traveled to the 1872 Equal Rights Convention that nominated Woodhull for president and the next year defended Woodhull in court from obscenity charges. She has been described as Woodhull’s “only intimate friend,” though Woodhull later turned her back on Laura.(18)

Laura was a driving force in San Francisco internationalists’ softening of their previously bitter Sinophobic stance. Unwavering defense of her firm belief in universal equality led many former associates to later reject her, sometimes leaving Laura a “radical without a following because she fought injustice everywhere.” When she passed away in 1882 following a stroke at the age of 49, Boston anarchist Benjamin Tucker eulogized her with a glowing obituary that declared “Liberty has lost an apostle – one of her most tried and true defenders, one of her most courageous soldiers, one of her most ardent advocates, one of her most devoted martyrs.” She first left California in the early 1870s; whether she participated in the founding of the local American Section is unclear. Yet when she returned to San Francisco in 1874 to find “labor agitation… coming to the front,” she “plunged into it, body and soul.” Laura brought with her the ideals of cross-racial solidarity in debates over Chinese immigration that characterized some East Coast radicals, Spiritualists in particular. While many other agitators were denouncing Chinese workers, Tucker claimed she “championed” them.(19)

Discourse on the “Chinese Question” was relatively frequent in ''Common Sense''. Some correspondents parroted common Sinophobic talking points but were usually met with rebuttals. In Fall 1874, a comment negatively prophesying that Chinese people were the “future workers of America” was met with a reply by an apparent Chinese slippermaker named Ah Hea Lea. Ah Hea Lea claimed to favor the rest of ''Common Sense’s'' radical material and asserted bluntly that Chinese people were not to blame for the societal ills the paper campaigned against. His letter was paired with an editorial comment admitting that Chinese people had a “natural right” to come but that it was also perfectly natural for their arrival to face opposition. Whichever Slocum penned that reply nevertheless admitted benefits to Chinese labor, as well as “improvidence” on the part of white workingmen, concluding that “it remains an open question whether it would not be better for our own people to discourage the importation and employment of Chinese.” The columns of ''Common Sense'' were declared “open to all honest, earnest expression of opinion on this subject, on either side.” Ah Hea Lea wrote another reply, asserting that the “improvidence” attributed to white workingmen in the form of drinking and frivolous purchases was in fact an integral if potentially harmful aspect of the American economy. He once again came to the defense of Chinese laborers, insisting they were the only ones in the state willing to do all the hard “work that must be done.”(20)

Following Ah Hea Lea’s submissions and the letter from Healey was an ongoing exchange for and against the presence Chinese workers in back-to-back May 1875 issues just prior to the paper’s end. A “P” wrote to ''Common Sense'' to decry what he saw as a link between “Asiatic Labor” and “the rapid accumulation of capital in the hands of a few.” Yet P did at least allow that “we need not… entertain the idea that he can be driven from our shores… this is a free country ‘for the oppressed of all nations.’” P instead argued for white labor to “make a new departure” toward (segregated) cooperative systems. Dr. Pilkington wrote a reply arguing that:

<blockquote>Prejudice against the Chinese is not confined to the Irish alone, but seems to prevail in proportion to the ignorance of the masses, and to some extent, amongst a more intelligent portion, some of whom take the ground that this country belongs to the white man alone, supposing that because they are whiter than some of their neighbors, this entitles them to a preference, merit or no merit.</blockquote>

By taking on lower paying jobs manufacturing goods previously imported from elsewhere, Pilkington asserted that Chinese workers made possible a plethora of new industries that also provided higher-waged employment to white men. Pilkington also praised what he saw as Chinese tendencies toward “communistic and co-operative” living and labor that, like Reclus, he thought “far more” pronounced “than white men.”(21)

The shifting views of San Francisco’s internationalists regarding Chinese labor by no means evaded orientalist or paternalistic tropes and were often articulated through a settler colonialist developmental logic. It is also doubtful that they had especially broad reach outside the pages of Common Sense and English-language Lyceum debating circles. Some notable advocates of cross-racial solidarity like Pat Healey labored for wages in trades alongside numerous Chinese counterparts, but many vocal advocates could hardly be called “working-class.” Far more local white tradespeople were likely members of the contemporary anti-coolie clubs than attendees of the “Lyceum for Self Culture” or meetings of the Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform. The transformation may not have translated into the International’s French and German Sections; the latter was the largest local Section upon the Tenth Ward International’s merger into the Workingmen’s Party. A quarterly broadside circulated by the Tenth Ward council in 1875 noted that San Francisco’s German and French Sections (1 and 2) were attempting to mediate conflicts occurring in New York Sections, but mentioned that the American Section (3) “takes no part in this.” While all of the Sections would ultimately join the new Party, a breach could perhaps have opened between San Francisco’s local groups. Continuing anti-Chinese racism by SF’s German Workingmen’s Party members will be discussed shortly.(22)

''Common Sense'' seems to have folded after May 1875, leaving a gap in the ability to track the evolution of this discourse. No other local papers provided detailed accounts of the local International during this late period or of the early days of the Workingmen’s Party of the United States. The limited correspondence available with the central office in New York during the middle of the decade is likewise silent on the matter. A challenge to the prior racist consensus of the local International was nevertheless clearly emerging from the Spiritualist milieu within San Francisco’s American Section.

Aside from Ah Hea Lea, though, there is no evidence of actual conversations with Chinese people. Given Ah’s own proactive outreach, they may have simply relied on Chinese people coming to them rather than actively reaching out. The conversation about Chinese labor was shifting, but it did not by-and-large include actual Chinese people. By the time of the fateful [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|Sandlot rallies of 1877]], ex-internationalists turned Workingmen’s Party agitators did not go much further in public agitation than simply leaving Chinese people out of their denunciations of railroad barons while insisting they weren’t there to hold anti-Chinese meetings. Certainly a notable shift from earlier in the decade, but far from adequate to prevent the [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|catastrophe that unfolded]].

<big>'''Notes'''</big>

6. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron] 
7. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron], Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 222. ''Los Angeles Herald'', May 26, 1874. ''Marysville Daily Appeal'', May 26, 1874. “French Republican Banquet,” ''Sacramento Daily Union'', May 26, 1874. Michel Cordillot. 
8. Michel Cordillot [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159709 “CARON Charles,”] Le Maitron, [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159593 “LAFAIX Jean-René”] Le Maitron 
9. “Signs of the Times,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, March 27, 1875. ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 17, 1875. “Meeting of Working Men,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 24, 1875. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1878. “Meeting of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 8, 1875. “Meetings of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 15, 1875. “Meeting of Reformers,” May 22, 1875. B. F. French would remain active in Socialist causes in San Francisco and Los Angeles at least to 1901, later participating in the Bellamy inspired “Nationalist Movement” and the Socialist Party. 
12. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1875. 
13. Overbeck, ''The Tramp Printers'', 91-92. Joel Sachs, ''Henry Cowell: A Man Made of Music'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 13. 
14. Overbeck, The Tramp Printers., 99-100. Libby Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] FoundSF.org 
15. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] 
16. ''Common Sense'', October 24, 1874; “Flora Wellman Chaney,” ''Common Sense'', June 13, 1874. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing.”]] 
17. I highly recommend the Transmetropolitan Review’s zine/article “Who the Hell is Jack London,” though it does not take note of the radical home he was born into. [https://london.sonoma.edu/biographies/william-chaney “William Chaney,” Jack London Online]
18. Braude, ''Radical Spirits'', 172. Emanie Sachs, ''“The Terrible Siren”: Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927)'' (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1928), 217-218. ''Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly'', New York, May 18, 1872. “Common Sense Publishing Company,” ''Common Sense'', June 20, 1874. ''Common Sense'', April 24, 1875. 
19. Sachs, “The Terrible Siren,” 217-218. “In Memorium,” ''Liberty'', Boston, January 21, 1882. 
20. “Ah Hea Lea Speaks,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, September 26, 1874. Reprinted in Woodhull and Claflin’s ''Weekly'', October 17, 1874. “Chinese Labor,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, October 31, 1874. 
21. “Higher or Lower,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 22, 1875. “The Chinese Question,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 29, 1875.

'''Other articles on the 1877 Workingmen's Party and the heated politics of that time:'''

[[Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor|Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor]] / [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|1877 unemployed in the sandlots]] / [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California]] / [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party of California]] / [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation]]

<hr>

[[Image:Deconstructing-settler-socialism-cover-240px.jpg]]

''Excerpted from the chapter "On the Sandlot" in ''Deconstructing Settler Socialism: Anarchism and the Internationals in the Wild West'', published by Historical Seditions, 2025''

[[category:Labor]] [[category:French]] [[category:Chinese]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:Women]] [[category:1870s]] [[category:Book Excerpts]] [[category:Newspapers]] [[category:Media]]

The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation

2026-07-21T20:13:13Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Chris Carlsson, 1995''

[[Image:Labor1%24kearny-on-nob-hill-1877.jpg]]

'''Kearney speaks to 2000 workers in front of Crocker Mansion at top of Nob Hill, Oct. 1877.'''

<div>
<flashmp3>http://www.archive.org/download/DenisKearny/KEARNY.mp3</flashmp3>
</div>

''Dramatized rendition of speech by Denis Kearney in 1877, denouncing Chinese workers and capitalists in equal parts. Recorded by Haight Ashbury Community Radio Project, 1980.''

{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"
| colspan="2" |'''In the 1870s, tensions ran high between workers and the owning class as well as between white and Chinese laborers. This socio-political context allowed Denis Kearney to gain power as a voice for workingmen against the capitalists and the Chinese people they employed. He founded the Workingmen’s Party of California, which quickly became a major force in San Francisco city government through its platform of anti-monopolism and anti-Chinese racism until it collapsed at the end of 1880.'''
|}

During the height of the 8-hour movement, radicalized white workers denounced capital and the owning class, but they also were already blaming “coolie” labor for dragging wages downward. The completion of the Transcontinental Railroad led to a big influx of skilled Chinese workers, who came to dominate employment in cigar making, shoe making, and textiles. Thousands of white workers came to San Francisco during this same period, seeking work out west in the wake of the economic depression back east. But the railroad brought the depression along with the workers.

By 1877, the “Great Uprising” in the east, focused around a nationwide rail strike, led to rebellious excitement among San Francisco's unemployed. [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|Demonstrations]] were held nightly in the sandlots surrounding City Hall in the Civic Center area. [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|The Workingmen's Party]] of the United States, a socialist party which had absorbed the remnants of the US section of Karl Marx's International Workingmen's Association (a.k.a. the 1st International) after its collapse in 1876, called for a mass meeting in the sandlots for the evening of July 23, 1877. The police arrested men who were advertising the meeting with a banner earlier in the day, and by that night, the entire police force and militia were on alert to prevent the rumored attack on the [[Pacific Mail Steamship Company|Pacific Mail Steamship]] Docks at Brannan St. in Mission Bay. (Pacific Mail was the primary means of transit for Chinese immigrant workers, and they were hated as much as was their chief employer/importer, the Central Pacific Railroad.)

The official speakers spoke against Capital, and against granting franchises, and land and money subsidies to private parties, and so on. But when no mention was made of the Chinese (scapegoated by white workers as "coolie" labor, driving wages downward, but also the object of widespread virulent racism), a crowd of toughs from a neighborhood “ward club” (the local structure of the Democratic Party) invaded the rally. Before long an angry mob stormed off and by the next day over 20 Chinese laundries had been destroyed, as was a plumbing shop, and the Chinese Methodist Mission was stoned. It was the worst riot San Francisco had ever had at that point.

[[Image:P03-04Riot-1877-Chandler.jpg]]

'''Rioting workers at site of [[Old City Hall of SF|Old City Hall]], today's [[WEEDS|Main Library]], in Civic Center'''

''Image: Robert Chandler, via ''Chinatown Squad'' by Kevin J. Mullen''

Within two days, the "Committee of Safety" had organized 4,000 members into a “Pick-Handle Brigade” which dissuaded rioting whites from burning the Pacific Mail docks, though the mob set fire to a nearby lumber mill, and attacked those who tried to control the blaze. A fierce battle with dozens of police charges finally managed to route the rioters, leaving four dead, and fourteen wounded. Smaller riots and fires took place in other parts of the city. The Pick-Handle Brigade suppressed the violence and three days later, the California governor telegraphed the U.S. Secretary of the Navy that the danger had passed.

[[Image:Labor1%24dennis-kearney.jpg]]

'''One member of the Pick-Handle Brigade was an Irishman named Denis Kearney.'''

He was known from regular appearances at the Sunday meetings of the Lyceum for Self-Culture. Andrew Saxton, in ''The Indispensable Enemy'', describes Kearney:

<blockquote>“He was apparently gripped at the time by the familiar syndrome of the self-made man: he praised diligence and individual go-getterism—by implication his own—and denounced the indolence of workingmen.”</blockquote>

His political ambitions, however, helped him see that a Labor Party would be a better vehicle for his goals than any other. He was rejected on applying to the Workingman's Party of the US, since its leaders knew of Kearney's contempt for the working class. Kearney went off and started his own party in August 1877. After he began making provocative speeches in the sandlots in early September, Kearney gained support rapidly. Kearney's rhetoric grew more violent. On September 21 he predicted that within a year San Francisco would have over 20,000 armed workers ready to take what they wanted. A little judicious hanging would be the best course to pursue with the capitalists, he urged.

By October, the slogan [[WASP: The Case of the Chinese|“The Chinese Must Go”]] was being widely repeated. Kearney founded another party, the Workingmen's Party of California, which eventually absorbed the older chapter of the U.S. party. Followers flocked to the new party, and as membership climbed, the speeches became more incendiary.

On October 29, 1877, several thousand marchers surged up Nob Hill to the front of the [[Crocker's Spite Fence|Crocker Mansion]]. Denis Kearney spoke: ''“The Central Pacific Railroad men are thieves, and will soon feel the power of the workingmen. When I have thoroughly organized my party, we will march through the city and compel the thieves to give up their plunder. I will lead you to the City Hall, clean out the police force, hang the Prosecuting Attorney, burn every book that has a particle of law in it, and then enact new laws for the workingmen. I will give the Central Pacific just three months to discharge their Chinamen, and if that is not done, Stanford and his crowd will have to take the consequences. I will give Crocker until November 29th to take down the fence around Jung's house, and if he doesn't do it, I will lead the workingmen up there and take it down, and give Crocker the worst beating with the sticks that a man ever got.”'' (Evening Bulletin, 11/5/1877).

[[Image:labor1$kearney-and-the-wmp$wagon_itm$kearney-on-wagon.jpg]]

'''Kearney is triumphantly pulled through the streets after his release just before Thanksgiving, 1877.'''

During another rally in early November, another Workingmen's Party leader, John G. Day, said:

<blockquote>''“Everything must be made subservient to the rights of labor. It must be done even if we have to paralyze nine-tenths of our factories. We intend to emancipate labor. Capitalists must succumb to the working-men. I caution these men that the people are already on the verge of starvation... The young people will rise in this anti-Chinese movement and deluge this city in blood, if not entirely destroy this city. We shall show them that the days of the capitalists are over.”'' (Evening Bulletin, 11/5/1877).</blockquote>

The [[The_Six_Companies| Chinese Six Companies]] were understandably frightened in this social climate, and at the end of their written request to the Mayor for protection, they said:

<blockquote>“...We are not ignorant that self-defense is the right of all men; should a riotous attack be made upon the Chinese quarter, we should have neither the power nor the disposition to restrain our countrymen from defending themselves to the last extremity, and selling their lives as dearly as possible.”</blockquote>

On November 3, the city authorities had Denis Kearney arrested as he spoke publicly on the street, for utterances “having the tendency to cause a breach of peace."

The fearsome leadership of the [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party]], however, became considerably meeker from behind prison bars. On November 3, Kearney, Day, and other imprisoned leaders of the movement wrote to Mayor Bryant: “We assure you that our anxiety for the peace of Society is as deeply seated as it well can be. We have no design against the peace of the city, either present or future, and we are willing to submit to any wise measure to allay the existing excitement. We do not propose to hold any more out-of-door meetings, or to tolerate any further use of incendiary language, and sincerely hope that our friends will, under all circumstances, obey the officers of the law and uphold the peace of the city.”

Several more times the leaders were arrested and subsequently released when the courts disallowed their prosecution on various technical grounds. On Thanksgiving Day a crowd of between 7,000 and 10,000 workers marched in protest of the Chinese and in honor of the liberated martyrs of the sandlots, but as Saxton noted, the large majority of marchers in this Thanksgiving Parade were not workers' organizations, but rather language-association anti-Coolie clubs and neighborhood groups (German Club of 2nd Ward, French Zouaves, Scandinavian Association, etc.).

Internecine warfare among Workingmen's Party factions led to months of fighting and dissension within the movement. Socialists grouped around Frank Roney controlled the Party's Central Committee but Kearney continued to hold personal sway through his ability to mobilize supporters. Denis Kearney's dictatorial style rankled many, and when they tried to remove him, he used his capacity for intimidation to close a number of ward clubs and affiliate chapters until he had regained control.

As 1877 came to a close, Kearney continued his violent rhetoric: ''“When the Chinese question is settled, we can discuss whether it would be better to hang, shoot, or cut the capitalists to pieces. In six months we will have 50,000 men ready...”''

In late January 1878, the Workingmen's Party of California held its first statewide convention in San Francisco. The platform declared that the government of the U.S. had fallen into the hands of capitalists and their willing tools with the results that the rights of the people, their comfort and happiness, were entirely ignored; coolie labor was a curse to the land and should be restricted and forever abolished; land should be held for cultivation and settlement only; a system of finance uncontrolled by rings, brokers and bankers, should be introduced; the eight-hour day should be made the legal workday; the farming out of convict labor was condemned; the accumulation of millions and the existence of monopolies should be made impossible by a new tax system. This platform, while still expressing hostility to the Chinese, was part of a general diminishing of the racist focus of the Party, as its energies came to be more directed against monopolies (especially the railroads) and Capital.

San Francisco was tense with anticipation by early 1878. Class war was in the air, but an air choking on racism. The summer before had seen an uprising in most eastern railroad towns, while San Francisco itself had its Hot July. The stage was set for revolt. The Paris Commune was a scant seven years earlier.

The existing political parties merged into a “non-partisan” alliance to contest the Workingmen's Party electoral assault. A half dozen elections in the Bay Area were won by the Workingmen's Party in early 1878, but their elected politicians turned out to be as corrupt and inept as any before them.

Kearney was removed from party office by the party apparatus but he regrouped his forces, and in open meetings presented his new rules for the Workingmen's Party: the party would be guided by a council of club presidents, each president being recallable at any time by his constituency. Nominations for political office--from which all party officers were excluded--would be made in the following manner: clubs would nominate, mass meetings in each district would confirm, and the assemblage at the sandlots would render final decision. Kearney held a party convention in San Francisco which approved the rule changes and planned a statewide ticket to oppose the Republicrats (“non-partisans”) in an election for the Constitutional Convention. The Party's Central Committee under Frank Roney staged their own ignored convention and they soon disbanded, and Roney headed to temporary work in Nevada.

The Workingmen's Party ended up with approximately one third of the seats at the California Constitutional Convention, facing factions as diverse as railroad lackeys to Grangers and anti-monopolists. They wrote shamelessly racist constitutional clauses suppressing the rights of Chinese people, and got them passed. They also supported the anti-corporation positions of the grangers, regulatory controls on railroads and so on, but got only symbolic language regarding improved conditions for workers. The eight-hour day, already a demand for nearly two decades, was reduced to a phrase “Eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work on all public work.” Of course, the vast majority of workers were privately employed.

Frank Roney came down from Nevada to Sacramento to observe the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. After watching the Workingmen's Party delegation in action he concluded: “The worst brand of stand-pat, corporation ridden politician would have made a better showing than this primitive band of fake reformers.”

The Workingmen's Party won almost every elective seat in San Francisco except on the Board of Supervisors in the 1879 election. Isaac Kalloch, a former New England abolitionist, was the new mayor. As a minister he had the largest congregation in the city, including a large Chinese Sunday School. But he joined the Workingmen's Party and their anti-Chinese campaign. During the mayoral campaign, an exchange of insults between Kalloch and ''SF Chronicle'' publisher Charles De Young led to the latter shooting Kalloch on the street in front of his church. Kalloch survived and won a landslide election ten days later, but immediately was deadlocked by a hostile Board of Supervisors. The Workingmen used their control of the Board of Health to pass an order [[Chinese_as_Medical_Scapegoats%2C_1870-1905|condemning Chinatown]] as a “nuisance” to the health of the city that had to be “abated.” (Chinatown was in fact a well-protected fortress. When Kalloch was gunned down, Chinese throughout the city made haste to get back to Chinatown, fearing racial violence.)

In February 1880 crowds of unemployed would form daily in the sandlots and march off across Market and Mission and call ''en masse'' at factories and workshops, demanding that the Chinese be dismissed. A number of factory owners complied, leading to over 1,000 fired Chinese workers. But by spring, the anti-Chinese laws had all been overturned by the courts and the factories went back to employing Chinese.

By the end of 1880 the Workingmen's Party had collapsed and disappeared. It left behind a reliable and strong labor vote in San Francisco, which for many years had a large influence in state politics, although not so large as the railroad industry which basically owned it all lock, stock and barrel.

[[Image:Thomas Nast communist skeleton cartoon 1880 081748.jpg]]

'''Thomas Nast cartoon from 1880 declaiming the communist threat embodied in "Kearneyism".'''

<hr>

[[Image:Tours-labor.gif|link= Shanghaiing]] [[Shanghaiing| Continue Labor History Tour]]

'''Other articles on the 1877 Workingmen's Party and the heated politics of that time:'''

[[Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor|Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor]] / [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|1877 unemployed in the sandlots]] / [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California]] / [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party of California]]

[[Eight hour day movement | Prev. document]][[1877 unemployed in the sandlots | Next document]]

[[category:Labor]][[category:1870s]][[category:1880s]] [[category:famous characters]] [[category:Irish]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Nob Hill]] [[category:SOMA]]

The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation

2026-07-21T20:12:30Z

Ccarlsson: added links to other WMP pieces

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Chris Carlsson, 1995''

[[Image:Labor1%24kearny-on-nob-hill-1877.jpg]]

'''Kearney speaks to 2000 workers in front of Crocker Mansion at top of Nob Hill, Oct. 1877.'''

<div>
<flashmp3>http://www.archive.org/download/DenisKearny/KEARNY.mp3</flashmp3>
</div>

''Dramatized rendition of speech by Denis Kearney in 1877, denouncing Chinese workers and capitalists in equal parts. Recorded by Haight Ashbury Community Radio Project, 1980.''

{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"
| colspan="2" |'''In the 1870s, tensions ran high between workers and the owning class as well as between white and Chinese laborers. This socio-political context allowed Denis Kearney to gain power as a voice for workingmen against the capitalists and the Chinese people they employed. He founded the Workingmen’s Party of California, which quickly became a major force in San Francisco city government through its platform of anti-monopolism and anti-Chinese racism until it collapsed at the end of 1880.'''
|}

During the height of the 8-hour movement, radicalized white workers denounced capital and the owning class, but they also were already blaming “coolie” labor for dragging wages downward. The completion of the Transcontinental Railroad led to a big influx of skilled Chinese workers, who came to dominate employment in cigar making, shoe making, and textiles. Thousands of white workers came to San Francisco during this same period, seeking work out west in the wake of the economic depression back east. But the railroad brought the depression along with the workers.

By 1877, the “Great Uprising” in the east, focused around a nationwide rail strike, led to rebellious excitement among San Francisco's unemployed. [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|Demonstrations]] were held nightly in the sandlots surrounding City Hall in the Civic Center area. [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|The Workingmen's Party]] of the United States, a socialist party which had absorbed the remnants of the US section of Karl Marx's International Workingmen's Association (a.k.a. the 1st International) after its collapse in 1876, called for a mass meeting in the sandlots for the evening of July 23, 1877. The police arrested men who were advertising the meeting with a banner earlier in the day, and by that night, the entire police force and militia were on alert to prevent the rumored attack on the [[Pacific Mail Steamship Company|Pacific Mail Steamship]] Docks at Brannan St. in Mission Bay. (Pacific Mail was the primary means of transit for Chinese immigrant workers, and they were hated as much as was their chief employer/importer, the Central Pacific Railroad.)

The official speakers spoke against Capital, and against granting franchises, and land and money subsidies to private parties, and so on. But when no mention was made of the Chinese (scapegoated by white workers as "coolie" labor, driving wages downward, but also the object of widespread virulent racism), a crowd of toughs from a neighborhood “ward club” (the local structure of the Democratic Party) invaded the rally. Before long an angry mob stormed off and by the next day over 20 Chinese laundries had been destroyed, as was a plumbing shop, and the Chinese Methodist Mission was stoned. It was the worst riot San Francisco had ever had at that point.

[[Image:P03-04Riot-1877-Chandler.jpg]]

'''Rioting workers at site of [[Old City Hall of SF|Old City Hall]], today's [[WEEDS|Main Library]], in Civic Center'''

''Image: Robert Chandler, via ''Chinatown Squad'' by Kevin J. Mullen''

Within two days, the "Committee of Safety" had organized 4,000 members into a “Pick-Handle Brigade” which dissuaded rioting whites from burning the Pacific Mail docks, though the mob set fire to a nearby lumber mill, and attacked those who tried to control the blaze. A fierce battle with dozens of police charges finally managed to route the rioters, leaving four dead, and fourteen wounded. Smaller riots and fires took place in other parts of the city. The Pick-Handle Brigade suppressed the violence and three days later, the California governor telegraphed the U.S. Secretary of the Navy that the danger had passed.

[[Image:Labor1%24dennis-kearney.jpg]]

'''One member of the Pick-Handle Brigade was an Irishman named Denis Kearney.'''

He was known from regular appearances at the Sunday meetings of the Lyceum for Self-Culture. Andrew Saxton, in ''The Indispensable Enemy'', describes Kearney:

<blockquote>“He was apparently gripped at the time by the familiar syndrome of the self-made man: he praised diligence and individual go-getterism—by implication his own—and denounced the indolence of workingmen.”</blockquote>

His political ambitions, however, helped him see that a Labor Party would be a better vehicle for his goals than any other. He was rejected on applying to the Workingman's Party of the US, since its leaders knew of Kearney's contempt for the working class. Kearney went off and started his own party in August 1877. After he began making provocative speeches in the sandlots in early September, Kearney gained support rapidly. Kearney's rhetoric grew more violent. On September 21 he predicted that within a year San Francisco would have over 20,000 armed workers ready to take what they wanted. A little judicious hanging would be the best course to pursue with the capitalists, he urged.

By October, the slogan [[WASP: The Case of the Chinese|“The Chinese Must Go”]] was being widely repeated. Kearney founded another party, the Workingmen's Party of California, which eventually absorbed the older chapter of the U.S. party. Followers flocked to the new party, and as membership climbed, the speeches became more incendiary.

On October 29, 1877, several thousand marchers surged up Nob Hill to the front of the [[Crocker's Spite Fence|Crocker Mansion]]. Denis Kearney spoke: ''“The Central Pacific Railroad men are thieves, and will soon feel the power of the workingmen. When I have thoroughly organized my party, we will march through the city and compel the thieves to give up their plunder. I will lead you to the City Hall, clean out the police force, hang the Prosecuting Attorney, burn every book that has a particle of law in it, and then enact new laws for the workingmen. I will give the Central Pacific just three months to discharge their Chinamen, and if that is not done, Stanford and his crowd will have to take the consequences. I will give Crocker until November 29th to take down the fence around Jung's house, and if he doesn't do it, I will lead the workingmen up there and take it down, and give Crocker the worst beating with the sticks that a man ever got.”'' (Evening Bulletin, 11/5/1877).

[[Image:labor1$kearney-and-the-wmp$wagon_itm$kearney-on-wagon.jpg]]

'''Kearney is triumphantly pulled through the streets after his release just before Thanksgiving, 1877.'''

During another rally in early November, another Workingmen's Party leader, John G. Day, said:

<blockquote>''“Everything must be made subservient to the rights of labor. It must be done even if we have to paralyze nine-tenths of our factories. We intend to emancipate labor. Capitalists must succumb to the working-men. I caution these men that the people are already on the verge of starvation... The young people will rise in this anti-Chinese movement and deluge this city in blood, if not entirely destroy this city. We shall show them that the days of the capitalists are over.”'' (Evening Bulletin, 11/5/1877).</blockquote>

The [[The_Six_Companies| Chinese Six Companies]] were understandably frightened in this social climate, and at the end of their written request to the Mayor for protection, they said:

<blockquote>“...We are not ignorant that self-defense is the right of all men; should a riotous attack be made upon the Chinese quarter, we should have neither the power nor the disposition to restrain our countrymen from defending themselves to the last extremity, and selling their lives as dearly as possible.”</blockquote>

On November 3, the city authorities had Denis Kearney arrested as he spoke publicly on the street, for utterances “having the tendency to cause a breach of peace."

The fearsome leadership of the [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party]], however, became considerably meeker from behind prison bars. On November 3, Kearney, Day, and other imprisoned leaders of the movement wrote to Mayor Bryant: “We assure you that our anxiety for the peace of Society is as deeply seated as it well can be. We have no design against the peace of the city, either present or future, and we are willing to submit to any wise measure to allay the existing excitement. We do not propose to hold any more out-of-door meetings, or to tolerate any further use of incendiary language, and sincerely hope that our friends will, under all circumstances, obey the officers of the law and uphold the peace of the city.”

Several more times the leaders were arrested and subsequently released when the courts disallowed their prosecution on various technical grounds. On Thanksgiving Day a crowd of between 7,000 and 10,000 workers marched in protest of the Chinese and in honor of the liberated martyrs of the sandlots, but as Saxton noted, the large majority of marchers in this Thanksgiving Parade were not workers' organizations, but rather language-association anti-Coolie clubs and neighborhood groups (German Club of 2nd Ward, French Zouaves, Scandinavian Association, etc.).

Internecine warfare among Workingmen's Party factions led to months of fighting and dissension within the movement. Socialists grouped around Frank Roney controlled the Party's Central Committee but Kearney continued to hold personal sway through his ability to mobilize supporters. Denis Kearney's dictatorial style rankled many, and when they tried to remove him, he used his capacity for intimidation to close a number of ward clubs and affiliate chapters until he had regained control.

As 1877 came to a close, Kearney continued his violent rhetoric: ''“When the Chinese question is settled, we can discuss whether it would be better to hang, shoot, or cut the capitalists to pieces. In six months we will have 50,000 men ready...”''

In late January 1878, the Workingmen's Party of California held its first statewide convention in San Francisco. The platform declared that the government of the U.S. had fallen into the hands of capitalists and their willing tools with the results that the rights of the people, their comfort and happiness, were entirely ignored; coolie labor was a curse to the land and should be restricted and forever abolished; land should be held for cultivation and settlement only; a system of finance uncontrolled by rings, brokers and bankers, should be introduced; the eight-hour day should be made the legal workday; the farming out of convict labor was condemned; the accumulation of millions and the existence of monopolies should be made impossible by a new tax system. This platform, while still expressing hostility to the Chinese, was part of a general diminishing of the racist focus of the Party, as its energies came to be more directed against monopolies (especially the railroads) and Capital.

San Francisco was tense with anticipation by early 1878. Class war was in the air, but an air choking on racism. The summer before had seen an uprising in most eastern railroad towns, while San Francisco itself had its Hot July. The stage was set for revolt. The Paris Commune was a scant seven years earlier.

The existing political parties merged into a “non-partisan” alliance to contest the Workingmen's Party electoral assault. A half dozen elections in the Bay Area were won by the Workingmen's Party in early 1878, but their elected politicians turned out to be as corrupt and inept as any before them.

Kearney was removed from party office by the party apparatus but he regrouped his forces, and in open meetings presented his new rules for the Workingmen's Party: the party would be guided by a council of club presidents, each president being recallable at any time by his constituency. Nominations for political office--from which all party officers were excluded--would be made in the following manner: clubs would nominate, mass meetings in each district would confirm, and the assemblage at the sandlots would render final decision. Kearney held a party convention in San Francisco which approved the rule changes and planned a statewide ticket to oppose the Republicrats (“non-partisans”) in an election for the Constitutional Convention. The Party's Central Committee under Frank Roney staged their own ignored convention and they soon disbanded, and Roney headed to temporary work in Nevada.

The Workingmen's Party ended up with approximately one third of the seats at the California Constitutional Convention, facing factions as diverse as railroad lackeys to Grangers and anti-monopolists. They wrote shamelessly racist constitutional clauses suppressing the rights of Chinese people, and got them passed. They also supported the anti-corporation positions of the grangers, regulatory controls on railroads and so on, but got only symbolic language regarding improved conditions for workers. The eight-hour day, already a demand for nearly two decades, was reduced to a phrase “Eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work on all public work.” Of course, the vast majority of workers were privately employed.

Frank Roney came down from Nevada to Sacramento to observe the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. After watching the Workingmen's Party delegation in action he concluded: “The worst brand of stand-pat, corporation ridden politician would have made a better showing than this primitive band of fake reformers.”

The Workingmen's Party won almost every elective seat in San Francisco except on the Board of Supervisors in the 1879 election. Isaac Kalloch, a former New England abolitionist, was the new mayor. As a minister he had the largest congregation in the city, including a large Chinese Sunday School. But he joined the Workingmen's Party and their anti-Chinese campaign. During the mayoral campaign, an exchange of insults between Kalloch and ''SF Chronicle'' publisher Charles De Young led to the latter shooting Kalloch on the street in front of his church. Kalloch survived and won a landslide election ten days later, but immediately was deadlocked by a hostile Board of Supervisors. The Workingmen used their control of the Board of Health to pass an order [[Chinese_as_Medical_Scapegoats%2C_1870-1905|condemning Chinatown]] as a “nuisance” to the health of the city that had to be “abated.” (Chinatown was in fact a well-protected fortress. When Kalloch was gunned down, Chinese throughout the city made haste to get back to Chinatown, fearing racial violence.)

In February 1880 crowds of unemployed would form daily in the sandlots and march off across Market and Mission and call ''en masse'' at factories and workshops, demanding that the Chinese be dismissed. A number of factory owners complied, leading to over 1,000 fired Chinese workers. But by spring, the anti-Chinese laws had all been overturned by the courts and the factories went back to employing Chinese.

By the end of 1880 the Workingmen's Party had collapsed and disappeared. It left behind a reliable and strong labor vote in San Francisco, which for many years had a large influence in state politics, although not so large as the railroad industry which basically owned it all lock, stock and barrel.

[[Image:Thomas Nast communist skeleton cartoon 1880 081748.jpg]]

'''Thomas Nast cartoon from 1880 declaiming the communist threat embodied in "Kearneyism".'''

<hr>

[[Image:Tours-labor.gif|link= Shanghaiing]] [[Shanghaiing| Continue Labor History Tour]]

'''Other articles on the 1877 Workingmen's Party and the heated politics of that time:'''

[[Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor|Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor]] [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|1877 unemployed in the sandlots]] [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California]] [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party of California]]

[[Eight hour day movement | Prev. document]][[1877 unemployed in the sandlots | Next document]]

[[category:Labor]][[category:1870s]][[category:1880s]] [[category:famous characters]] [[category:Irish]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Nob Hill]] [[category:SOMA]]

Women in Printing

2026-07-19T04:46:47Z

Ccarlsson: added link

''' Historical Essay '''

''By Libby Ingalls, March 2013''

[[Image:Womenprinting grayscale.jpg]]

''Image in [[The Sixth Star|The Sixth Star]] from ''West Coast Journal, May 18, 1870'' sourced at Bancroft Library''

{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"
| colspan="2" |'''Despite the great demand for printers and the efforts of early luminaries such as Hermione Day and Lisle Lester, women were largely kept out of desirable typesetting positions in the 1850s and 1860s by lower wages, fewer opportunities, and an all-male union. When experienced female typesetters from Eastern states began to move to the city in search of work, the Women’s Co-operative Printing Union (founded by Agnes B. Peterson) was established, creating the “first permanent foothold for woman printers in San Francisco.” The WPCU grew stronger as the women’s rights movement picked up steam and encouraged women, including Amanda Slocum and Marietta Lois Stowe, to start their own journals and printing companies. Finally, after decades of protest, the Typographical Union opened to female printers, offering the same pay and protection as male printers in one of the few skilled professions available to women at the time. '''
|}

In the 1860s, typesetting was the most prestigious job for women in San Francisco. The job required skill in spelling and grammar, along with manual dexterity, so typesetters tended to be better-educated and fast learners. But opportunities were extremely limited. The strong prejudice against women in the workplace locked them out of higher paid jobs. Men did not want to work side by side with women, unions banned them, their salaries were lower, and they were not permitted apprenticeships or technical training. Though the women’s movement had come west with the migration, the male stranglehold on jobs remained until the 1870s.

Printers were in great demand from the early days of the gold rush for newspapers, magazines, books, billheads, announcements, legal briefs, and ephemera of all sorts. The Typographical Union, however, established their dominance in 1850, controlling printing jobs and excluding women. So though the West was less tradition-bound than the East, women’s jobs in the 1850s were mainly limited to needle trades, domestic service, waitressing, and nursing. The first record of a woman working in typesetting was 1857.

Women’s rights advocates existed, but had few means of spreading the word on job inequality besides letters to the editor. In 1858 they got their voice in San Francisco with a new woman’s literary magazine, ''The Hesperian''. The editor Mrs. A.M. Schultz resigned after three issues, but her assistant, Mrs. Hermione Day, continued publishing a paper twice a month, taking on labor, addressing inequality, lack of opportunity and lower wages for women. In 1860 she expanded her business to include job, book, and fancy printing, and hiring more women.

New opportunities for women continued to open throughout the 1860s but printing jobs remained limited to typesetting in male-run businesses due to opposition of male workers and the Union. The number of female typesetters accelerated from 1860, then more rapidly from 1870. By 1882, 11% of the typesetters in the City were female (200 of 1,816).

The feisty, colorful Lisle Lester took over editorship of ''The Hesperian'' in 1863, changing the name to the ''Pacific Monthly''. What she lacked in organizational skills she made up for in her fiery rhetoric and strong opinions. She attempted to form a woman’s typographical union in 1865 but lacked the solid foundation beneath her lofty ideals. When Lester closed the bankrupt ''Pacific Monthly'' in 1868 the number of female typesetters declined to early 1860s numbers. A turning point came with an influx of female typesetters from the east coast, skilled, in search of work, and outraged that the Typographical Union prohibited any business from hiring them even if that business needed more workers.

Mrs. Agnes B Peterson was one such woman who arrived in 1868. Upon being rebuffed by the Union, she raised the capital to open her own printing office and establish the [[Women’s Co-operative Printing Union|Women’s Co-operative Printing Union]] (WCPU), the first permanent foothold for woman printers in San Francisco. The times had already started changing with women becoming a significant part of San Francisco life. Other organizations helping women had been established that same year: the confusingly similar sounding Women’s Co-operative Union to provide employment for women in various fields, and the California Labor Exchange to help both men and women find work.

Other businesses came and went, but the WCPU became ever stronger, successfully producing large quantities of ephemera, billheads, legal briefs and books over the next 18 years. The success was due at first to the leadership of [[Emily Pitts Stevens|Mrs. Emily A. Pitts]], editor of the ''Sunday Evening Mercury'' (later, ''The Pioneer''). Emily Pitts lived at 420 Montgomery Street, where she published her newspaper and guided the WCPU. The ''Sunday Evening Mercury'' had started out as a “journal of Romance and Literature,” but upon purchasing it in 1869, Emily Pitts soon changed its name and turned it into a journal for woman suffrage, the first one in the West. Putting ever more of her energies into the suffrage cause and ''The Pioneer'', she turned leadership of the WCPU over to Lizzie G. Richmond, who arrived in San Francisco from Rhode Island in 1869. Lizzie Richmond built a thriving organization and is responsible for its great success.

Over the years, the WCPU printed every variety of book, including fiction, nonfiction, children’s books, and cookbooks, along with Spiritualist and feminist journals. In the long run, though, it was the legal briefs, annual reports, constitutions and bylaws, billheads, flyers and other utility printing that made the shop profitable. Its significance in advancing women in printing cannot be overemphasized.

An economic slowdown in 1869 put 150 typesetters out of work. Despite this, the male Typographical Union went on strike for higher wages the following year. The publishers of the major newspaper of the time, [[THE CALL BUILDING: SAN FRANCISCO'S FORGOTTEN SKYSCRAPER| ''The Call'']], refused to accede to the Union, so the newspaper opened up the lucrative typesetting jobs to women for the first time. The strike was the beginning of the end of the Typographical Union dominance at the better paying newspapers and the prohibition against hiring women. Little changed over the next two decades, though, and only the woman controlled, non-Union offices consistently had a higher percentage of woman workers.

Emily Pitts played a major role advancing woman printers. After giving up leadership of the WCPU, she became an outspoken advocate for women’s suffrage, speaking publicly and starting another printing company, The Woman’s Pacific Coast Publishing Company. In addition to publishing books, magazine, and newspapers, and offering other printing services, she started the company to provide training and employment to women. As such, she epitomized the intertwining of woman printers and the women’s movement.

The women’s movement was largely identified with suffrage and equality in the workplace, but was linked to many other causes in the West, including [[Suffrage and Spiritualism | Spiritualism]], dress reform, mind healing, cremation, and law reform. Spiritualism deserves being singled out for its significance in individual rights and the woman’s vote. Spiritualism was a new religious movement that believed in immortality of the soul, proven by establishing communication with the spirits of the dead. At the time, it was the only religious sect that recognized equality of women. It was unstructured, the séance’s being intensely individual, and used a language of common sense. Accordingly Spiritualism became a major vehicle for the spread of woman’s rights, gave self-confidence to women, and thus benefited the suffrage movement. The spiritual emancipation led also to dress reform, getting women out of confining clothes that “kept them in their place” and restricted movement.

The number of women in printing grew steadily throughout the last decades of the 19th century, not only brought in as strike breakers, but they were also skilled, and could do the same work as men but for lower wages. More women established their own journals and printing companies, and hired women printers. Two outstanding such women were Amanda M. Slocum and Marietta Lois Stowe.

Amanda Slocum was a Spiritualist, suffragist, editor and master printer. [[Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor|She and her husband William Slocum published ''Common Sense'']] in 1874, a journal of Spiritualism, suffrage, temperance and other women’s issues. Hiring women and paying them equal wages as men was her plan, but ''Common Sense'' failed financially after just one year. The revolutionary William Slocum blamed its demise on the liberal groups they were addressing, saying the Spiritualists, atheists, suffragists, and social reformers were so intolerant of each other they would not support the same newspaper. In the meantime, the Slocums had acquired the Woman’s Publishing Company (started by Emily Pitts Stevens), a large steam-printing establishment that expanded their printing empire and proved extremely profitable. The Slocums soon divorced, however, and Amanda went on to become a successful master printer with her own imprint.

Marietta Lois Stowe was another exceptional woman arriving in San Francisco ready to change society and advance the rights of women. Outspoken on humanitarian issues and women’s rights, she organized political rallies, was the second president of the California Woman’s Suffrage Association, ran for Governor of California in1882, and helped form the Equal Rights Party in 1884, becoming its vice presidential candidate. She started a newspaper in 1881, ''Woman’s Herald of Industry and Social Science Coöperator''. Disgusted with her incompetent male printer, she started her own printing company, and then a school for typesetters. Hiring mostly women, she soon boasted that hers was the only newspaper in the country entirely edited and printed by women, except for the presswork.

As much as women were advancing in the workplace in the 19th century, the Typographical Union was still slow to accept them. In 1876, the International Typographical Union revised its rules giving the local organizations full discretion in the admission of women. San Francisco Local #21 still refused. The optional plan led to too many inconsistencies, and finally, after seven years, the ITU opened membership to women in all Locals in 1883. Once admitted, women received the same pay and protection as the men. Their numbers remained pitifully low, however, in the newspapers and other highly desirable jobs, perhaps due to the low turnover in such places. That same year, the Union called a strike against the two big newspapers, ''The Call'' and ''The Bulletin''. The newspapers enlisted women to break it, and ironically, in so doing, pitted women against women, freelance against Union, a situation that would have been unthinkable just a year earlier.

Women were steadily becoming more empowered, and by 1888 they were working in over 300 different occupations. This was due in no small measure to the woman printers who gave voice to women locked out of a male world, publicizing the inequality and speaking out for greater opportunities for women along with equal pay. Printing also gave women an opportunity to work in a skilled job when little else was available. It is noteworthy that in 1888 the state conducted a survey of prostitutes to discover their previous occupations. The range was enormous, including teachers, translators and telegraphers, but none had been typesetters.

''Source: ''Women in Printing: Northern California, 1857-1890'', by Roger Levenson (Capra Press, 1994)''

Find out where many of these women did their printing [[Historical Locations of San Francisco Women Printers | in downtown San Francisco]].

[[category:1850s]][[category:1860s]][[category:1870s]][[category:1880s]][[category:Dissent]][[category:Labor]][[category:Newspapers]][[category:Women]]

Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor

2026-07-19T04:44:18Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Gia Vogerl''

[[Image:Common-Sense-Masthead 081836.jpg]]

'''Radical Spiritualist newspaper of the 1870s.'''

The historian Hubert Perrier noted that many francophone Sections [of the Workingmen's Party of the United States] focused much of their energy on supporting refugees in the aftermath of the Paris Commune. San Francisco’s French Section did not remain neutral, but prisoner solidarity work nevertheless sustained their activity in later years. Many francophone Sections sent money to former Communards and served as a stopover or even final destination for exiles. East Coast ports provided the easiest entry for Communards who had escaped into exile, some of whom eventually took the railroad across the continent to try life in San Francisco. Benjamin Flotte arrived through this route, as did former gold miner Émile Bée who returned to California after the Commune. Yet San Francisco internationalists went a step further.(6)

Numerous Communards were imprisoned on the Pacific penal colony at New Caledonia, near New Zealand. San Francisco became a hub as the first friendly port of call for those who escaped on passing American ships. Escapees thus followed the wake of Bakunin’s transpacific flight from Siberia. Upon arrival they could expect material support and lavish public receptions by the local International. Henri Rochefort, François Jourde, and Paschal Grousset received banquets in their honor upon their arrival in Spring of 1874. One hundred and forty “French Republicans” attended one such banquet on May 25. A standing committee was established to prepare welcome receptions for all future escapees from the prison islands.(7)

Present at one of these banquets was Charles Caron, a founding member of New Orleans’ International French Section. That Section apparently suffered a split after Caron and his associates passionately argued for creating a socialist colony. Caron’s visit to San Francisco may have been intended to strengthen connections with old Icarians like J.R. Lafaix who remained active in the city. Icarians would later build on these connections to establish a new colony in California.(8)

Commemorations of the Commune provided continuing visibility for the local International. An 1875 anniversary banquet reported in local newspapers and the radical Spiritualist paper ''Common Sense'' helped inspire a new burst of activity. The March 18 celebration was filled with multi-lingual speeches, bringing together “French, Americans, and a few Germans.” The banquet helped spark a revival of internationalist activity. A month later, Dashaway Hall hosted the first in a series of weekly meetings to “discuss the relations of Capital and Labor, employers and employed, laws affecting production and exchange, etc.” under the auspices of the “International Workingmen.” B. F. French, a member of the American Section’s executive committee in 1872, took the chair of the first meeting and participated in the followups. After several meetings, attendees resolved to create a “Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform” to carry out public debates; French was elected first vice-president.(9)

<big>'''Consensus Challenged'''</big>

From its founding and through the split in the International Workingmen’s Association, the local English-language American Section stood firmly against Chinese labor and immigration. Local French and German Sections joined them. This stance, however, placed the American Section at odds with the majority of “Yankee Radicals” affiliated with the International elsewhere, particularly those overlapping with Spiritualist circles. It is thus quite notable that for a brief period starting in the mid-1870s, some San Francisco internationalists joined Healey in turning away from demonizing Chinese workers. Notably, a number of Spiritualist radicals continued their local activity and moved to oppose racial exclusion, aligning them with their East Coast brethren. Perhaps continued discourse at ongoing workingmen’s Lyceums on how to achieve workers’ emancipation helped soften participants’ racist views.

[[Image:William-N-Slocum 081911.gif]]

'''William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'''''

One speaker and participant at the Dashaway Hall “International Workingmen” meetings was William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'' with his wife Amanda. W.N. was journalist by trade, an old Republican Spiritualist and abolitionist who broke with the Republican party as it catered increasingly to business interests. Alongside bits of Spiritualist discourse and reports on Spiritualist meetings, ''Common Sense’s'' pages were filled with reports and articles pertaining to temperance, free thought, and anti-monopoly politics. The paper’s title referred to Thomas Paine’s famous revolutionary pamphlet. The Slocums’ paper provided frequent accounts of meetings by San Francisco Lyceums and various interconnected reform movements.(12)

Amanda’s close involvement with ''Common Sense'' was part of a [[Women in Printing|broad movement of women publishers and typographers]]. Women participated in the printing trade since its inception in the 15th century, even as their vital role was often overshadowed by male counterparts. Family-run print shops required involvement from wives and daughters of the men named on the marquee. They participated in all steps of the process from typesetting to editorializing. Widows commonly ran such enterprises after their husbands died. Independent-minded women found ways to learn the trade despite exclusion from formal apprenticeship systems. One journal estimated that half of working compositors in US towns were women in the mid-nineteenth century. Clara Dixon produced her first political pamphlet using a “toy typesetting device” and later published anarchist newspapers in San Francisco in the early 1890s. Early feminist movements were buoyed by women-run periodicals.(13)

During San Francisco’s early years, the succession of all-male typographical unions forbade contract shops from hiring women. Patriarchal chauvinism was often articulated through economic excuses; “feminizing” the profession would lead to lower wages. During labor disputes owners often took advantage of these fears by hiring white women to set type. In response, labor-minded white women joined with sympathetic male counterparts to demand union membership and “equal pay for equal work” as a means to short-circuit employers’ threats. A Women’s Typographical Union was founded in New York in 1868. The next year the International Typographical Union’s convention lifted its outright ban on women’s membership, though the aforementioned dispute over Susan B. Anthony’s seating at the National Labor Union underlines the vitriolic debates involved. Four years later the ITU recommended all locals admit women on an equal basis, yet inclusion was merely optional for another decade. Many locals, including San Francisco’s, persisted in excluding white women until the ITU formalized gender inclusion in its constitution by the 1880s. A pronounced gender-pay gap persisted outside of union shops. Notably, despite similar arguments made for including non-white members, racial inclusion remained off the table for the time being.(14)

The white women who moved west seeking greater autonomy for themselves included many typographers. San Francisco emerged as a notable center. The city’s first women-run and typeset literary magazine, ''The Hesperian'', was founded in 1858. Lisle Lester took over editorship in 1863 and renamed the publication to ''Pacific Monthly''. In 1865 she attempted to form a Women’s Typographical Union but the effort failed and the ''Pacific Monthly'' folded in 1868. Women were only able to obtain work at low-paying non-union shops. Continued exclusion prompted Agnes Peterson to found the Women’s Co-Operative Printing Union the same year as the ''Pacific Monthly'' ended. The WCPU put out a weekly newspaper and provided job-printing services for a wide-array of books, pamphlets, legal briefs, and more.(15)

[[Image:Womenprinting grayscale.jpg]]

''Image from ''West Coast Journal, May 18, 1870'' sourced at Bancroft Library''

Flora Chaney and her then-husband William (aka Dr. W.H. Chaney) were another couple closely associated with ''Common Sense''. Both Flora and William were agents for the paper, “authorized to receive subscriptions.” They were prominent lecturers in and beyond San Francisco’s reform scene and Flora was noted as a talented public-speaking instructor. In early 1875 the Slocum’s purchased the office and printing equipment of a Women’s Pacific Coast Publishing Company founded by a former leader of the WCPU. Amanda and Flora ran the shop together, maintaining it as a “women’s office.”(16)

Later that same year, Flora was pregnant. In June she shot herself in a failed suicide attempt after William rejected becoming a father. According to a contemporary newspaper account, he attempted to convince her to abort the child. She refused. William later claimed the child wasn’t his. He insisted he was in fact sterile and that Flora had other lovers, perhaps within their broad Spiritualist community of Free Love supporters. William soon distanced himself from those local Spiritualists that promoted Free Love and had nothing to do with raising Flora’s child. Flora was taken into the Slocum home, where she gave birth to a son who would become one of San Francisco’s most famous radicals: [[JACK LONDON|Jack London]].(17)

Alongside the Slocums, ''Common Sense’s'' management included one Albert Kendrick. During the paper’s run Albert married the Medium and close associate of Victoria Woodhull, Laura Cuppy Smith (who took Albert’s surname). Laura was a trance speaker who first arrived in San Francisco in the 1860s and was one of the first prominent women orators in the city. Notices and accounts of her speeches were frequent matter for ''Common Sense''. She was also one of three trance speakers sent to present the first petition for women’s suffrage to the California state legislature. Laura traveled to the 1872 Equal Rights Convention that nominated Woodhull for president and the next year defended Woodhull in court from obscenity charges. She has been described as Woodhull’s “only intimate friend,” though Woodhull later turned her back on Laura.(18)

Laura was a driving force in San Francisco internationalists’ softening of their previously bitter Sinophobic stance. Unwavering defense of her firm belief in universal equality led many former associates to later reject her, sometimes leaving Laura a “radical without a following because she fought injustice everywhere.” When she passed away in 1882 following a stroke at the age of 49, Boston anarchist Benjamin Tucker eulogized her with a glowing obituary that declared “Liberty has lost an apostle – one of her most tried and true defenders, one of her most courageous soldiers, one of her most ardent advocates, one of her most devoted martyrs.” She first left California in the early 1870s; whether she participated in the founding of the local American Section is unclear. Yet when she returned to San Francisco in 1874 to find “labor agitation… coming to the front,” she “plunged into it, body and soul.” Laura brought with her the ideals of cross-racial solidarity in debates over Chinese immigration that characterized some East Coast radicals, Spiritualists in particular. While many other agitators were denouncing Chinese workers, Tucker claimed she “championed” them.(19)

Discourse on the “Chinese Question” was relatively frequent in ''Common Sense''. Some correspondents parroted common Sinophobic talking points but were usually met with rebuttals. In Fall 1874, a comment negatively prophesying that Chinese people were the “future workers of America” was met with a reply by an apparent Chinese slippermaker named Ah Hea Lea. Ah Hea Lea claimed to favor the rest of ''Common Sense’s'' radical material and asserted bluntly that Chinese people were not to blame for the societal ills the paper campaigned against. His letter was paired with an editorial comment admitting that Chinese people had a “natural right” to come but that it was also perfectly natural for their arrival to face opposition. Whichever Slocum penned that reply nevertheless admitted benefits to Chinese labor, as well as “improvidence” on the part of white workingmen, concluding that “it remains an open question whether it would not be better for our own people to discourage the importation and employment of Chinese.” The columns of ''Common Sense'' were declared “open to all honest, earnest expression of opinion on this subject, on either side.” Ah Hea Lea wrote another reply, asserting that the “improvidence” attributed to white workingmen in the form of drinking and frivolous purchases was in fact an integral if potentially harmful aspect of the American economy. He once again came to the defense of Chinese laborers, insisting they were the only ones in the state willing to do all the hard “work that must be done.”(20)

Following Ah Hea Lea’s submissions and the letter from Healey was an ongoing exchange for and against the presence Chinese workers in back-to-back May 1875 issues just prior to the paper’s end. A “P” wrote to ''Common Sense'' to decry what he saw as a link between “Asiatic Labor” and “the rapid accumulation of capital in the hands of a few.” Yet P did at least allow that “we need not… entertain the idea that he can be driven from our shores… this is a free country ‘for the oppressed of all nations.’” P instead argued for white labor to “make a new departure” toward (segregated) cooperative systems. Dr. Pilkington wrote a reply arguing that:

<blockquote>Prejudice against the Chinese is not confined to the Irish alone, but seems to prevail in proportion to the ignorance of the masses, and to some extent, amongst a more intelligent portion, some of whom take the ground that this country belongs to the white man alone, supposing that because they are whiter than some of their neighbors, this entitles them to a preference, merit or no merit.</blockquote>

By taking on lower paying jobs manufacturing goods previously imported from elsewhere, Pilkington asserted that Chinese workers made possible a plethora of new industries that also provided higher-waged employment to white men. Pilkington also praised what he saw as Chinese tendencies toward “communistic and co-operative” living and labor that, like Reclus, he thought “far more” pronounced “than white men.”(21)

The shifting views of San Francisco’s internationalists regarding Chinese labor by no means evaded orientalist or paternalistic tropes and were often articulated through a settler colonialist developmental logic. It is also doubtful that they had especially broad reach outside the pages of Common Sense and English-language Lyceum debating circles. Some notable advocates of cross-racial solidarity like Pat Healey labored for wages in trades alongside numerous Chinese counterparts, but many vocal advocates could hardly be called “working-class.” Far more local white tradespeople were likely members of the contemporary anti-coolie clubs than attendees of the “Lyceum for Self Culture” or meetings of the Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform. The transformation may not have translated into the International’s French and German Sections; the latter was the largest local Section upon the Tenth Ward International’s merger into the Workingmen’s Party. A quarterly broadside circulated by the Tenth Ward council in 1875 noted that San Francisco’s German and French Sections (1 and 2) were attempting to mediate conflicts occurring in New York Sections, but mentioned that the American Section (3) “takes no part in this.” While all of the Sections would ultimately join the new Party, a breach could perhaps have opened between San Francisco’s local groups. Continuing anti-Chinese racism by SF’s German Workingmen’s Party members will be discussed shortly.(22)

''Common Sense'' seems to have folded after May 1875, leaving a gap in the ability to track the evolution of this discourse. No other local papers provided detailed accounts of the local International during this late period or of the early days of the Workingmen’s Party of the United States. The limited correspondence available with the central office in New York during the middle of the decade is likewise silent on the matter. A challenge to the prior racist consensus of the local International was nevertheless clearly emerging from the Spiritualist milieu within San Francisco’s American Section.

Aside from Ah Hea Lea, though, there is no evidence of actual conversations with Chinese people. Given Ah’s own proactive outreach, they may have simply relied on Chinese people coming to them rather than actively reaching out. The conversation about Chinese labor was shifting, but it did not by-and-large include actual Chinese people. By the time of the fateful [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|Sandlot rallies of 1877]], ex-internationalists turned Workingmen’s Party agitators did not go much further in public agitation than simply leaving Chinese people out of their denunciations of railroad barons while insisting they weren’t there to hold anti-Chinese meetings. Certainly a notable shift from earlier in the decade, but far from adequate to prevent the [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|catastrophe that unfolded]].

<big>'''Notes'''</big>

6. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron] 
7. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron], Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 222. ''Los Angeles Herald'', May 26, 1874. ''Marysville Daily Appeal'', May 26, 1874. “French Republican Banquet,” ''Sacramento Daily Union'', May 26, 1874. Michel Cordillot. 
8. Michel Cordillot [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159709 “CARON Charles,”] Le Maitron, [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159593 “LAFAIX Jean-René”] Le Maitron 
9. “Signs of the Times,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, March 27, 1875. ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 17, 1875. “Meeting of Working Men,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 24, 1875. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1878. “Meeting of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 8, 1875. “Meetings of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 15, 1875. “Meeting of Reformers,” May 22, 1875. B. F. French would remain active in Socialist causes in San Francisco and Los Angeles at least to 1901, later participating in the Bellamy inspired “Nationalist Movement” and the Socialist Party. 
12. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1875. 
13. Overbeck, ''The Tramp Printers'', 91-92. Joel Sachs, ''Henry Cowell: A Man Made of Music'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 13. 
14. Overbeck, The Tramp Printers., 99-100. Libby Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] FoundSF.org 
15. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] 
16. ''Common Sense'', October 24, 1874; “Flora Wellman Chaney,” ''Common Sense'', June 13, 1874. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing.”]] 
17. I highly recommend the Transmetropolitan Review’s zine/article “Who the Hell is Jack London,” though it does not take note of the radical home he was born into. [https://london.sonoma.edu/biographies/william-chaney “William Chaney,” Jack London Online]
18. Braude, ''Radical Spirits'', 172. Emanie Sachs, ''“The Terrible Siren”: Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927)'' (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1928), 217-218. ''Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly'', New York, May 18, 1872. “Common Sense Publishing Company,” ''Common Sense'', June 20, 1874. ''Common Sense'', April 24, 1875. 
19. Sachs, “The Terrible Siren,” 217-218. “In Memorium,” ''Liberty'', Boston, January 21, 1882. 
20. “Ah Hea Lea Speaks,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, September 26, 1874. Reprinted in Woodhull and Claflin’s ''Weekly'', October 17, 1874. “Chinese Labor,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, October 31, 1874. 
21. “Higher or Lower,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 22, 1875. “The Chinese Question,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 29, 1875.

<hr>

[[Image:Deconstructing-settler-socialism-cover-240px.jpg]]

''Excerpted from the chapter "On the Sandlot" in ''Deconstructing Settler Socialism: Anarchism and the Internationals in the Wild West'', published by Historical Seditions, 2025''

[[category:Labor]] [[category:French]] [[category:Chinese]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:Women]] [[category:1870s]] [[category:Book Excerpts]] [[category:Newspapers]] [[category:Media]]

Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor

2026-07-19T04:42:42Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Gia Vogerl''

[[Image:Common-Sense-Masthead 081836.jpg]]

'''Radical Spiritualist newspaper of the 1870s.'''

The historian Hubert Perrier noted that many francophone Sections [of the Workingmen's Party of the United States] focused much of their energy on supporting refugees in the aftermath of the Paris Commune. San Francisco’s French Section did not remain neutral, but prisoner solidarity work nevertheless sustained their activity in later years. Many francophone Sections sent money to former Communards and served as a stopover or even final destination for exiles. East Coast ports provided the easiest entry for Communards who had escaped into exile, some of whom eventually took the railroad across the continent to try life in San Francisco. Benjamin Flotte arrived through this route, as did former gold miner Émile Bée who returned to California after the Commune. Yet San Francisco internationalists went a step further.(6)

Numerous Communards were imprisoned on the Pacific penal colony at New Caledonia, near New Zealand. San Francisco became a hub as the first friendly port of call for those who escaped on passing American ships. Escapees thus followed the wake of Bakunin’s transpacific flight from Siberia. Upon arrival they could expect material support and lavish public receptions by the local International. Henri Rochefort, François Jourde, and Paschal Grousset received banquets in their honor upon their arrival in Spring of 1874. One hundred and forty “French Republicans” attended one such banquet on May 25. A standing committee was established to prepare welcome receptions for all future escapees from the prison islands.(7)

Present at one of these banquets was Charles Caron, a founding member of New Orleans’ International French Section. That Section apparently suffered a split after Caron and his associates passionately argued for creating a socialist colony. Caron’s visit to San Francisco may have been intended to strengthen connections with old Icarians like J.R. Lafaix who remained active in the city. Icarians would later build on these connections to establish a new colony in California.(8)

Commemorations of the Commune provided continuing visibility for the local International. An 1875 anniversary banquet reported in local newspapers and the radical Spiritualist paper ''Common Sense'' helped inspire a new burst of activity. The March 18 celebration was filled with multi-lingual speeches, bringing together “French, Americans, and a few Germans.” The banquet helped spark a revival of internationalist activity. A month later, Dashaway Hall hosted the first in a series of weekly meetings to “discuss the relations of Capital and Labor, employers and employed, laws affecting production and exchange, etc.” under the auspices of the “International Workingmen.” B. F. French, a member of the American Section’s executive committee in 1872, took the chair of the first meeting and participated in the followups. After several meetings, attendees resolved to create a “Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform” to carry out public debates; French was elected first vice-president.(9)

<big>'''Consensus Challenged'''</big>

From its founding and through the split in the International Workingmen’s Association, the local English-language American Section stood firmly against Chinese labor and immigration. Local French and German Sections joined them. This stance, however, placed the American Section at odds with the majority of “Yankee Radicals” affiliated with the International elsewhere, particularly those overlapping with Spiritualist circles. It is thus quite notable that for a brief period starting in the mid-1870s, some San Francisco internationalists joined Healey in turning away from demonizing Chinese workers. Notably, a number of Spiritualist radicals continued their local activity and moved to oppose racial exclusion, aligning them with their East Coast brethren. Perhaps continued discourse at ongoing workingmen’s Lyceums on how to achieve workers’ emancipation helped soften participants’ racist views.

[[Image:William-N-Slocum 081911.gif]]

'''William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'''''

One speaker and participant at the Dashaway Hall “International Workingmen” meetings was William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'' with his wife Amanda. W.N. was journalist by trade, an old Republican Spiritualist and abolitionist who broke with the Republican party as it catered increasingly to business interests. Alongside bits of Spiritualist discourse and reports on Spiritualist meetings, ''Common Sense’s'' pages were filled with reports and articles pertaining to temperance, free thought, and anti-monopoly politics. The paper’s title referred to Thomas Paine’s famous revolutionary pamphlet. The Slocums’ paper provided frequent accounts of meetings by San Francisco Lyceums and various interconnected reform movements.(12)

Amanda’s close involvement with ''Common Sense'' was part of a [[Women in Printing|broad movement of women publishers and typographers]]. Women participated in the printing trade since its inception in the 15th century, even as their vital role was often overshadowed by male counterparts. Family-run print shops required involvement from wives and daughters of the men named on the marquee. They participated in all steps of the process from typesetting to editorializing. Widows commonly ran such enterprises after their husbands died. Independent-minded women found ways to learn the trade despite exclusion from formal apprenticeship systems. One journal estimated that half of working compositors in US towns were women in the mid-nineteenth century. Clara Dixon produced her first political pamphlet using a “toy typesetting device” and later published anarchist newspapers in San Francisco in the early 1890s. Early feminist movements were buoyed by women-run periodicals.(13)

During San Francisco’s early years, the succession of all-male typographical unions forbade contract shops from hiring women. Patriarchal chauvinism was often articulated through economic excuses; “feminizing” the profession would lead to lower wages. During labor disputes owners often took advantage of these fears by hiring white women to set type. In response, labor-minded white women joined with sympathetic male counterparts to demand union membership and “equal pay for equal work” as a means to short-circuit employers’ threats. A Women’s Typographical Union was founded in New York in 1868. The next year the International Typographical Union’s convention lifted its outright ban on women’s membership, though the aforementioned dispute over Susan B. Anthony’s seating at the National Labor Union underlines the vitriolic debates involved. Four years later the ITU recommended all locals admit women on an equal basis, yet inclusion was merely optional for another decade. Many locals, including San Francisco’s, persisted in excluding white women until the ITU formalized gender inclusion in its constitution by the 1880s. A pronounced gender-pay gap persisted outside of union shops. Notably, despite similar arguments made for including non-white members, racial inclusion remained off the table for the time being.(14)

The white women who moved west seeking greater autonomy for themselves included many typographers. San Francisco emerged as a notable center. The city’s first women-run and typeset literary magazine, ''The Hesperian'', was founded in 1858. Lisle Lester took over editorship in 1863 and renamed the publication to ''Pacific Monthly''. In 1865 she attempted to form a Women’s Typographical Union but the effort failed and the ''Pacific Monthly'' folded in 1868. Women were only able to obtain work at low-paying non-union shops. Continued exclusion prompted Agnes Peterson to found the Women’s Co-Operative Printing Union the same year as the ''Pacific Monthly'' ended. The WCPU put out a weekly newspaper and provided job-printing services for a wide-array of books, pamphlets, legal briefs, and more.(15)

[[Image:Womenprinting grayscale.jpg]]

''Image from ''West Coast Journal, May 18, 1870'' sourced at Bancroft Library''

Flora Chaney and her then-husband William (aka Dr. W.H. Chaney) were another couple closely associated with ''Common Sense''. Both Flora and William were agents for the paper, “authorized to receive subscriptions.” They were prominent lecturers in and beyond San Francisco’s reform scene and Flora was noted as a talented public-speaking instructor. In early 1875 the Slocum’s purchased the office and printing equipment of a Women’s Pacific Coast Publishing Company founded by a former leader of the WCPU. Amanda and Flora ran the shop together, maintaining it as a “women’s office.”(16)

Later that same year, Flora was pregnant. In June she shot herself in a failed suicide attempt after William rejected becoming a father. According to a contemporary newspaper account, he attempted to convince her to abort the child. She refused. William later claimed the child wasn’t his. He insisted he was in fact sterile and that Flora had other lovers, perhaps within their broad Spiritualist community of Free Love supporters. William soon distanced himself from those local Spiritualists that promoted Free Love and had nothing to do with raising Flora’s child. Flora was taken into the Slocum home, where she gave birth to a son who would become one of San Francisco’s most famous radicals: [[JACK LONDON|Jack London]].(17)

Alongside the Slocums, ''Common Sense’s'' management included one Albert Kendrick. During the paper’s run Albert married the Medium and close associate of Victoria Woodhull, Laura Cuppy Smith (who took Albert’s surname). Laura was a trance speaker who first arrived in San Francisco in the 1860s and was one of the first prominent women orators in the city. Notices and accounts of her speeches were frequent matter for ''Common Sense''. She was also one of three trance speakers sent to present the first petition for women’s suffrage to the California state legislature. Laura traveled to the 1872 Equal Rights Convention that nominated Woodhull for president and the next year defended Woodhull in court from obscenity charges. She has been described as Woodhull’s “only intimate friend,” though Woodhull later turned her back on Laura.(18)

Laura was a driving force in San Francisco internationalists’ softening of their previously bitter Sinophobic stance. Unwavering defense of her firm belief in universal equality led many former associates to later reject her, sometimes leaving Laura a “radical without a following because she fought injustice everywhere.” When she passed away in 1882 following a stroke at the age of 49, Boston anarchist Benjamin Tucker eulogized her with a glowing obituary that declared “Liberty has lost an apostle – one of her most tried and true defenders, one of her most courageous soldiers, one of her most ardent advocates, one of her most devoted martyrs.” She first left California in the early 1870s; whether she participated in the founding of the local American Section is unclear. Yet when she returned to San Francisco in 1874 to find “labor agitation… coming to the front,” she “plunged into it, body and soul.” Laura brought with her the ideals of cross-racial solidarity in debates over Chinese immigration that characterized some East Coast radicals, Spiritualists in particular. While many other agitators were denouncing Chinese workers, Tucker claimed she “championed” them.(19)

Discourse on the “Chinese Question” was relatively frequent in ''Common Sense''. Some correspondents parroted common Sinophobic talking points but were usually met with rebuttals. In Fall 1874, a comment negatively prophesying that Chinese people were the “future workers of America” was met with a reply by an apparent Chinese slippermaker named Ah Hea Lea. Ah Hea Lea claimed to favor the rest of ''Common Sense’s'' radical material and asserted bluntly that Chinese people were not to blame for the societal ills the paper campaigned against. His letter was paired with an editorial comment admitting that Chinese people had a “natural right” to come but that it was also perfectly natural for their arrival to face opposition. Whichever Slocum penned that reply nevertheless admitted benefits to Chinese labor, as well as “improvidence” on the part of white workingmen, concluding that “it remains an open question whether it would not be better for our own people to discourage the importation and employment of Chinese.” The columns of ''Common Sense'' were declared “open to all honest, earnest expression of opinion on this subject, on either side.” Ah Hea Lea wrote another reply, asserting that the “improvidence” attributed to white workingmen in the form of drinking and frivolous purchases was in fact an integral if potentially harmful aspect of the American economy. He once again came to the defense of Chinese laborers, insisting they were the only ones in the state willing to do all the hard “work that must be done.”(20)

Following Ah Hea Lea’s submissions and the letter from Healey was an ongoing exchange for and against the presence Chinese workers in back-to-back May 1875 issues just prior to the paper’s end. A “P” wrote to ''Common Sense'' to decry what he saw as a link between “Asiatic Labor” and “the rapid accumulation of capital in the hands of a few.” Yet P did at least allow that “we need not… entertain the idea that he can be driven from our shores… this is a free country ‘for the oppressed of all nations.’” P instead argued for white labor to “make a new departure” toward (segregated) cooperative systems. Dr. Pilkington wrote a reply arguing that:

<blockquote>Prejudice against the Chinese is not confined to the Irish alone, but seems to prevail in proportion to the ignorance of the masses, and to some extent, amongst a more intelligent portion, some of whom take the ground that this country belongs to the white man alone, supposing that because they are whiter than some of their neighbors, this entitles them to a preference, merit or no merit.</blockquote>

By taking on lower paying jobs manufacturing goods previously imported from elsewhere, Pilkington asserted that Chinese workers made possible a plethora of new industries that also provided higher-waged employment to white men. Pilkington also praised what he saw as Chinese tendencies toward “communistic and co-operative” living and labor that, like Reclus, he thought “far more” pronounced “than white men.”(21)

The shifting views of San Francisco’s internationalists regarding Chinese labor by no means evaded orientalist or paternalistic tropes and were often articulated through a settler colonialist developmental logic. It is also doubtful that they had especially broad reach outside the pages of Common Sense and English-language Lyceum debating circles. Some notable advocates of cross-racial solidarity like Pat Healey labored for wages in trades alongside numerous Chinese counterparts, but many vocal advocates could hardly be called “working-class.” Far more local white tradespeople were likely members of the contemporary anti-coolie clubs than attendees of the “Lyceum for Self Culture” or meetings of the Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform. The transformation may not have translated into the International’s French and German Sections; the latter was the largest local Section upon the Tenth Ward International’s merger into the Workingmen’s Party. A quarterly broadside circulated by the Tenth Ward council in 1875 noted that San Francisco’s German and French Sections (1 and 2) were attempting to mediate conflicts occurring in New York Sections, but mentioned that the American Section (3) “takes no part in this.” While all of the Sections would ultimately join the new Party, a breach could perhaps have opened between San Francisco’s local groups. Continuing anti-Chinese racism by SF’s German Workingmen’s Party members will be discussed shortly.(22)

''Common Sense'' seems to have folded after May 1875, leaving a gap in the ability to track the evolution of this discourse. No other local papers provided detailed accounts of the local International during this late period or of the early days of the Workingmen’s Party of the United States. The limited correspondence available with the central office in New York during the middle of the decade is likewise silent on the matter. A challenge to the prior racist consensus of the local International was nevertheless clearly emerging from the Spiritualist milieu within San Francisco’s American Section.

Aside from Ah Hea Lea, though, there is no evidence of actual conversations with Chinese people. Given Ah’s own proactive outreach, they may have simply relied on Chinese people coming to them rather than actively reaching out. The conversation about Chinese labor was shifting, but it did not by-and-large include actual Chinese people. By the time of the fateful [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|Sandlot rallies of 1877]], ex-internationalists turned Workingmen’s Party agitators did not go much further in public agitation than simply leaving Chinese people out of their denunciations of railroad barons while insisting they weren’t there to hold anti-Chinese meetings. Certainly a notable shift from earlier in the decade, but far from adequate to prevent the [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|catastrophe that unfolded]].

<big>'''Notes'''</big>

6. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron] 
7. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron], Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 222. ''Los Angeles Herald'', May 26, 1874. ''Marysville Daily Appeal'', May 26, 1874. “French Republican Banquet,” ''Sacramento Daily Union'', May 26, 1874. Michel Cordillot. 
8. Michel Cordillot [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159709 “CARON Charles,”] Le Maitron, [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159593 “LAFAIX Jean-René”] Le Maitron 
9. “Signs of the Times,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, March 27, 1875. ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 17, 1875. “Meeting of Working Men,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 24, 1875. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1878. “Meeting of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 8, 1875. “Meetings of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 15, 1875. “Meeting of Reformers,” May 22, 1875. B. F. French would remain active in Socialist causes in San Francisco and Los Angeles at least to 1901, later participating in the Bellamy inspired “Nationalist Movement” and the Socialist Party. 
12. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1875. 
13. Overbeck, ''The Tramp Printers'', 91-92. Joel Sachs, ''Henry Cowell: A Man Made of Music'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 13. 
14. Overbeck, The Tramp Printers., 99-100. Libby Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] FoundSF.org 
15. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] 
16. ''Common Sense'', October 24, 1874; “Flora Wellman Chaney,” ''Common Sense'', June 13, 1874. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing.”]] 
17 I highly recommend the Transmetropolitan Review’s zine/article “Who the Hell is Jack London,” though it does not take note of the radical home he was born into. [https://london.sonoma.edu/biographies/william-chaney “William Chaney,” Jack London Online]
18 Braude, ''Radical Spirits'', 172. Emanie Sachs, ''“The Terrible Siren”: Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927)'' (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1928), 217-218. ''Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly'', New York, May 18, 1872. “Common Sense Publishing Company,” ''Common Sense'', June 20, 1874. ''Common Sense'', April 24, 1875. 
19 Sachs, “The Terrible Siren,” 217-218. “In Memorium,” ''Liberty'', Boston, January 21, 1882. 
20. “Ah Hea Lea Speaks,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, September 26, 1874. Reprinted in Woodhull and Claflin’s ''Weekly'', October 17, 1874. “Chinese Labor,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, October 31, 1874. 
21. “Higher or Lower,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 22, 1875. “The Chinese Question,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 29, 1875.

<hr>

[[Image:Deconstructing-settler-socialism-cover-240px.jpg]]

''Excerpted from the chapter "On the Sandlot" in ''Deconstructing Settler Socialism: Anarchism and the Internationals in the Wild West'', published by Historical Seditions, 2025''

[[category:Labor]] [[category:French]] [[category:Chinese]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:Women]] [[category:1870s]] [[category:Book Excerpts]] [[category:Newspapers]] [[category:Media]]

Category:Book Excerpts

2026-07-19T04:41:30Z

Ccarlsson:

[[category:Theme]] [[category:Books]]

[[Image:American-Genocide-cover.jpg|200px]]

[[Hastings College of Law Built on Genocide?|Hastings College of Law Built on Genocide?]]

''Excerpted with permission from [http://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300230697/american-genocide ''An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873''] (Yale University Press: New Haven & London 2016)''

<hr>

[[Image:A-Negotiated-Landscape-book-cover.jpg|200px]]

[[A Waterfront Planned: The 1990s and the New Millennium|A Waterfront Planned: The 1990s and the New Millennium]]

[[The Embarcadero Reborn|The Embarcadero Reborn]]

[[The Waterfront Land Use Plan|The Waterfront Land Use Plan]]

[[Problems of Waterfront Planning|Problems of Waterfront Planning]]

[[A Waterfront for the People?|A Waterfront for the People?]]

The pages from this book [http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/N/bo12387078.html ''A Negotiated Landscape''] © 2011 Jasper Rubin and the Center for American Places at Columbia College Chicago, are excerpted with permission.

<hr>

[[Image:BART-cover-RGB-onlineuse.jpg|200px]]

''Originally published in [https://heydaybooks.com/catalog/bart-the-dramatic-history-of-the-bay-area-rapid-transit-system/ ''BART: The Dramatic History of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System'' Heyday Books]: Berkeley CA, 2016''

[[Key System and March of Progress|Key System and March of Progress]]

[[San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission—The Beginnings|San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission—The Beginnings]]

[[Planning and Selling BART|Planning and Selling BART]]

[[Building San Francisco's BART tunnels|Building San Francisco's BART tunnels]]

<hr>

[[Image:Bump-city-cover.jpg|200px]]

''Bump City'' by John Krich (City Miner Books, Berkeley CA: 1979);
Originally a chapter in ''Bump City'' called “Captain Sal and the Age of Irony”

[[Incredible Bottom of the Ninth Comeback! The Oakland A’s Win Game 5 of the 1972 World Series|Incredible Bottom of the Ninth Comeback! The Oakland A’s Win Game 5 of the 1972 World Series]]

<hr>

[[Image:Front-cover-web-resolution-72-dpi.jpg|200px]]

[[Chinatown Vice|Chinatown Vice]]

[[The Golden Dragon Restaurant Massacre|The Golden Dragon Restaurant Massacre]]

[[The Six Companies|The Six Companies]]

''By Kevin J. Mullen, excerpted with permission from "Chinatown Squad"''

<hr>

[[Image:Issel Church and State sm.jpg|200px]]

''From pages 1-6, the Introduction to [http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/2257_reg.html '''Church and State in the City: Catholics and Politics in Twentieth-Century San Francisco'''] by William Issel. Used by permission of Temple University Press. © 2013 by Temple University. All Rights Reserved.''

[[Catholic San Francisco: A City of Contests|Catholic San Francisco: A City of Contests]]

<hr>

[[Image:CGC-cover.jpg|200px|]]

''Excerpted with permission from [http://bloomsbury.com/us/cool-gray-city-of-love-9781608199600/ Bloomsbury], from the book “Cool Gray City of Love” available here: [http://www.indiebound.org/book/9781608199600 IndieBound], [http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100740730 City Lights], [http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Gray-City-Love-Francisco/dp/1608199606/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386633018&sr=1-1&keywords=cool+gray+city+of+love+49+views+of+san+francisco Amazon], and [http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/cool-gray-city-of-love-gary-kamiya/1114764186?ean=9781608199600 B&N].''

[[Searching for the Yelamu in San Francisco|Searching for the Yelamu in San Francisco]]

[[Western Addition: A Basic History|Western Addition: A Basic History]]

<hr>

[[Image:Copaganda-cover-288px.jpg|200px]]

''Copyright © 2025 by Alec Karakatsanis. This excerpt originally appeared in [https://thenewpress.org/books/copaganda/ ''Copaganda: How Police and the Media Manipulate Our News''], published by The New Press. Reprinted here with permission.''

[[Copaganda: The Recall of DA Chesa Boudin|Copaganda: The Recall of DA Chesa Boudin]]

<hr>

[[Image:Deconstructing-settler-socialism-cover-240px.jpg|200px]]

''Excerpted from the chapter "On the Sandlot" in ''Deconstructing Settler Socialism: Anarchism and the Internationals in the Wild West'', published by Historical Seditions, 2025''

[[Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor|Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor]]

<hr>

[[Image:labor1$waitresses$dishout_itm$dish-cover.jpg|200px]]

[http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/86dnq7dp9780252061868.html ''Dishing It Out: Waitresses and Their Unions in the Twentieth Century''], by Dorothy Sue Cobble (1991: University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago

[[WAITRESSES and UNIONS The Fruits of Solidarity|WAITRESSES and UNIONS The Fruits of Solidarity]]

<hr>

[[Image:Paulson cover 200px.jpg]]

Excerpted from ''Forty Years of Making ‘Good Trouble’—The Selected Writings of a San Francisco Labor Leader'' © Tim Paulson, 2021

First published in the U.S. by Senders Communications Group, 16501 Ventura Blvd. #400, Encino, CA 91436

[[Labor and the San Francisco Universal Health Care Security Ordinance|Labor and the San Francisco Universal Health Care Security Ordinance]]

[[San Francisco is Beautiful, Difficult — but still a Union City|San Francisco is Beautiful, Difficult — but still a Union City]]

[[SF Labor Council Helps Cruise Line Workers|SF Labor Council Helps Cruise Line Workers]]

<hr>

[[Image:Free-City-cover.jpg|200px]]

''Originally published as the Epilogue in ''[https://pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=1141 Free City! The Fight for San Francisco's City College and Education for All]'' by PM Press, 2021''

[[City College of SF: One Struggle Sets the Table for the Next|City College of SF: One Struggle Sets the Table for the Next]]

'''The following pages are not excerpted directly from this book, but are earlier versions that ended up after further revisions as chapters.'''

[[Education ‘Reform’ Meets Gentrification in San Francisco at City College|Education ‘Reform’ Meets Gentrification in San Francisco at City College]]

[[City College Faculty Fights for Fairness|City College Faculty Fights for Fairness]]

[[Development Pressure Engulfs City College|Development Pressure Engulfs City College]]

<hr>

[[Image:Gods-hotel-cover.jpg|200px]]

''from [http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/306891/gods-hotel-by-victoria-sweet/9781594486548 ''God's Hotel: A Doctor, A Hospital, and a Pilgrimage to the Heart of Medicine''] by Victoria Sweet, copyright © 2012 by Victoria Sweet. Used by permission of Riverhead, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.''

[[Laguna Honda Hospital|Laguna Honda Hospital]]

<hr>

[[Image:Front cover.jpg|200px]]

Excerpted from ''[https://www.amazon.com/God-Squad-Born-Again-Francisco-Giants/dp/1631322079/ The God Squad: The Born-Again San Francisco Giants of 1978].''

[[BOO! The Giants' Johnnie LeMaster|BOO! The Giants' Johnnie LeMaster]]

[[Dave Dravecky's Miraculous Comeback|Dave Dravecky's Miraculous Comeback]]

[[The God Squad|The God Squad]]

[[Jack Clark's Revenge on the Dodgers|Jack Clark's Revenge on the Dodgers]]

[[Mike Ivie: The Miracle Man|Mike Ivie: The Miracle Man]]

<hr>

[[Image:Baranski-Housing-City-by-the-Bay-Cover-288px.jpg|200px]]

''Excerpted from [https://www.sup.org/books/history/housing-city-bay ''Housing the City by the Bay: Tenant Activism, Civil Rights, and Class Politics in San Francisco''] by John Baranski, published by Stanford University Press. Used by permission. © Copyright 2019 by John Baranski. All rights reserved.''

[[Post-1906 Quake Housing Reform|Post-1906 Quake Housing Reform]]

[[Burnham Plan and Tenement Housing|Burnham Plan and Tenement Housing]]

[[San Francisco Housing Association|San Francisco Housing Association]]

[[California Commission of Immigration and Housing|California Commission of Immigration and Housing]]

[[World War I Housing Reform Effort|World War I Housing Reform Effort]]

[[Segregated and Substandard Housing in the 1920s|Segregated and Substandard Housing in the 1920s]]

[[Housing Crisis Worsens at Start of Depression|Housing Crisis Worsens at Start of Depression]]

[[Chinatown Tenants Win Public Housing Rent Strike|Chinatown Tenants Win Public Housing Rent Strike]]

[[San Francisco Housing Authority and Mayor Moscone|San Francisco Housing Authority and Mayor Moscone]]

[[San Francisco Housing Authority Tries to Buy I-Hotel|San Francisco Housing Authority Tries to Buy I-Hotel]]

[[San Francisco Housing Authority and CANE|San Francisco Housing Authority and CANE]]

[[San Francisco Housing Authority in the 1970s|San Francisco Housing Authority in the 1970s]]

[[Neoliberalism Dismantles Public Housing|Neoliberalism Dismantles Public Housing]]

[[SF Housing Authority Copes With Neoliberalism|SF Housing Authority Copes With Neoliberalism]]

[[Homelessness Surges in Wake of Neoliberalism|Homelessness Surges in Wake of Neoliberalism]]

[[Pink Palace Controversy|Pink Palace Controversy]]

[[Public Housing Tenant Movement Fractures|Public Housing Tenant Movement Fractures]]

[[Safety Net Torn Up by Government|Safety Net Torn Up by Government]]

<hr>

[[Image:Industrial-Cowboys-cover.jpg|200px|]]

''This excerpt from [https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520245341/industrial-cowboys ''Industrial Cowboys Miller & Lux and the Transformation of the Far West, 1850-1920''] is used with permission. © David Igler, University of California Press: 2001''

[[Miller & Lux and the Dirty Plate Route|Miller & Lux and the Dirty Plate Route]]

<hr>

[[Image:Latinos-at-the-golden-gate-cover.jpg|200px]]

''excerpted from '''[http://www.uncpress.unc.edu/browse/book_detail?title_id=3444 Latinos at the Golden Gate: Creating Community and Identity in San Francisco]''', by Tomás F. Summers Sandoval Jr., Copyright © 2013 by the [http://www.uncpress.unc.edu University of North Carolina Press]. Used by permission of the publisher.''

[[Midcentury Migrations|Midcentury Migrations]]

[[Tributary to San Francisco|Tributary to San Francisco]]

<hr>

[[Image:Lee-Felsenstein-book-cover 200px.jpg]]

Excerpted with permission from: ''Me and My Big Ideas: Counterculture, Social Media, and the Future'' by Lee Felsenstein published by [https://www.FelsenSigns.com FelsenSigns]

[[Free Speech Movement 1964|Free Speech Movement 1964]]

[[Working at Ampex|Working at Ampex]]

[[Berkeley Barb and People's Park|Berkeley Barb and People's Park]]

[[Founding of Ohlone Park|Founding of Ohlone Park]]

[[Resource One|Resource One]]

[[Installing a Mainframe at Project One|Installing a Mainframe at Project One]]

[[Community Memory: The Beginning|Community Memory: The Beginning]]

[[Community Memory Evolves|Community Memory Evolves]]

[[Homebrew Computer Club|Homebrew Computer Club]]

[[Reflections on the End of Community Memory|Reflections on the End of Community Memory]]

[[Craigslist|Craigslist]]

<hr>

[[Image:Karl-book-2258 reg.gif]]

[[Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition|Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition]]

[[Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s|Rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods in Early 2000s]]

''Excerpts from [http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/2258_reg.html '''Local Protest, Global Movements: Capital, Community, and State In San Francisco'''] by Karl Beitel. Used by permission of Temple University Press. © 2013 by Temple University. All Rights Reserved.''

<hr>

[[Image:Berglund-Making-San-Francisco-American-cover.jpg|200px]]

''Exerpts from [https://kuecprd.ku.edu/~upress/cgi-bin/award-winners/978-0-7006-1722-7.html ''Making San Francisco American: Cultural Frontiers in the Urban West, 1846-1906''] by Barbara Berglund (University Press of Kansas: Lawrence KS 2007)''

[[California Midwinter Fair of 1894: An Orientalist Exposition|California Midwinter Fair of 1894: An Orientalist Exposition]]

[[California Midwinter Fair of 1894: ’49 Mining Camp glorifies Gold Rush Fantasies|California Midwinter Fair of 1894: ’49 Mining Camp glorifies Gold Rush Fantasies]]

[[California Midwinter Fair of 1894: Women’s Work and Vice|California Midwinter Fair of 1894: Women’s Work and Vice]]

[[California Midwinter Fair of 1894: Depression and Poverty|California Midwinter Fair of 1894: Depression and Poverty]]

<hr>

[[Image:Medicine of Memoroy 9780292752672.jpg|200px]]

''Excerpted with permission from [https://utpress.utexas.edu/9780292752672/the-medicine-of-memory/| ''The Medicine of Memory''] by Alejandro Murguía, published by the University of Texas Press, 2002.''

[[The "Good Old Mission Days" Never Existed!|The "Good Old Mission Days" Never Existed!]]

<hr>

[[Image:Mission-High-book-cover.jpg|200px]]

''Excerpted with permission from ''Mission High: One School, How Experts Tried to Fail It, and the Students and Teachers Who Made It Triumph'', [https://www.boldtypebooks.com/titles/kristina-rizga/mission-high/9781568584621/ Bold Type Books]: 2015''

[[Mission High School’s Innovative Anti-Racist Teaching|Mission High School’s Innovative Anti-Racist Teaching]]

[[Desegregating San Francisco Public Schools in the 1960s|Desegregating San Francisco Public Schools in the 1960s]]

<hr>

[[Image:More Than Shelter cover.jpg|200px]]

[[San Francisco Housing Authority 1937-1965: The Early Decades|San Francisco Housing Authority 1937-1965: The Early Decades]]

''Excerpted from [https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/more-than-shelter ''More than Shelter: Activism and Community in San Francisco Public Housing''] by Amy L. Howard. Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press. © Copyright 2014 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.''

<hr>

[[Image:Neon-Girls-book-cover.jpg|200px]]

[[Strip-Club Business: A Brief History|Strip-Club Business: A Brief History]]

''by Jennifer Worley, excerpted from [https://www.harpercollins.com/products/neon-girls-jennifer-worley?variant=32206140571682 ''Neon Girls: A Stripper's Education in Protest and Power''] HarperCollins Books: 2020,'' a first-hand account of the epic union organizing campaign at the Lusty Lady Club in North Beach.''

<hr>

[[Image:Nanette-Jordan-Book-Cover.jpg|200px]]

"Originally published in [https://www.amazon.com/Painting-Paintings-gilded-memoir-Revised/dp/B09TRLHBR2/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= ''Painting on Paintings: A Gilded Memoir''], ''2022. Excerpted with Nanette Jordan's permission. ''

[[Sutro Baths Eerie Ice Rink|Sutro Baths Eerie Ice Rink]]

[[Playland is a Nightmare|Playland is a Nightmare]]

<hr>

[[Image:SFBay-History-WEB2-360x570.jpg|200px]]

''Excerpted from David D. Schmidt's ''San Francisco Bay Area: An Environmental History.'' Available from [https://backcountrypress.com/book/san-francisco-bay-area/ Backcountry Press].''

[[Abalone Boom and Bust|Abalone Boom and Bust]]

[[Bay Area Military Bases|Bay Area Military Bases]]

[[Borax King and Key System in East Bay|Borax King and Key System in East Bay]]

[[Chinese Shrimp Camps Along The Bay|Chinese Shrimp Camps Along The Bay]]

[[David Hewes and His Steam Paddy Works|David Hewes and His Steam Paddy Works]]

[[Edgar and Peggy Wayburn, Phillip Burton Saved Vast Lands|Edgar and Peggy Wayburn, Phillip Burton Saved Vast Lands]]

[[Filling The Bay Along San Francisco’s Southern Waterfront|Filling The Bay Along San Francisco’s Southern Waterfront]]

[[Mercury Mining|Mercury Mining]]

[[Oysters, Pirates, and Pollution|Oysters, Pirates, and Pollution]]

[[Restoring Natural Areas in San Francisco|Restoring Natural Areas in San Francisco]]

[[Restoring Natural Areas on Federal Lands in San Francisco: Presidio and Fort Funston|Restoring Natural Areas on Federal Lands in San Francisco: Presidio and Fort Funston]]

[[San Francisco's Drinking Water|San Francisco's Drinking Water]]

[[San Francisco's Garbage: From Mission Bay to Altamont|San Francisco's Garbage: From Mission Bay to Altamont]]

[[San Francisco’s Struggles With Sewage, 1860s-1990s|San Francisco’s Struggles With Sewage, 1860s-1990s]]

[[Saving Richardson Bay; Harold Gilliam Sounds the Alarm 1955-58|Saving Richardson Bay; Harold Gilliam Sounds the Alarm 1955-58]]

[[When Crab Was King at Fisherman’s Wharf|When Crab Was King at Fisherman’s Wharf]]

<hr>

[[Image:Secret-Ugly-full-cover 6-inches.jpg|200px]]

''Excerpted from ''The Secret Ugly: The Hidden History of US Germ War in Korea'' by Thomas Powell, [mailto:edgewatereditions@gmail.com Edgewater Editions]: 2023.''

[[War in Korea|War in Korea]]

[[Powell/Schuman Sedition Trial|Powell/Schuman Sedition Trial]]

[[Bill Powell Exposes Post-WWII US-Japan Germ War Deal|Bill Powell Exposes Post-WWII US-Japan Germ War Deal]]

[[Growing Up ‘Red’ in 1950s San Francisco|Growing Up ‘Red’ in 1950s San Francisco]]

<hr>

[[Image:Sixth-star-cover-72-dpi-4x5.jpg|200px]]

'''Sixth Star book cover'''

[[The Sixth Star|The Sixth Star]]

[[Women's Suffrage 1870|Women's Suffrage 1870]]

[[Ellen Clark Sargent|Ellen Clark Sargent]]

[[Emily Pitts Stevens|Emily Pitts Stevens]]

[[Women’s Co-operative Printing Union|Women’s Co-operative Printing Union]]

[[West Coast Women's Congress Association|West Coast Women's Congress Association]]

[[Suffragettes Gather|Suffragettes Gather]]

[[Sarah B. Cooper|Sarah B. Cooper]]

[[The Bifurcated Skirt|The Bifurcated Skirt]]

[[First California Women in Law|First California Women in Law]]

[[Nellie Holbrook Blinn|Nellie Holbrook Blinn]]

[[Elizabeth Lowe Watson|Elizabeth Lowe Watson]]

[[Championing the Working Woman|Championing the Working Woman]]

<hr>

[[Image:Coyote sleeping-where-I-fall-cover.jpg|200px]]

''Excerpted with permission from "Sleeping Where I Fall" by [http://www.petercoyote.com/sleeping.html Peter Coyote], published by Counterpoint, Washington, D.C., 1998''

[[The Digger Concept of 'Free'|The Digger Concept of 'Free']]

<hr>

[[Image:Street fight 9781613762608.jpg|200px]]

[[Second Freeway Revolt|Second Freeway Revolt]]

[[Conservative Fight to Save Central Freeway|Conservative Fight to Save Central Freeway]]

[[Dueling Ballots: The Central Freeway’s Fate|Dueling Ballots: The Central Freeway’s Fate]]

These articles are excerpted, with permission, from Henderson's book [http://www.umass.edu/umpress/title/street-fight ''Street Fight: The Politics of Mobility in San Francisco''], © 2013

<hr>

[[Image:Streetopia cover 9780692424285.jpg|200px|left]] ''Excerpts from [https://www.ericadawnlyle.info/streetopiabook ''Streetopia''], in the essay "The Uses of Market Street"''

[[Redevelopment vs. Ecotopia|Redevelopment vs. Ecotopia]]

[[San Francisco Singularity?|San Francisco Singularity?]]

[[Uses of Market Street|Uses of Market Street]]

[[Problem with Parklets|Problem with Parklets]]

<hr>

[[Image:Roxanas Children book cover.jpg|200px]]

[[Yankee Women|Yankee Women]]

''Excerpted from ''Roxana's Children: The Biography of a Nineteenth-Century Vermont Family'' by Lynn A. Bonfield and Mary C. Morrison (Amherst: © 1995, University of Massachusetts Press)''.''

Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor

2026-07-19T04:39:00Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Gia Vogerl''

[[Image:Common-Sense-Masthead 081836.jpg]]

'''Radical Spiritualist newspaper of the 1870s.'''

The historian Hubert Perrier noted that many francophone Sections [of the Workingmen's Party of the United States] focused much of their energy on supporting refugees in the aftermath of the Paris Commune. San Francisco’s French Section did not remain neutral, but prisoner solidarity work nevertheless sustained their activity in later years. Many francophone Sections sent money to former Communards and served as a stopover or even final destination for exiles. East Coast ports provided the easiest entry for Communards who had escaped into exile, some of whom eventually took the railroad across the continent to try life in San Francisco. Benjamin Flotte arrived through this route, as did former gold miner Émile Bée who returned to California after the Commune. Yet San Francisco internationalists went a step further.(6)

Numerous Communards were imprisoned on the Pacific penal colony at New Caledonia, near New Zealand. San Francisco became a hub as the first friendly port of call for those who escaped on passing American ships. Escapees thus followed the wake of Bakunin’s transpacific flight from Siberia. Upon arrival they could expect material support and lavish public receptions by the local International. Henri Rochefort, François Jourde, and Paschal Grousset received banquets in their honor upon their arrival in Spring of 1874. One hundred and forty “French Republicans” attended one such banquet on May 25. A standing committee was established to prepare welcome receptions for all future escapees from the prison islands.(7)

Present at one of these banquets was Charles Caron, a founding member of New Orleans’ International French Section. That Section apparently suffered a split after Caron and his associates passionately argued for creating a socialist colony. Caron’s visit to San Francisco may have been intended to strengthen connections with old Icarians like J.R. Lafaix who remained active in the city. Icarians would later build on these connections to establish a new colony in California.(8)

Commemorations of the Commune provided continuing visibility for the local International. An 1875 anniversary banquet reported in local newspapers and the radical Spiritualist paper ''Common Sense'' helped inspire a new burst of activity. The March 18 celebration was filled with multi-lingual speeches, bringing together “French, Americans, and a few Germans.” The banquet helped spark a revival of internationalist activity. A month later, Dashaway Hall hosted the first in a series of weekly meetings to “discuss the relations of Capital and Labor, employers and employed, laws affecting production and exchange, etc.” under the auspices of the “International Workingmen.” B. F. French, a member of the American Section’s executive committee in 1872, took the chair of the first meeting and participated in the followups. After several meetings, attendees resolved to create a “Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform” to carry out public debates; French was elected first vice-president.(9)

<big>'''Consensus Challenged'''</big>

From its founding and through the split in the International Workingmen’s Association, the local English-language American Section stood firmly against Chinese labor and immigration. Local French and German Sections joined them. This stance, however, placed the American Section at odds with the majority of “Yankee Radicals” affiliated with the International elsewhere, particularly those overlapping with Spiritualist circles. It is thus quite notable that for a brief period starting in the mid-1870s, some San Francisco internationalists joined Healey in turning away from demonizing Chinese workers. Notably, a number of Spiritualist radicals continued their local activity and moved to oppose racial exclusion, aligning them with their East Coast brethren. Perhaps continued discourse at ongoing workingmen’s Lyceums on how to achieve workers’ emancipation helped soften participants’ racist views.

[[Image:William-N-Slocum 081911.gif]]

'''William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'''''

One speaker and participant at the Dashaway Hall “International Workingmen” meetings was William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'' with his wife Amanda. W.N. was journalist by trade, an old Republican Spiritualist and abolitionist who broke with the Republican party as it catered increasingly to business interests. Alongside bits of Spiritualist discourse and reports on Spiritualist meetings, ''Common Sense’s'' pages were filled with reports and articles pertaining to temperance, free thought, and anti-monopoly politics. The paper’s title referred to Thomas Paine’s famous revolutionary pamphlet. The Slocums’ paper provided frequent accounts of meetings by San Francisco Lyceums and various interconnected reform movements.(12)

Amanda’s close involvement with ''Common Sense'' was part of a [[Women in Printing|broad movement of women publishers and typographers]]. Women participated in the printing trade since its inception in the 15th century, even as their vital role was often overshadowed by male counterparts. Family-run print shops required involvement from wives and daughters of the men named on the marquee. They participated in all steps of the process from typesetting to editorializing. Widows commonly ran such enterprises after their husbands died. Independent-minded women found ways to learn the trade despite exclusion from formal apprenticeship systems. One journal estimated that half of working compositors in US towns were women in the mid-nineteenth century. Clara Dixon produced her first political pamphlet using a “toy typesetting device” and later published anarchist newspapers in San Francisco in the early 1890s. Early feminist movements were buoyed by women-run periodicals.(13)

During San Francisco’s early years, the succession of all-male typographical unions forbade contract shops from hiring women. Patriarchal chauvinism was often articulated through economic excuses; “feminizing” the profession would lead to lower wages. During labor disputes owners often took advantage of these fears by hiring white women to set type. In response, labor-minded white women joined with sympathetic male counterparts to demand union membership and “equal pay for equal work” as a means to short-circuit employers’ threats. A Women’s Typographical Union was founded in New York in 1868. The next year the International Typographical Union’s convention lifted its outright ban on women’s membership, though the aforementioned dispute over Susan B. Anthony’s seating at the National Labor Union underlines the vitriolic debates involved. Four years later the ITU recommended all locals admit women on an equal basis, yet inclusion was merely optional for another decade. Many locals, including San Francisco’s, persisted in excluding white women until the ITU formalized gender inclusion in its constitution by the 1880s. A pronounced gender-pay gap persisted outside of union shops. Notably, despite similar arguments made for including non-white members, racial inclusion remained off the table for the time being.(14)

The white women who moved west seeking greater autonomy for themselves included many typographers. San Francisco emerged as a notable center. The city’s first women-run and typeset literary magazine, ''The Hesperian'', was founded in 1858. Lisle Lester took over editorship in 1863 and renamed the publication to ''Pacific Monthly''. In 1865 she attempted to form a Women’s Typographical Union but the effort failed and the ''Pacific Monthly'' folded in 1868. Women were only able to obtain work at low-paying non-union shops. Continued exclusion prompted Agnes Peterson to found the Women’s Co-Operative Printing Union the same year as the ''Pacific Monthly'' ended. The WCPU put out a weekly newspaper and provided job-printing services for a wide-array of books, pamphlets, legal briefs, and more.(15)

[[Image:Womenprinting grayscale.jpg]]

''Image from ''West Coast Journal, May 18, 1870'' sourced at Bancroft Library''

Flora Chaney and her then-husband William (aka Dr. W.H. Chaney) were another couple closely associated with ''Common Sense''. Both Flora and William were agents for the paper, “authorized to receive subscriptions.” They were prominent lecturers in and beyond San Francisco’s reform scene and Flora was noted as a talented public-speaking instructor. In early 1875 the Slocum’s purchased the office and printing equipment of a Women’s Pacific Coast Publishing Company founded by a former leader of the WCPU. Amanda and Flora ran the shop together, maintaining it as a “women’s office.”(16)

Later that same year, Flora was pregnant. In June she shot herself in a failed suicide attempt after William rejected becoming a father. According to a contemporary newspaper account, he attempted to convince her to abort the child. She refused. William later claimed the child wasn’t his. He insisted he was in fact sterile and that Flora had other lovers, perhaps within their broad Spiritualist community of Free Love supporters. William soon distanced himself from those local Spiritualists that promoted Free Love and had nothing to do with raising Flora’s child. Flora was taken into the Slocum home, where she gave birth to a son who would become one of San Francisco’s most famous radicals: [[JACK LONDON|Jack London]].(17)

Alongside the Slocums, ''Common Sense’s'' management included one Albert Kendrick. During the paper’s run Albert married the Medium and close associate of Victoria Woodhull, Laura Cuppy Smith (who took Albert’s surname). Laura was a trance speaker who first arrived in San Francisco in the 1860s and was one of the first prominent women orators in the city. Notices and accounts of her speeches were frequent matter for ''Common Sense''. She was also one of three trance speakers sent to present the first petition for women’s suffrage to the California state legislature. Laura traveled to the 1872 Equal Rights Convention that nominated Woodhull for president and the next year defended Woodhull in court from obscenity charges. She has been described as Woodhull’s “only intimate friend,” though Woodhull later turned her back on Laura.(18)

Laura was a driving force in San Francisco internationalists’ softening of their previously bitter Sinophobic stance. Unwavering defense of her firm belief in universal equality led many former associates to later reject her, sometimes leaving Laura a “radical without a following because she fought injustice everywhere.” When she passed away in 1882 following a stroke at the age of 49, Boston anarchist Benjamin Tucker eulogized her with a glowing obituary that declared “Liberty has lost an apostle – one of her most tried and true defenders, one of her most courageous soldiers, one of her most ardent advocates, one of her most devoted martyrs.” She first left California in the early 1870s; whether she participated in the founding of the local American Section is unclear. Yet when she returned to San Francisco in 1874 to find “labor agitation… coming to the front,” she “plunged into it, body and soul.” Laura brought with her the ideals of cross-racial solidarity in debates over Chinese immigration that characterized some East Coast radicals, Spiritualists in particular. While many other agitators were denouncing Chinese workers, Tucker claimed she “championed” them.(19)

Discourse on the “Chinese Question” was relatively frequent in ''Common Sense''. Some correspondents parroted common Sinophobic talking points but were usually met with rebuttals. In Fall 1874, a comment negatively prophesying that Chinese people were the “future workers of America” was met with a reply by an apparent Chinese slippermaker named Ah Hea Lea. Ah Hea Lea claimed to favor the rest of ''Common Sense’s'' radical material and asserted bluntly that Chinese people were not to blame for the societal ills the paper campaigned against. His letter was paired with an editorial comment admitting that Chinese people had a “natural right” to come but that it was also perfectly natural for their arrival to face opposition. Whichever Slocum penned that reply nevertheless admitted benefits to Chinese labor, as well as “improvidence” on the part of white workingmen, concluding that “it remains an open question whether it would not be better for our own people to discourage the importation and employment of Chinese.” The columns of ''Common Sense'' were declared “open to all honest, earnest expression of opinion on this subject, on either side.” Ah Hea Lea wrote another reply, asserting that the “improvidence” attributed to white workingmen in the form of drinking and frivolous purchases was in fact an integral if potentially harmful aspect of the American economy. He once again came to the defense of Chinese laborers, insisting they were the only ones in the state willing to do all the hard “work that must be done.”(20)

Following Ah Hea Lea’s submissions and the letter from Healey was an ongoing exchange for and against the presence Chinese workers in back-to-back May 1875 issues just prior to the paper’s end. A “P” wrote to ''Common Sense'' to decry what he saw as a link between “Asiatic Labor” and “the rapid accumulation of capital in the hands of a few.” Yet P did at least allow that “we need not… entertain the idea that he can be driven from our shores… this is a free country ‘for the oppressed of all nations.’” P instead argued for white labor to “make a new departure” toward (segregated) cooperative systems. Dr. Pilkington wrote a reply arguing that:

<blockquote>Prejudice against the Chinese is not confined to the Irish alone, but seems to prevail in proportion to the ignorance of the masses, and to some extent, amongst a more intelligent portion, some of whom take the ground that this country belongs to the white man alone, supposing that because they are whiter than some of their neighbors, this entitles them to a preference, merit or no merit.</blockquote>

By taking on lower paying jobs manufacturing goods previously imported from elsewhere, Pilkington asserted that Chinese workers made possible a plethora of new industries that also provided higher-waged employment to white men. Pilkington also praised what he saw as Chinese tendencies toward “communistic and co-operative” living and labor that, like Reclus, he thought “far more” pronounced “than white men.”(21)

The shifting views of San Francisco’s internationalists regarding Chinese labor by no means evaded orientalist or paternalistic tropes and were often articulated through a settler colonialist developmental logic. It is also doubtful that they had especially broad reach outside the pages of Common Sense and English-language Lyceum debating circles. Some notable advocates of cross-racial solidarity like Pat Healey labored for wages in trades alongside numerous Chinese counterparts, but many vocal advocates could hardly be called “working-class.” Far more local white tradespeople were likely members of the contemporary anti-coolie clubs than attendees of the “Lyceum for Self Culture” or meetings of the Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform. The transformation may not have translated into the International’s French and German Sections; the latter was the largest local Section upon the Tenth Ward International’s merger into the Workingmen’s Party. A quarterly broadside circulated by the Tenth Ward council in 1875 noted that San Francisco’s German and French Sections (1 and 2) were attempting to mediate conflicts occurring in New York Sections, but mentioned that the American Section (3) “takes no part in this.” While all of the Sections would ultimately join the new Party, a breach could perhaps have opened between San Francisco’s local groups. Continuing anti-Chinese racism by SF’s German Workingmen’s Party members will be discussed shortly.(22)

''Common Sense'' seems to have folded after May 1875, leaving a gap in the ability to track the evolution of this discourse. No other local papers provided detailed accounts of the local International during this late period or of the early days of the Workingmen’s Party of the United States. The limited correspondence available with the central office in New York during the middle of the decade is likewise silent on the matter. A challenge to the prior racist consensus of the local International was nevertheless clearly emerging from the Spiritualist milieu within San Francisco’s American Section.

Aside from Ah Hea Lea, though, there is no evidence of actual conversations with Chinese people. Given Ah’s own proactive outreach, they may have simply relied on Chinese people coming to them rather than actively reaching out. The conversation about Chinese labor was shifting, but it did not by-and-large include actual Chinese people. By the time of the fateful [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|Sandlot rallies of 1877]], ex-internationalists turned Workingmen’s Party agitators did not go much further in public agitation than simply leaving Chinese people out of their denunciations of railroad barons while insisting they weren’t there to hold anti-Chinese meetings. Certainly a notable shift from earlier in the decade, but far from adequate to prevent the [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|catastrophe that unfolded]].

<big>'''Notes'''</big>

6. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php? article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron] 
7. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php? article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron], Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 222. ''Los Angeles Herald'', May 26, 1874. ''Marysville Daily Appeal'', May 26, 1874. “French Republican Banquet,” ''Sacramento Daily Union'', May 26, 1874. Michel Cordillot. 
8. Michel Cordillot [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159709 “CARON Charles,”] Le Maitron, [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159593 “LAFAIX Jean-René”] Le Maitron 
9. “Signs of the Times,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, March 27, 1875. ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 17, 1875. “Meeting of Working Men,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 24, 1875. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1878. “Meeting of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 8, 1875. “Meetings of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 15, 1875. “Meeting of Reformers,” May 22, 1875. B. F. French would remain active in Socialist causes in San Francisco and Los Angeles at least to 1901, later participating in the Bellamy inspired “Nationalist Movement” and the Socialist Party. 
12. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1875. 
13. Overbeck, ''The Tramp Printers'', 91-92. Joel Sachs, ''Henry Cowell: A Man Made of Music'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 13. 
14. Overbeck, The Tramp Printers., 99-100. Libby Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] FoundSF.org 
15. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] 
16. ''Common Sense'', October 24, 1874; “Flora Wellman Chaney,” ''Common Sense'', June 13, 1874. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing.”]] 
17 I highly recommend the Transmetropolitan Review’s zine/article “Who the Hell is Jack London,” though it does not take note of the radical home he was born into. [https://london.sonoma.edu/biographies/william-chaney “William Chaney,” Jack London Online]
18 Braude, ''Radical Spirits'', 172. Emanie Sachs, ''“The Terrible Siren”: Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927)'' (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1928), 217-218. ''Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly'', New York, May 18, 1872. “Common Sense Publishing Company,” ''Common Sense'', June 20, 1874. ''Common Sense'', April 24, 1875. 
19 Sachs, “The Terrible Siren,” 217-218. “In Memorium,” ''Liberty'', Boston, January 21, 1882. 
20. “Ah Hea Lea Speaks,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, September 26, 1874. Reprinted in Woodhull and Claflin’s ''Weekly'', October 17, 1874. “Chinese Labor,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, October 31, 1874. 
21. “Higher or Lower,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 22, 1875. “The Chinese Question,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 29, 1875.

<hr>

[[Image:Deconstructing-settler-socialism-cover-240px.jpg]]

''Excerpted from the chapter "On the Sandlot" in ''Deconstructing Settler Socialism: Anarchism and the Internationals in the Wild West'', published by Historical Seditions, 2025''

[[category:Labor]] [[category:French]] [[category:Chinese]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:Women]] [[category:1870s]] [[category:Book Excerpts]] [[category:Newspapers]] [[category:Media]]

File:Deconstructing-settler-socialism-cover-240px.jpg

2026-07-19T04:37:41Z

Ccarlsson:

File:Phil.jpg

2026-07-19T04:33:13Z

Ccarlsson:

The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation

2026-07-19T04:32:32Z

Ccarlsson: added cartoon

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Chris Carlsson, 1995''

[[Image:Labor1%24kearny-on-nob-hill-1877.jpg]]

'''Kearney speaks to 2000 workers in front of Crocker Mansion at top of Nob Hill, Oct. 1877.'''

<div>
<flashmp3>http://www.archive.org/download/DenisKearny/KEARNY.mp3</flashmp3>
</div>

''Dramatized rendition of speech by Denis Kearney in 1877, denouncing Chinese workers and capitalists in equal parts. Recorded by Haight Ashbury Community Radio Project, 1980.''

{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"
| colspan="2" |'''In the 1870s, tensions ran high between workers and the owning class as well as between white and Chinese laborers. This socio-political context allowed Denis Kearney to gain power as a voice for workingmen against the capitalists and the Chinese people they employed. He founded the Workingmen’s Party of California, which quickly became a major force in San Francisco city government through its platform of anti-monopolism and anti-Chinese racism until it collapsed at the end of 1880.'''
|}

During the height of the 8-hour movement, radicalized white workers denounced capital and the owning class, but they also were already blaming “coolie” labor for dragging wages downward. The completion of the Transcontinental Railroad led to a big influx of skilled Chinese workers, who came to dominate employment in cigar making, shoe making, and textiles. Thousands of white workers came to San Francisco during this same period, seeking work out west in the wake of the economic depression back east. But the railroad brought the depression along with the workers.

By 1877, the “Great Uprising” in the east, focused around a nationwide rail strike, led to rebellious excitement among San Francisco's unemployed. [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|Demonstrations]] were held nightly in the sandlots surrounding City Hall in the Civic Center area. [[WASP: Bipartisan Consensus and the Rise of the Workingmen's Party of California|The Workingmen's Party]] of the United States, a socialist party which had absorbed the remnants of the US section of Karl Marx's International Workingmen's Association (a.k.a. the 1st International) after its collapse in 1876, called for a mass meeting in the sandlots for the evening of July 23, 1877. The police arrested men who were advertising the meeting with a banner earlier in the day, and by that night, the entire police force and militia were on alert to prevent the rumored attack on the [[Pacific Mail Steamship Company|Pacific Mail Steamship]] Docks at Brannan St. in Mission Bay. (Pacific Mail was the primary means of transit for Chinese immigrant workers, and they were hated as much as was their chief employer/importer, the Central Pacific Railroad.)

The official speakers spoke against Capital, and against granting franchises, and land and money subsidies to private parties, and so on. But when no mention was made of the Chinese (scapegoated by white workers as "coolie" labor, driving wages downward, but also the object of widespread virulent racism), a crowd of toughs from a neighborhood “ward club” (the local structure of the Democratic Party) invaded the rally. Before long an angry mob stormed off and by the next day over 20 Chinese laundries had been destroyed, as was a plumbing shop, and the Chinese Methodist Mission was stoned. It was the worst riot San Francisco had ever had at that point.

[[Image:P03-04Riot-1877-Chandler.jpg]]

'''Rioting workers at site of [[Old City Hall of SF|Old City Hall]], today's [[WEEDS|Main Library]], in Civic Center'''

''Image: Robert Chandler, via ''Chinatown Squad'' by Kevin J. Mullen''

Within two days, the "Committee of Safety" had organized 4,000 members into a “Pick-Handle Brigade” which dissuaded rioting whites from burning the Pacific Mail docks, though the mob set fire to a nearby lumber mill, and attacked those who tried to control the blaze. A fierce battle with dozens of police charges finally managed to route the rioters, leaving four dead, and fourteen wounded. Smaller riots and fires took place in other parts of the city. The Pick-Handle Brigade suppressed the violence and three days later, the California governor telegraphed the U.S. Secretary of the Navy that the danger had passed.

[[Image:Labor1%24dennis-kearney.jpg]]

'''One member of the Pick-Handle Brigade was an Irishman named Denis Kearney.'''

He was known from regular appearances at the Sunday meetings of the Lyceum for Self-Culture. Andrew Saxton, in ''The Indispensable Enemy'', describes Kearney:

<blockquote>“He was apparently gripped at the time by the familiar syndrome of the self-made man: he praised diligence and individual go-getterism—by implication his own—and denounced the indolence of workingmen.”</blockquote>

His political ambitions, however, helped him see that a Labor Party would be a better vehicle for his goals than any other. He was rejected on applying to the Workingman's Party of the US, since its leaders knew of Kearney's contempt for the working class. Kearney went off and started his own party in August 1877. After he began making provocative speeches in the sandlots in early September, Kearney gained support rapidly. Kearney's rhetoric grew more violent. On September 21 he predicted that within a year San Francisco would have over 20,000 armed workers ready to take what they wanted. A little judicious hanging would be the best course to pursue with the capitalists, he urged.

By October, the slogan [[WASP: The Case of the Chinese|“The Chinese Must Go”]] was being widely repeated. Kearney founded another party, the Workingmen's Party of California, which eventually absorbed the older chapter of the U.S. party. Followers flocked to the new party, and as membership climbed, the speeches became more incendiary.

On October 29, 1877, several thousand marchers surged up Nob Hill to the front of the [[Crocker's Spite Fence|Crocker Mansion]]. Denis Kearney spoke: ''“The Central Pacific Railroad men are thieves, and will soon feel the power of the workingmen. When I have thoroughly organized my party, we will march through the city and compel the thieves to give up their plunder. I will lead you to the City Hall, clean out the police force, hang the Prosecuting Attorney, burn every book that has a particle of law in it, and then enact new laws for the workingmen. I will give the Central Pacific just three months to discharge their Chinamen, and if that is not done, Stanford and his crowd will have to take the consequences. I will give Crocker until November 29th to take down the fence around Jung's house, and if he doesn't do it, I will lead the workingmen up there and take it down, and give Crocker the worst beating with the sticks that a man ever got.”'' (Evening Bulletin, 11/5/1877).

[[Image:labor1$kearney-and-the-wmp$wagon_itm$kearney-on-wagon.jpg]]

'''Kearney is triumphantly pulled through the streets after his release just before Thanksgiving, 1877.'''

During another rally in early November, another Workingmen's Party leader, John G. Day, said:

<blockquote>''“Everything must be made subservient to the rights of labor. It must be done even if we have to paralyze nine-tenths of our factories. We intend to emancipate labor. Capitalists must succumb to the working-men. I caution these men that the people are already on the verge of starvation... The young people will rise in this anti-Chinese movement and deluge this city in blood, if not entirely destroy this city. We shall show them that the days of the capitalists are over.”'' (Evening Bulletin, 11/5/1877).</blockquote>

The [[The_Six_Companies| Chinese Six Companies]] were understandably frightened in this social climate, and at the end of their written request to the Mayor for protection, they said:

<blockquote>“...We are not ignorant that self-defense is the right of all men; should a riotous attack be made upon the Chinese quarter, we should have neither the power nor the disposition to restrain our countrymen from defending themselves to the last extremity, and selling their lives as dearly as possible.”</blockquote>

On November 3, the city authorities had Denis Kearney arrested as he spoke publicly on the street, for utterances “having the tendency to cause a breach of peace."

The fearsome leadership of the [[Workingmen’s Party of California|Workingmen’s Party]], however, became considerably meeker from behind prison bars. On November 3, Kearney, Day, and other imprisoned leaders of the movement wrote to Mayor Bryant: “We assure you that our anxiety for the peace of Society is as deeply seated as it well can be. We have no design against the peace of the city, either present or future, and we are willing to submit to any wise measure to allay the existing excitement. We do not propose to hold any more out-of-door meetings, or to tolerate any further use of incendiary language, and sincerely hope that our friends will, under all circumstances, obey the officers of the law and uphold the peace of the city.”

Several more times the leaders were arrested and subsequently released when the courts disallowed their prosecution on various technical grounds. On Thanksgiving Day a crowd of between 7,000 and 10,000 workers marched in protest of the Chinese and in honor of the liberated martyrs of the sandlots, but as Saxton noted, the large majority of marchers in this Thanksgiving Parade were not workers' organizations, but rather language-association anti-Coolie clubs and neighborhood groups (German Club of 2nd Ward, French Zouaves, Scandinavian Association, etc.).

Internecine warfare among Workingmen's Party factions led to months of fighting and dissension within the movement. Socialists grouped around Frank Roney controlled the Party's Central Committee but Kearney continued to hold personal sway through his ability to mobilize supporters. Denis Kearney's dictatorial style rankled many, and when they tried to remove him, he used his capacity for intimidation to close a number of ward clubs and affiliate chapters until he had regained control.

As 1877 came to a close, Kearney continued his violent rhetoric: ''“When the Chinese question is settled, we can discuss whether it would be better to hang, shoot, or cut the capitalists to pieces. In six months we will have 50,000 men ready...”''

In late January 1878, the Workingmen's Party of California held its first statewide convention in San Francisco. The platform declared that the government of the U.S. had fallen into the hands of capitalists and their willing tools with the results that the rights of the people, their comfort and happiness, were entirely ignored; coolie labor was a curse to the land and should be restricted and forever abolished; land should be held for cultivation and settlement only; a system of finance uncontrolled by rings, brokers and bankers, should be introduced; the eight-hour day should be made the legal workday; the farming out of convict labor was condemned; the accumulation of millions and the existence of monopolies should be made impossible by a new tax system. This platform, while still expressing hostility to the Chinese, was part of a general diminishing of the racist focus of the Party, as its energies came to be more directed against monopolies (especially the railroads) and Capital.

San Francisco was tense with anticipation by early 1878. Class war was in the air, but an air choking on racism. The summer before had seen an uprising in most eastern railroad towns, while San Francisco itself had its Hot July. The stage was set for revolt. The Paris Commune was a scant seven years earlier.

The existing political parties merged into a “non-partisan” alliance to contest the Workingmen's Party electoral assault. A half dozen elections in the Bay Area were won by the Workingmen's Party in early 1878, but their elected politicians turned out to be as corrupt and inept as any before them.

Kearney was removed from party office by the party apparatus but he regrouped his forces, and in open meetings presented his new rules for the Workingmen's Party: the party would be guided by a council of club presidents, each president being recallable at any time by his constituency. Nominations for political office--from which all party officers were excluded--would be made in the following manner: clubs would nominate, mass meetings in each district would confirm, and the assemblage at the sandlots would render final decision. Kearney held a party convention in San Francisco which approved the rule changes and planned a statewide ticket to oppose the Republicrats (“non-partisans”) in an election for the Constitutional Convention. The Party's Central Committee under Frank Roney staged their own ignored convention and they soon disbanded, and Roney headed to temporary work in Nevada.

The Workingmen's Party ended up with approximately one third of the seats at the California Constitutional Convention, facing factions as diverse as railroad lackeys to Grangers and anti-monopolists. They wrote shamelessly racist constitutional clauses suppressing the rights of Chinese people, and got them passed. They also supported the anti-corporation positions of the grangers, regulatory controls on railroads and so on, but got only symbolic language regarding improved conditions for workers. The eight-hour day, already a demand for nearly two decades, was reduced to a phrase “Eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work on all public work.” Of course, the vast majority of workers were privately employed.

Frank Roney came down from Nevada to Sacramento to observe the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. After watching the Workingmen's Party delegation in action he concluded: “The worst brand of stand-pat, corporation ridden politician would have made a better showing than this primitive band of fake reformers.”

The Workingmen's Party won almost every elective seat in San Francisco except on the Board of Supervisors in the 1879 election. Isaac Kalloch, a former New England abolitionist, was the new mayor. As a minister he had the largest congregation in the city, including a large Chinese Sunday School. But he joined the Workingmen's Party and their anti-Chinese campaign. During the mayoral campaign, an exchange of insults between Kalloch and ''SF Chronicle'' publisher Charles De Young led to the latter shooting Kalloch on the street in front of his church. Kalloch survived and won a landslide election ten days later, but immediately was deadlocked by a hostile Board of Supervisors. The Workingmen used their control of the Board of Health to pass an order [[Chinese_as_Medical_Scapegoats%2C_1870-1905|condemning Chinatown]] as a “nuisance” to the health of the city that had to be “abated.” (Chinatown was in fact a well-protected fortress. When Kalloch was gunned down, Chinese throughout the city made haste to get back to Chinatown, fearing racial violence.)

In February 1880 crowds of unemployed would form daily in the sandlots and march off across Market and Mission and call ''en masse'' at factories and workshops, demanding that the Chinese be dismissed. A number of factory owners complied, leading to over 1,000 fired Chinese workers. But by spring, the anti-Chinese laws had all been overturned by the courts and the factories went back to employing Chinese.

By the end of 1880 the Workingmen's Party had collapsed and disappeared. It left behind a reliable and strong labor vote in San Francisco, which for many years had a large influence in state politics, although not so large as the railroad industry which basically owned it all lock, stock and barrel.

[[Image:Thomas Nast communist skeleton cartoon 1880 081748.jpg]]

'''Thomas Nast cartoon from 1880 declaiming the communist threat embodied in "Kearneyism".'''

<hr>

[[Image:Tours-labor.gif|link= Shanghaiing]] [[Shanghaiing| Continue Labor History Tour]]

[[Eight hour day movement | Prev. document]][[1877 unemployed in the sandlots | Next document]]

[[category:Labor]][[category:1870s]][[category:1880s]] [[category:famous characters]] [[category:Irish]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Nob Hill]] [[category:SOMA]]

File:Thomas Nast communist skeleton cartoon 1880 081748.jpg

2026-07-19T04:30:26Z

Ccarlsson:

File:William-N-Slocum 081911.gif

2026-07-19T04:29:00Z

Ccarlsson:

Communards, San Francisco, and Chinese Labor

2026-07-19T04:27:48Z

Ccarlsson: Created page with "''' Historical Essay ''' ''by Gia Vogerl'' ''An excerpt from the chapter "On the Sandlot" in ''Deconstructing Settler Socialism: Anarchism and the Internationals in the Wild West'', published by Historical Seditions, 2025'' Image:Common-Sense-Masthead 081836.jpg '''Radical Spiritualist newspaper of the 1870s.''' The historian Hubert Perrier noted that many francophone Sections [of the..."

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Gia Vogerl''

''An excerpt from the chapter "On the Sandlot" in ''Deconstructing Settler Socialism: Anarchism and the Internationals in the Wild West'', published by Historical Seditions, 2025''

[[Image:Common-Sense-Masthead 081836.jpg]]

'''Radical Spiritualist newspaper of the 1870s.'''

The historian Hubert Perrier noted that many francophone Sections [of the Workingmen's Party of the United States] focused much of their energy on supporting refugees in the aftermath of the Paris Commune. San Francisco’s French Section did not remain neutral, but prisoner solidarity work nevertheless sustained their activity in later years. Many francophone Sections sent money to former Communards and served as a stopover or even final destination for exiles. East Coast ports provided the easiest entry for Communards who had escaped into exile, some of whom eventually took the railroad across the continent to try life in San Francisco. Benjamin Flotte arrived through this route, as did former gold miner Émile Bée who returned to California after the Commune. Yet San Francisco internationalists went a step further.(6)

Numerous Communards were imprisoned on the Pacific penal colony at New Caledonia, near New Zealand. San Francisco became a hub as the first friendly port of call for those who escaped on passing American ships. Escapees thus followed the wake of Bakunin’s transpacific flight from Siberia. Upon arrival they could expect material support and lavish public receptions by the local International. Henri Rochefort, François Jourde, and Paschal Grousset received banquets in their honor upon their arrival in Spring of 1874. One hundred and forty “French Republicans” attended one such banquet on May 25. A standing committee was established to prepare welcome receptions for all future escapees from the prison islands.(7)

Present at one of these banquets was Charles Caron, a founding member of New Orleans’ International French Section. That Section apparently suffered a split after Caron and his associates passionately argued for creating a socialist colony. Caron’s visit to San Francisco may have been intended to strengthen connections with old Icarians like J.R. Lafaix who remained active in the city. Icarians would later build on these connections to establish a new colony in California.(8)

Commemorations of the Commune provided continuing visibility for the local International. An 1875 anniversary banquet reported in local newspapers and the radical Spiritualist paper ''Common Sense'' helped inspire a new burst of activity. The March 18 celebration was filled with multi-lingual speeches, bringing together “French, Americans, and a few Germans.” The banquet helped spark a revival of internationalist activity. A month later, Dashaway Hall hosted the first in a series of weekly meetings to “discuss the relations of Capital and Labor, employers and employed, laws affecting production and exchange, etc.” under the auspices of the “International Workingmen.” B. F. French, a member of the American Section’s executive committee in 1872, took the chair of the first meeting and participated in the followups. After several meetings, attendees resolved to create a “Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform” to carry out public debates; French was elected first vice-president.(9)

<big>'''Consensus Challenged'''</big>

From its founding and through the split in the International Workingmen’s Association, the local English-language American Section stood firmly against Chinese labor and immigration. Local French and German Sections joined them. This stance, however, placed the American Section at odds with the majority of “Yankee Radicals” affiliated with the International elsewhere, particularly those overlapping with Spiritualist circles. It is thus quite notable that for a brief period starting in the mid-1870s, some San Francisco internationalists joined Healey in turning away from demonizing Chinese workers. Notably, a number of Spiritualist radicals continued their local activity and moved to oppose racial exclusion, aligning them with their East Coast brethren. Perhaps continued discourse at ongoing workingmen’s Lyceums on how to achieve workers’ emancipation helped soften participants’ racist views.

One speaker and participant at the Dashaway Hall “International Workingmen” meetings was William Neill Slocum, co-publisher of ''Common Sense'' with his wife Amanda. W.N. was journalist by trade, an old Republican Spiritualist and abolitionist who broke with the Republican party as it catered increasingly to business interests. Alongside bits of Spiritualist discourse and reports on Spiritualist meetings, ''Common Sense’s'' pages were filled with reports and articles pertaining to temperance, free thought, and anti-monopoly politics. The paper’s title referred to Thomas Paine’s famous revolutionary pamphlet. The Slocums’ paper provided frequent accounts of meetings by San Francisco Lyceums and various interconnected reform movements.(12)

Amanda’s close involvement with ''Common Sense'' was part of a [[Women in Printing|broad movement of women publishers and typographers]]. Women participated in the printing trade since its inception in the 15th century, even as their vital role was often overshadowed by male counterparts. Family-run print shops required involvement from wives and daughters of the men named on the marquee. They participated in all steps of the process from typesetting to editorializing. Widows commonly ran such enterprises after their husbands died. Independent-minded women found ways to learn the trade despite exclusion from formal apprenticeship systems. One journal estimated that half of working compositors in US towns were women in the mid-nineteenth century. Clara Dixon produced her first political pamphlet using a “toy typesetting device” and later published anarchist newspapers in San Francisco in the early 1890s. Early feminist movements were buoyed by women-run periodicals.(13)

During San Francisco’s early years, the succession of all-male typographical unions forbade contract shops from hiring women. Patriarchal chauvinism was often articulated through economic excuses; “feminizing” the profession would lead to lower wages. During labor disputes owners often took advantage of these fears by hiring white women to set type. In response, labor-minded white women joined with sympathetic male counterparts to demand union membership and “equal pay for equal work” as a means to short-circuit employers’ threats. A Women’s Typographical Union was founded in New York in 1868. The next year the International Typographical Union’s convention lifted its outright ban on women’s membership, though the aforementioned dispute over Susan B. Anthony’s seating at the National Labor Union underlines the vitriolic debates involved. Four years later the ITU recommended all locals admit women on an equal basis, yet inclusion was merely optional for another decade. Many locals, including San Francisco’s, persisted in excluding white women until the ITU formalized gender inclusion in its constitution by the 1880s. A pronounced gender-pay gap persisted outside of union shops. Notably, despite similar arguments made for including non-white members, racial inclusion remained off the table for the time being.(14)

The white women who moved west seeking greater autonomy for themselves included many typographers. San Francisco emerged as a notable center. The city’s first women-run and typeset literary magazine, ''The Hesperian'', was founded in 1858. Lisle Lester took over editorship in 1863 and renamed the publication to ''Pacific Monthly''. In 1865 she attempted to form a Women’s Typographical Union but the effort failed and the ''Pacific Monthly'' folded in 1868. Women were only able to obtain work at low-paying non-union shops. Continued exclusion prompted Agnes Peterson to found the Women’s Co-Operative Printing Union the same year as the ''Pacific Monthly'' ended. The WCPU put out a weekly newspaper and provided job-printing services for a wide-array of books, pamphlets, legal briefs, and more.(15)

[[Image:Womenprinting grayscale.jpg]]

''Image from ''West Coast Journal, May 18, 1870'' sourced at Bancroft Library''

Flora Chaney and her then-husband William (aka Dr. W.H. Chaney) were another couple closely associated with ''Common Sense''. Both Flora and William were agents for the paper, “authorized to receive subscriptions.” They were prominent lecturers in and beyond San Francisco’s reform scene and Flora was noted as a talented public-speaking instructor. In early 1875 the Slocum’s purchased the office and printing equipment of a Women’s Pacific Coast Publishing Company founded by a former leader of the WCPU. Amanda and Flora ran the shop together, maintaining it as a “women’s office.”(16)

Later that same year, Flora was pregnant. In June she shot herself in a failed suicide attempt after William rejected becoming a father. According to a contemporary newspaper account, he attempted to convince her to abort the child. She refused. William later claimed the child wasn’t his. He insisted he was in fact sterile and that Flora had other lovers, perhaps within their broad Spiritualist community of Free Love supporters. William soon distanced himself from those local Spiritualists that promoted Free Love and had nothing to do with raising Flora’s child. Flora was taken into the Slocum home, where she gave birth to a son who would become one of San Francisco’s most famous radicals: [[JACK LONDON|Jack London]].(17)

Alongside the Slocums, ''Common Sense’s'' management included one Albert Kendrick. During the paper’s run Albert married the Medium and close associate of Victoria Woodhull, Laura Cuppy Smith (who took Albert’s surname). Laura was a trance speaker who first arrived in San Francisco in the 1860s and was one of the first prominent women orators in the city. Notices and accounts of her speeches were frequent matter for ''Common Sense''. She was also one of three trance speakers sent to present the first petition for women’s suffrage to the California state legislature. Laura traveled to the 1872 Equal Rights Convention that nominated Woodhull for president and the next year defended Woodhull in court from obscenity charges. She has been described as Woodhull’s “only intimate friend,” though Woodhull later turned her back on Laura.(18)

Laura was a driving force in San Francisco internationalists’ softening of their previously bitter Sinophobic stance. Unwavering defense of her firm belief in universal equality led many former associates to later reject her, sometimes leaving Laura a “radical without a following because she fought injustice everywhere.” When she passed away in 1882 following a stroke at the age of 49, Boston anarchist Benjamin Tucker eulogized her with a glowing obituary that declared “Liberty has lost an apostle – one of her most tried and true defenders, one of her most courageous soldiers, one of her most ardent advocates, one of her most devoted martyrs.” She first left California in the early 1870s; whether she participated in the founding of the local American Section is unclear. Yet when she returned to San Francisco in 1874 to find “labor agitation… coming to the front,” she “plunged into it, body and soul.” Laura brought with her the ideals of cross-racial solidarity in debates over Chinese immigration that characterized some East Coast radicals, Spiritualists in particular. While many other agitators were denouncing Chinese workers, Tucker claimed she “championed” them.(19)

Discourse on the “Chinese Question” was relatively frequent in ''Common Sense''. Some correspondents parroted common Sinophobic talking points but were usually met with rebuttals. In Fall 1874, a comment negatively prophesying that Chinese people were the “future workers of America” was met with a reply by an apparent Chinese slippermaker named Ah Hea Lea. Ah Hea Lea claimed to favor the rest of ''Common Sense’s'' radical material and asserted bluntly that Chinese people were not to blame for the societal ills the paper campaigned against. His letter was paired with an editorial comment admitting that Chinese people had a “natural right” to come but that it was also perfectly natural for their arrival to face opposition. Whichever Slocum penned that reply nevertheless admitted benefits to Chinese labor, as well as “improvidence” on the part of white workingmen, concluding that “it remains an open question whether it would not be better for our own people to discourage the importation and employment of Chinese.” The columns of ''Common Sense'' were declared “open to all honest, earnest expression of opinion on this subject, on either side.” Ah Hea Lea wrote another reply, asserting that the “improvidence” attributed to white workingmen in the form of drinking and frivolous purchases was in fact an integral if potentially harmful aspect of the American economy. He once again came to the defense of Chinese laborers, insisting they were the only ones in the state willing to do all the hard “work that must be done.”(20)

Following Ah Hea Lea’s submissions and the letter from Healey was an ongoing exchange for and against the presence Chinese workers in back-to-back May 1875 issues just prior to the paper’s end. A “P” wrote to ''Common Sense'' to decry what he saw as a link between “Asiatic Labor” and “the rapid accumulation of capital in the hands of a few.” Yet P did at least allow that “we need not… entertain the idea that he can be driven from our shores… this is a free country ‘for the oppressed of all nations.’” P instead argued for white labor to “make a new departure” toward (segregated) cooperative systems. Dr. Pilkington wrote a reply arguing that:

<blockquote>Prejudice against the Chinese is not confined to the Irish alone, but seems to prevail in proportion to the ignorance of the masses, and to some extent, amongst a more intelligent portion, some of whom take the ground that this country belongs to the white man alone, supposing that because they are whiter than some of their neighbors, this entitles them to a preference, merit or no merit.</blockquote>

By taking on lower paying jobs manufacturing goods previously imported from elsewhere, Pilkington asserted that Chinese workers made possible a plethora of new industries that also provided higher-waged employment to white men. Pilkington also praised what he saw as Chinese tendencies toward “communistic and co-operative” living and labor that, like Reclus, he thought “far more” pronounced “than white men.”(21)

The shifting views of San Francisco’s internationalists regarding Chinese labor by no means evaded orientalist or paternalistic tropes and were often articulated through a settler colonialist developmental logic. It is also doubtful that they had especially broad reach outside the pages of Common Sense and English-language Lyceum debating circles. Some notable advocates of cross-racial solidarity like Pat Healey labored for wages in trades alongside numerous Chinese counterparts, but many vocal advocates could hardly be called “working-class.” Far more local white tradespeople were likely members of the contemporary anti-coolie clubs than attendees of the “Lyceum for Self Culture” or meetings of the Society for the Promotion of Political and Social Reform. The transformation may not have translated into the International’s French and German Sections; the latter was the largest local Section upon the Tenth Ward International’s merger into the Workingmen’s Party. A quarterly broadside circulated by the Tenth Ward council in 1875 noted that San Francisco’s German and French Sections (1 and 2) were attempting to mediate conflicts occurring in New York Sections, but mentioned that the American Section (3) “takes no part in this.” While all of the Sections would ultimately join the new Party, a breach could perhaps have opened between San Francisco’s local groups. Continuing anti-Chinese racism by SF’s German Workingmen’s Party members will be discussed shortly.(22)

''Common Sense'' seems to have folded after May 1875, leaving a gap in the ability to track the evolution of this discourse. No other local papers provided detailed accounts of the local International during this late period or of the early days of the Workingmen’s Party of the United States. The limited correspondence available with the central office in New York during the middle of the decade is likewise silent on the matter. A challenge to the prior racist consensus of the local International was nevertheless clearly emerging from the Spiritualist milieu within San Francisco’s American Section.

Aside from Ah Hea Lea, though, there is no evidence of actual conversations with Chinese people. Given Ah’s own proactive outreach, they may have simply relied on Chinese people coming to them rather than actively reaching out. The conversation about Chinese labor was shifting, but it did not by-and-large include actual Chinese people. By the time of the fateful [[1877 unemployed in the sandlots|Sandlot rallies of 1877]], ex-internationalists turned Workingmen’s Party agitators did not go much further in public agitation than simply leaving Chinese people out of their denunciations of railroad barons while insisting they weren’t there to hold anti-Chinese meetings. Certainly a notable shift from earlier in the decade, but far from adequate to prevent the [[The Workingmen’s Party & The Denis Kearney Agitation|catastrophe that unfolded]].

<big>'''Notes'''</big>

6. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php? article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron] 
7. Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 216. [https://maitron.fr/spip.php? article135920 Michel Cordillot, FLOTTE Benjamin, Le Maitron], Perrier, “L’Union républicaine,” 222. ''Los Angeles Herald'', May 26, 1874. ''Marysville Daily Appeal'', May 26, 1874. “French Republican Banquet,” ''Sacramento Daily Union'', May 26, 1874. Michel Cordillot. 
8. Michel Cordillot [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159709 “CARON Charles,”] Le Maitron, [https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article159593 “LAFAIX Jean-René”] Le Maitron 
9. “Signs of the Times,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, March 27, 1875. ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 17, 1875. “Meeting of Working Men,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, April 24, 1875. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1878. “Meeting of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 8, 1875. “Meetings of Workingmen,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 15, 1875. “Meeting of Reformers,” May 22, 1875. B. F. French would remain active in Socialist causes in San Francisco and Los Angeles at least to 1901, later participating in the Bellamy inspired “Nationalist Movement” and the Socialist Party. 
12. “Workingmen’s Meeting,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 1, 1875. 
13. Overbeck, ''The Tramp Printers'', 91-92. Joel Sachs, ''Henry Cowell: A Man Made of Music'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 13. 
14. Overbeck, The Tramp Printers., 99-100. Libby Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] FoundSF.org 
15. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing,”]] 
16. ''Common Sense'', October 24, 1874; “Flora Wellman Chaney,” ''Common Sense'', June 13, 1874. Ingalls, [[Women_in_Printing|“Women in Printing.”]] 
17 I highly recommend the Transmetropolitan Review’s zine/article “Who the Hell is Jack London,” though it does not take note of the radical home he was born into. [https://london.sonoma.edu/biographies/william-chaney “William Chaney,” Jack London Online]
18 Braude, ''Radical Spirits'', 172. Emanie Sachs, ''“The Terrible Siren”: Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927)'' (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1928), 217-218. ''Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly'', New York, May 18, 1872. “Common Sense Publishing Company,” ''Common Sense'', June 20, 1874. ''Common Sense'', April 24, 1875. 
19 Sachs, “The Terrible Siren,” 217-218. “In Memorium,” ''Liberty'', Boston, January 21, 1882. 
20. “Ah Hea Lea Speaks,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, September 26, 1874. Reprinted in Woodhull and Claflin’s ''Weekly'', October 17, 1874. “Chinese Labor,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, October 31, 1874. 
21. “Higher or Lower,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 22, 1875. “The Chinese Question,” ''Common Sense'', San Francisco, May 29, 1875.

[[category:Labor]] [[category:French]] [[category:Chinese]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:Women]] [[category:1870s]] [[category:Book Excerpts]] [[category:Newspapers]] [[category:Media]]

File:Common-Sense-Masthead 081836.jpg

2026-07-19T03:58:29Z

Ccarlsson:

Why the 1971-72 ILWU Strike Failed

2026-07-19T01:06:34Z

Ccarlsson: added category

''' Historical Essay '''

''By Richard Boyden''

[[Image:1971-strike-image.jpg]]

''Photo: ILWU Local 10 Strike Bulletin''

Recently, a costume ball was held in an enclosed wharf on the San Francisco waterfront. Its theme: dock work. Some guests dressed up as longshoremen, while others came as packing crates. A young post-debutante had the letters "g-i-r-l" stenciled on her skin, while another carried a mock picket sign demanding "More Time to Get Loaded." This bizarre event revealed the contempt with which the wealthy view those who labor for them on the waterfront. Such an attitude has not often been expressed in public since 1934, when longshoremen led a general strike in San Francisco and established a powerful and respected union. [[Image:1971-strike-hook-image.jpg|right|350px|thumb|
Photo: ILWU Local 10 Strike Bulletin]] Today, such a display of prejudice reflects the confidence of the employers in their campaign to weaken and dismantle unionism in the longshore industry.

A few months before this affair, the government Pay Board denied West Coast longshoremen a wage increase won in a bitter months-long strike. Even that wage increase had been a sop since the longshore union had lost the job security demands crucial in a changing industry. And while the "society" crowd frolicked, 100,000 British dockers were striking for that same job security.

In every modern seaport in the world, traditional cargo work is being displaced by containers, huge metal truck-trailer sized boxes that can be loaded at a factory or warehouse and shipped to any destination on the globe without their contents ever being "broken" or reloaded. This means the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

At issue is the work of "stuffing and stripping" the containers. Employers here and overseas have always regarded dockworkers' unions among the most militant in the labor movement-as serious obstacles to their "prerogatives" and profits. They have therefore sought to use containerization to debilitate these unions by shifting container work to newly created, more docile groups of employees away from the docks. Since containers have now taken over the industry, longshoremen are fighting to retain, or win back their jobs.

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/HerbMills1971Strike_201902" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'''Herb Mills, longtime Secretary-Treasurer Local 10, explaining the ins and outs of the 1971 strike in a 1995 interview.'''

''Video: Shaping San Francisco''

On the West Coast, the result is jurisdictional warfare with the Teamsters union which represents most of the workers at container freight stations. The employers have made use of this jurisdictional dispute to shift the blame from themselves and set worker against worker in the transportation industry. They have been aided by an accommodating union leadership responsible for allowing the situation to develop unchecked. Bridges' concern for his membership consists of an unworkable "container tax" but his campaign to merge his International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU) with the Teamsters is the best evidence of his total acceptance of containerization.

[[Image:Loadingbags.jpg]]

'''Traditional longshoring work, or dockwork, involved loading and unloading sling loads of cargo, packing them carefully into the holds of ships, or unpacking them just as carefully, since a mistake could easily lead to a pile of heavy boxes or bundles tumbling onto the worker.'''

''Photo: ILWU Archive''

The "second front" in the employers' attack on the ILWU is their widespread use of "steady-men." The 1934 West Coast maritime strike established [[The Hiring Hall|union hiring halls]] that equalized work and earnings among longshoremen. No employer could hire full-time workers. Instead, as each ship was loaded or unloaded, longshoremen returned to the hall to be dispatched to new jobs-those who had worked least were always sent out first. But in the last five years, with the introduction of [[Mechanization on the Waterfront|mechanization and containers]], the union leadership has allowed the employers to hire all of their skilled equipment operators on a full-time, or "steady" basis. As a result, these "steady-men" have been working long hours at large earnings, while most hall men have been reduced to working only three days per week. So, in addition to the jurisdictional dispute, the employers, again with the aid of the union leadership, have created divisions and animosity within the longshore union itself.

The equal rotation hiring hall is fundamental to the union's life. Before 1934, longshoremen were hired through the notorious "shape-up" system. While a few workers worked full-time, most dockers were "shaped" in large crowds at the pier-heads to be chosen by company hiring bosses. Job selling and favoritism were rampant. And the "shape" was an effective means of excluding known union members. The "shapeup" remained in the East and Gulf ports. It caused the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) to be taken over by racketeers.

The ILWU controlled and equalized employment. As a result, the workers viewed the union, not the stevedoring companies, as the focus of their work lives. And, in the years following 1934, the workers conducted a massive on-the-job campaign to end the speed-up and create safe working conditions. "Job action"-a short strike over a grievance on a ship in port-could easily wipe out an employer's profits. Since the hiring hall was the only source of workers, it was crucial to the success of any job action, because union members refused to replace the strikers. By the late 1930s, hundreds of job actions had established a mass of precedent in methods of work; in effect, virtual job-control by the workers in the industry.

The present employer offensive against the hiring hall, the use of "steadymen" and non-ILWU container freight stations, is simply the latest episode in a thirty-year battle to get rid of job control and dispense with a "troublesome" workforce. In this the companies have heretofore been largely, but sporadically successful. Since the days just prior to World War II, the top ILWU leadership has cooperated with management to reduce "chaos" in the industry first by discouraging, then by banning the job action tactic. This reflected more than the growing conservatism of most unions at the time: added to this was the role of the Communist Party, the strongest political force in the ILWU, with which the union's leadership, including Bridges, was closely associated. Before and during the war, the Communists subordinated the needs of the longshoremen 'and the labor movement to those of Russian foreign policy, going so far as to engage in open wartime strikebreaking, and to lend support to the government's attacks on civil liberties. They played on the patriotic feelings of many workers to gain support for this policy, thereby helping to pave the way for the rhetoric of the Cold War.

[[Image:HB-and-John-L-Lewis.jpg]]

'''ILWU International President Harry Bridges, with United Mineworkers President John L. Lewis, a famously autocratic union boss who helped co-found the CIO in the late 1930s.'''

''Photo: ILWU Archives''

During the Cold War the ILWU was expelled from the CIO for "Communist Party domination," a charge that was only half true. The expulsion, a grave injustice to the ILWU and its membership, was a reflection of the CIO leaders' capitulation to Cold War hysteria which weakened the entire labor movement. The resulting isolation of the ILWU induced the leadership to adopt a friendlier attitude toward the employers, who in 1960 obtained the union's approval of the "Mechanization and Modernization" agreement, in which the union surrendered its claim to job control and security in return for cash bonuses for retiring longshoremen. Harry Bridges, for years subjected to government attempts to deport him to his native Australia, sought respectability as a registered Republican who supported Nixon for President in 1960.

The strike of 1971-72 was the first in 23 years. It was the culmination of years of growing resentment and alarm among longshoremen at the deteriorating conditions and loss of earning power. The "M&M" contracts of the 1960s had allowed the unlimited introduction of new "labor saving" machinery and an end to job-protecting work practices. In addition, these contracts created a new group of workers who had all the obligations land none of the protections of union membership, the "B-men." These new recruits were given work only after all regular longshoremen and, therefore, suffered serious underemployment. With no vote in the union and without the rights of union members on the job, the B-men were an intimidated and docile workforce. They got the lion's share of unpleasant jobs and were forced to work much harder than regular longshoremen.

The employers' profits skyrocketed. From 1960 to 1970, cargo tonnage handled on West Coast docks increased over 10°% while man hours fluctuated violently-the biggest increase over 1960 was at most 20%. Conservative estimates put productivity increases in the same period at about 85%. The "M&M" contracts of 1960 and 1966 meant hundreds of millions of dollars in extra profits for the employers, since the per-ton cost of moving cargo decreased 'at least 10%.' It was these inflated profits that were used to finance the extremely expensive process of containerization. Ironically, longshoremen were worked harder and more "efficiently" in order that containerization might ultimately render 90% of their jobs obsolete.

More ironic still is the fact that in a union traditionally noted for its great strength and militancy, the leadership has based its tactics for the last 23 years on an assumed position of weakness. It was such reasoning that convinced a majority of the rank and file to accept the "M&M" contracts. The clear alternative was strike 'action but Bridges did not believe that a strike could be won. On the East and Gulf Coasts, however, the ILA struck six times during the same period and wages established in those strikes set the pattern for more peaceful West Coast bargaining. And the ILA-the most gangster-ridden and pro-war labor organization in the country-a union in which dissidents were murdered-even the ILA managed, through militant strikes conducted by the rank and file, to hold on to many conditions given up by the ILWU. Today 18 ILA men do the same work performed by 12 ILWU men.

[[Image:Oakland-containers-2257.jpg]]

'''The modern face of shipping, everything in 20-ton metal containers. This is the Port of Oakland, which grew by leaps and bounds after the "Mechanization and Modernization Agreement" of 1960 and its renewal in 1966. Eventually San Francisco's port died and even though they installed the container cranes below, very little cargo passes through San Francisco nowadays.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

[[Image:SF-container-cranes-lie-dormant-2010-4553.jpg]]

'''These San Francisco container cranes don't see much business in the 21st century, but still await container ships along Islais Creek.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

In July 1971, 12,000 ILWU members struck all 24 West Coast ports. Despite an impressive show of force with mass picketing and hundreds of ships tied up in port, the strike failed to deliver the necessary economic blows to the large employers. Amazingly, the ILWU had no strike fund. Instead, the strikers divided what military cargo work there was to support themselves. Military contracts which account for a large percentage of the shipowners' business became the means by which the largest firms kept most of their ships sailing at a profit during the strike. And because Canadian ILWU men in British Columbia are covered by separate contracts, they did not strike. They were induced to handle a huge flow of strike-bound American cargo which was then funneled across the border by truck and rail.

Military freight and the Canadian situation constituted gaping holes in the longshoremen's otherwise solid and militant picket lines. These loopholes could only be closed by decisive action by Bridges as president of the international union. This he was unwilling to do. Boycott of military work, he claimed, would lead to repressive, open strikebreaking by the federal government. This was very likely true. But at the same time, Bridges failed to mention what he must have known, namely, that the sea-going unions had effectively dealt with this problem in their strikes by notifying the Defense Department in advance that they would refuse to work military cargoes carried by the biggest lines like Sealand. Instead, these cargoes would have to be given to small firms or foreign lines or be shipped in the military's own merchant fleet if they were to move at all. This was a partial but important strategic weapon against the real powers in the shipping industry. Had the ILWU adopted a similar policy, it could have brought the large companies to terms, while creating splits in the employers' ranks. Instead, the ILWU's total inaction allowed the employers to take the offensive. Thus they were able, during the "second phase" of the strike early in 1972, to raise their own threat of an employer boycott of military work to cut off the strikers' only means of support. Actually, this move provided the union with the perfect opportunity to change its policy and salvage some of the initiative for itself. Again Bridges failed to provide militant leadership.

This is only one of many examples of the defeatism of the Bridges leadership which encouraged the employers to attack the union. As the strike wore on, Bridges began telling his membership "you haven't the strength to win your demands." His bargaining strategy ignored the pleas of the membership to fight seriously on the steadyman issue. Instead, Bridges assumed that the ILWU would gain certain purely economic concessions at the price of allowing the employers "all the steadymen they ask for. The reverse was true. Due to poor leadership, the ILWU lost the steadyman issue and ended up losing its money demands before the Pay Board. The Canadian ILWU men, who worked overtime during the strike, were faced in August 1972, with striking alone, and losing, on the very same issue—steadymen.

The fact that the Canadian members work under a separate contract is a sign of the deep malaise that has crept through the union in the last twenty years. The ILWU was built on the principle of the equal rotation of jobs. Just as important was the idea that all Pacific Coast ports must act together or be defeated separately. Without unity in demands and action, the often-sporadic strikes prior to 1934 had been defeated simply by employers diverting their ships to 'non-struck ports. The Canadian situation therefore signified a major abandonment of the principle of coastwide bargaining by the ILWU leadership. Similarly, the fact that steadymen were introduced selectively by employers in some ports and not others meant, before the strike, that the membership's understanding of the problem was extremely uneven. Here again, Bridges abdicated his responsibility to lead. It fell to the leaders of the San Francisco local to travel to other ports to raise and explain the issue. As a result, every major local declared against the use of steadymen and for the full equalization of work. The growing uproar continued to fall on deaf ears at the ILWU main office.

Why have Bridges and his supporters followed such disastrous policies? An underlying cause is the fear of isolation and defeat which, under the heavy impact of the Cold War and McCarthyism, became an obsession. It led to an unspoken ideology of cooperation and accommodation with the employers who, recognizing Bridges' value in disciplining his membership, opposed the government's witch-hunting attempts to deny him U.S. citizenship and to deport him. This ideology found its counterweight in a distorted notion of progress, which views technological and industrial innovation as progressive in and of itself, even when it disrupts and worsens the lives of countless thousands of wage earners it displaces. It was this ideology of progress that was formalized and codified in the "M&M"contracts.

The only barrier to all this—the opposition of the rank and file—was not easily dispensed with. During the 1930s, West Coast longshoremen, like millions of American workers, said "no" to speed-up and to "progress" carried out at their expense. Instead, they fought for and won the right to jobs, the shortening of the work week and the establishment of work rules that created jobs, even when this had the unfortunate result of duplicating work. They correctly concluded that however demeaning "make work" practices might be, they were the employers' responsibility, not theirs. Inherent in this was a challenge to the existing profit-based economic order: if we are to have progress, let it be genuine, let it benefit those whose labor has created it.

But by the 1950s, the social ferment of former years had been dissipated. A weakened labor movement and the deadening Cold War atmosphere had taken their toll. The government and the employers joined a growing hue and cry against "Big Labor" and "featherbedding." Bridges told the rank and file that because of these pressures they would probably lose all their conditions, their hiring hall, and their union, if "compromises" were not made. These threats and the prospect of good pensions and cash bonuses upon retirement brought a majority of longshoremen to a half-hearted and grudging acceptance of the "M&M" proposals. The registered longshore workforce had been "frozen" in 1948. By the late 1950s, a very large number of longshoremen were nearing retirement age which made the increased retirement benefits extremely attractive. It also greatly increased the fear of strike action, since these men remembered the ploody strike battles of 1934. Bridges used this fear to great effect. Nonetheless, disillusionment with the "M&M" contract set in quickly, as it became obvious that the foundations of the union were being seriously eroded.

[[Image:71-strike-pickets-from-Local-10-and-34.jpg]]

'''Striking pickets from Locals 10 and 34 during 1971 strike.'''

''Photo: ILWU Local 10 Strike Bulletin''

In October, 1971, America experienced its first nationwide dock strike when lLA men on East and Gulf Coast ports joined the West Coast men and walked off their jobs. Within a week, President Nixon forced the ILWU back to work with a Taft-Hartley injunction. This was not the first time dock workers met with government intervention: every major dock strike from 1948 to 1969 suffered a similar fate. The government is heavily involved in the shipping industry, which receives huge Congressional subsidies. Union strategy has always confronted the problem of joint government-employer action.

Many highly-placed government economists have correctly pointed out that injunctions against longshoremen have been self-defeating. The Taft-Hartley Act gave the President the power to force strikers back to work for an 80-day "cooling off period." This was first used by Truman in 1948 against the ILWU. It proved a failure: longshoremen went back to the piers and ships' holds dragging their feet. Production dropped, [______] actions erupted, and the' shipowners profits disappeared.

After 80 days, the strike resumed, the employers began fighting among themselves and the ILWU won a stunning victory. The lLA's response to 6 injunctions during the 1950s and '60s was not quite so decisive or well organized. But in every instance, ILA men struck again after 80 days.

The situation in 1971-72 was complicated by Nixon's wage freeze, announced during the second month of the IL WU strike. The freeze officially indicated to the longshoremen that they would be denied whatever wage gains they might force from the employers.

Clearly, the stage was set for a repeat of 1948. New generations of workers had entered the ILWU, had suffered the exploitation and humiliation of [[B Men and Automation|"B-list" status]], and had finally achieved full status in the union only to find their jobs being pulled out from under them. Those remaining on the B-list had overcome the intimidation of past years and banded together to conduct sit-down strikes in the employers' offices. They played an active and militant role in the strike.

Bridges, who had opposed the strike from behind the scenes, was forced to respond to the renewed miltancy and vitality of the rank and file. But the response was only rhetorical. In September he said:

<blockquote>Government intervention means Taft-Hartley. Taft-Hartley means that every disputed issue will be continued on the job, with every dispatch on every vessel, and with every gang.</blockquote>

Carrying the strike issues back to the job succeeded in 1948 because the international union supported the rank and file. But in 1971, this support failed to materialize. In Seattle, during the first week of the injunction period, 200 longshore gangs were fired and sent back to the hall for low productivity, a repetition of what had been done in 1948. They were unable to continue their slow-down, however, because Bridges would not support them.

Los Angeles ILWU men returned to work prepared for a showdown on the steadyman issue. 350 out of 400 steadymen there refused to report to the regular jobs demanding to be dispatched from the hiring hall on an equal basis with their union brothers. The employers retaliated by locking out the entire port. After ten days, a court order forced the men back to work under the old system. The employers had already begun diverting ships from Los Angeles to other ports. Without the backing of the international union, this local and its members were at the mercy both of this employer tactic and of government-imposed fines and jail sentences.

Bridges was relying on a strategy of merger with the ILA. He argued that the ILWU was too weak to win its demands on its own. While the membership rejected merger due to fear of gangster domination, it welcomed joint action. But Bridges pushed for a bureaucratic unity between the two unions as an alternative to an effective and aggressive strike strategy on the West Coast. Without SUdl a strategy, Bridges' defeatist course of action made any meaningful unity with the ILA an empty dream.

Gleason, Scotto, and the rest of the ILA officialdom never had any serious intention of supporting the ILWU. West Coast longshoremen expected to resume the strike on or about Christmas day, when the injunction expired. On December 24, Bridges unilaterally announced a 10 day "contract extension." He seemed to be holding off the strike to await action by the ILA, which in the meantime had also been slapped with a Taft-Hartley injunction which was to expire on February 14. On January 17, feeling he could no longer restrain his membership, Bridges finally called them out on strike. But the union had already lost an important strategic advantage: on December 23, there had been 230 ships vulnerable to strike action in West Coast ports. By January 17, their number had dwindled to 47.

The proof of lLA intentions came on February 1, when Gleason announced a 30-day "contract extension" to begin on the February 14 deadline. On February 9, Congress passed special legislation ordering the ILWU back to work, with assurances from the White House that the bill would not be signed for ten days to allow the strikers to vote to return to work "voluntarily." The strike was doomed. The longshoremen returned with a hopelessly inadequate contract. The wage increases still had to meet with Pay Board approval. Bridges threatened that if the Pay Board cut the contract "by one cent," the ILWU would return to the picket lines. He claimed a commitment from Gleason that the ILA would follow suit. March 8, the ILA announced ratification of a new contract. One week later the Pay Board cut the wage gains of the IL WU by 25%, which brought them to the level already agreed on in the ILA contract! All hopes for joint action were dead. But Bridges still refused to strike, depending instead on the transparently false hope that the ILA would come to his aid.

The Pay Board's rejection of the ILWU contract had nationwide repercussions. It forced George Meany, I. W. Abel, Floyd Smith, and Leonard Woodcock to resign from the Board in protest. Yet this was largely a futile gesture in the absence of serious protest strike action, as the British labor movement has recently demonstrated so well.

All these events have had a profoundly demoralizing effect on the labor movement, especially on the longshoremen whose magnificent display of solidarity meant four long months of economic sacrifice. The strike failed to halt the container onslaught. It failed to curb the undermining of the hiring hall or to solve the tragic and wasteful jurisdictional dispute.

[[Image:Port-of-Oakland-across-from-Mission-Bay-as-seen-from-Twin-Peaks 2097.jpg]]

'''Time HAS run out! The Port of Oakland across the water from San Francisco's Mission Bay in this 2010 photo, and is one of the big container ports on the west coast, while San Francisco's maritime past is mostly a fading memory now.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

Time is running out. The container revolution proceeds on schedule. A way of life nurtured by generations of waterfront workers is passing from the scene. The alternatives are clear. Either the present longshore workforce will be displaced, thereby disrupting the lives of thousands of men, their families and whole communities, or containerization will become the source of a better life, of increased leisure, improved conditions and economic security. The second course will only prevail if the workforce is maintained at shorter hours with no loss in pay, equally spreading the work. A leadership which attempts to forestall the attacks of the employers by utter capitulation is incapable of accomplishing this goal.

''This article appeared in [http://newpol.org/ ''New Politics'' magazine], Vol. X, No. 2, Fall 1972 ''

[[B Men and Automation|Prev. Document]] [[Mission Creek Banana Boats|Next Document]]

[[category: ILWU]] [[category:Labor]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:Power and Money]]

Mechanization on the Waterfront

2026-07-19T01:05:01Z

Ccarlsson: added category

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Chris Carlsson''

[[Image:ilwu2$pier-80-1997.jpg]]

'''Pier 80 along Islais Creek in 1997: site of the city's unused container facilities.'''

''photo: Chris Carlsson''

[[Image:Pier-80 4553.jpg]]

'''Pier 80, 2012.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/ssfHMCONTAN" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'''Herb Mills, former Secretary-Treasurer of Local 10, ILWU, speaks about the container'''

''Interview by Chris Carlsson and Steve Stallone, 1996''

[[Image:Herb-Mills-and-Peter-Brown-in-hold-of-ship-c-1960.jpg]]

'''Herb Mills and Peter Brown working in the hold of a ship, c. 1960.'''

''Photo: Smithsonian''

{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"
| colspan="2" |'''In an effort to address the rise in mechanization in the 1950s, the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union (ILWU) entered into negotiation with the Pacific Maritime Association about a contract that would protect the economic and physical security of the workers, while new technology was implemented at the ports. This 1960 deal came to be known as the M&M Agreement (Mechanization & Modernization), and signified union submission to a technologically-designed speed-up of work, as well as a new stratification of the longshoring workforce. The agreement provided an impetus to change San Francisco from a maritime and manufacturing city to a white-collar metropolis, but at the cost of the industry that had founded it.'''
|}

San Francisco was primarily a maritime port during its first century as a city. The famous Barbary Coast of the 1800s and its associated saloons, boarding houses, and gambling parlors was the home to a shifting population of stevedores, sailors, merchant marines, etc. In 1921 a five-year push by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to break union power was finally consolidated when a longshore strike was violently suppressed and a company union (known as "The Blue Book") came to dominate the waterfront workers. The famous [[The General Strike of 1934|General Strike of 1934]] led to a new wave of working class militancy. Three years later, west coast longshoremen left the International Longshore Association, based on the east coast, and created the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU), cementing a foundation for a new era of worker strength in San Francisco.

[[Image:Longshore-in-the-hold-2.jpg]]

'''Longshoremen unload the hold of a ship, 1950s.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

While the government brought case after case against union president [[Harry Bridges| Harry Bridges]] from the 1930s to the 1950s, trying to nail him as a communist, to deport him, and so on, the workers in the ILWU firmly controlled the labor process along the waterfront and managed to establish some comfortable practices. The men had struck again and again to prevent slingloads from exceeding 2,100 lbs., and by the late '30s were under much less pressure to increase productivity. Eight-men crews were the norm, even though most situations didn't need more than two or four men at a time, so the work crews developed the 4-on, 4-off system, wherein at any given moment during the workday, four men would be sitting around drinking coffee and playing cards while the other four actually worked.

By the early 1950s the union itself had agreed to discourage such feather-bedding, but larger pressures were beginning to make themselves felt. Shippers were demanding lower costs from the shipowners and the unions. Shippers without sufficiently large loads were beginning to use intermediate freight stations, which soon established the methods of large-scale containerization, a technological change which drastically altered the relationship of living human labor to the quantity of goods being shipped.

[[Image:Longshore-pallet-hoisted-toward-dock.jpg]]

'''Longshoring before the container on San Francisco's waterfront, utilizing pallets, cranes, winches.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

Bridges and the other ILWU leaders began to openly discuss an about-face on mechanization, a process that had been resisted consistently until then. A union investigation into the situation in 1957 concluded "Presently it seems possible for the union to negotiate a contract embracing the full use of labor-saving machinery with maximum protection for the welfare of the workers." They sought a contract which would ensure no speed-up when a new machine was introduced; that machines would not create safety hazards; that dock-workers wouldn't be thrown out of the industry; that the workday would be cut while take-home pay stayed the same; that pensions and other benefits would be improved; and that if mechanization reduced the amount of available work, dockworkers would be guaranteed their weekly take-home pay nevertheless.

From 1958 to its conclusion in 1960, the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association negotiated intensively over the terms of what came to be known as the M&M Agreement (Mechanization & Modernization). Bridges and his colleagues had realized that they could only resist technological changes through guerrilla warfare for so long, and that ultimately it would lead to a showdown. Isolated from a larger labor movement, ignored or harassed by the government, and pressured by the rank-and-file to acquire health benefits, pensions, etc., the ILWU leaders concluded an historic agreement that saved shippers and the industry approximately $200 million during the 1960-66 contract period, and guaranteed longshoremen of that time wage increases, job security, increased benefits and pensions, and a large retirement bonus, equalling approximately $29 million in additional wealth for the workers.

In fact, under the M&M, longshoremen increased their wages, men over 62 were given early retirement bonuses of $7,920, and all medical, dental and pension benefits increased. But younger workers were sharply critical, with over a third voting against the deal. The writer Eric Hoffer, who was then a longshoreman, said "This generation has no right to give away, or sell for money, conditions that were handed on to us by a previous generation." A common complaint graffitied in piers and waterfront warehouses was that the speed-up was back with the M&M as slingloads increased dramatically -- Bridges Loads they were called.

One San Francisco longshoreman even got up in a 1963 union meeting and said:

''"Brother Bridges has been saying for years that when the newspapers begin saying good things about him, it's time to get the recall machinery in motion. Brothers! That time has come!"''

The speaker was censured by the local's executive board at the next meeting, and when that was in turn reported to the rank-and-file, they hooted down the board's move derisively.

[[Image:Palette-and-boxes.jpg]]

'''Break bulk cargo hoisted to the dock.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

[[Image:Longshore-forklift.jpg]]

'''Longshoreman moves sacks of sugar with forklift, c. 1960.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

With the port doing a booming business throughout the early 60s, in large part due to the Vietnam War, the longshoremen found an accumulation of $13 million in their M&M fund by the 1966 end of the contract. After a few proposals were kicked around, the union voted to pay out $1,200 bonuses to all 10,000 full-time longshoremen on the Pacific Coast. A new agreement dumped the 35-hour week guarantee, but increased lump sum retirement bonuses to $13,000, increased wages and benefits. Meanwhile the Port of Oakland across the bay invested heavily in the new container cranes. Oakland also had the space to accommodate large storage areas and was conveniently served by direct rail and road lines from the Central Valley and all points north, south and east.

In 1971-72 the ILWU engaged in the [[Why the 1971-72 ILWU Strike Failed|longest strike in West Coast history]], a strike whose issues are still debated today. But one of the main issues at the outset was the rise of "steady men" (via clause 9.43 in the collective bargaining agreement) to run the new container cranes. By the time the months-long strike was called off, the agreement was not much different than what was offered at the outset, with the union workers failing to stop the divisions among their own members.

By the mid-1970s, the San Francisco waterfront had been [[A Waterfront Planned: The 1990s and the New Millennium|largely abandoned]] as too little, too slow, and too inefficient. A brief flurry of old-style longshoring accompanied the earliest days of consumer goods from China, but that, too, was soon supplanted by containerized shipping to Oakland to Long Beach and Los Angeles in southern California, and Seattle in the north.

In hindsight we can see that the M&M deal struck by the ILWU was the essence of an arrangement between capital and labor in the 20th century U.S. The union bargained away control over technological change in exchange for payment to the existing workforce and its retirees. Ultimately it agreed to become a much smaller labor aristocracy, although one could argue that the union had no choice under capitalist modernization.

This agreement was the turning point in San Francisco's economic history. After a hundred years of maritime, trading, and manufacturing in the city, San Francisco began its turn in becoming a headquarters city, a popular tourist destination, and a service sector capital. Regional planning, begun in earnest during WWII, led to new transportation grids and decentralization of blue collar industries. The ILWU's formal agreement to cooperate with a great technological leap in their work killed the San Francisco port and its jobs, and led to thousands fewer jobs in the large ports of today. It also signaled a willingness to submit by San Francisco's last bastion of serious labor resistance, the strikers of 1934. When the ILWU supported Joe Alioto for mayor in 1967, and went on to have leaders appointed to the Redevelopment Agency by Mayor Alioto, they completed their transition from ''acquiescing'' to ''enforcing'' the plans of the local and national elite.

[[Image:Containers-in-oakland 5359.jpg]]

'''Containers in Oakland, 2013.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

ILWU representative Wilbur Hamilton was appointed to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency in 1968 and soon after got the job of project manager for the Western Addition A-2 project, the SFRA's largest neighborhood clearance plan. Hamilton gave a black , pro-labor face to the essentially white racist "slum clearance" plan devised in the boardrooms of downtown San Francisco.

Hamilton became the Executive Director of the SFRA in 1977. An ILWU organizer, Rick Sorro, was appointed to Mayor George Moscone's Select Committee on Yerba Buena Center in March, 1976. The ILWU, while less ardent than the SF Building Trades Council, the SF Central Labor Council, and the Teamsters Joint Council, had been supporting the South of Market redevelopment project called [[TOOR (Tenants and Owners in Opposition to Redevelopment) | Yerba Buena Center]], which was to include a new Convention Center. Ironically, this redevelopment plan came largely at the expense of retired longshoremen and other port workers who inhabited the old neighborhoods which were designated "blighted" in order to facilitate eminent domain clearance by the Redevelopment Agency. (See [[Fillmore Redevelopment | Western Addition Blues]])

<hr>

[[Image:Tours-editor.gif|link=The Hidden Mural at Mission Dolores]] [[The Hidden Mural at Mission Dolores|Continue viewing the Editors' Favorite Pages]]

[[Image:Tours-labor.gif|link=NO PAID OFFICIALS]] [[NO PAID OFFICIALS| Continue Labor History Tour]]

[[A Community That Fights | Prev. Document]] [[B Men and Automation| Next Document]]

[[category:Labor]] [[category:ILWU]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:redevelopment]] [[category:2010s]] [[category:east Bay]]

B Men and Automation

2026-07-19T01:04:03Z

Ccarlsson: added category

''' Historical Essay '''

''by [[Oral History: Stan Weir|Stan Weir]],'' originally published in "USA -- The Labor Revolt" in International Socialist Journal, April - June 1967''

[[Image:Longshore-pallet-hoisted-toward-dock.jpg]]

'''Loading a break-bulk ship.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

[[Image:Longshore-crew-on-scrap-metal.jpg]]

'''Longshoremen working a load of scrap wire and metal.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

[[Image:Longshore-w-train.jpg]]

'''Before the full automation that came with containerization, longshoremen typically moved slingloads holding heavy sacks from shiphold to dock to train.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

A Mid-60s Analysis

In 1960 International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union President Harry Bridges negotiated the first six year "Mechanization and Modernization" contract with the Pacific Maritime Association. Like the contract that John L. Lewis negotiated for the automation of Big Coal, Bridges' contract allowed the unrestricted introduction of containerization of cargo, the use of vans, and automated cargo handling machinery. At the same time, it eliminated thousands of jobs. Primarily because of increased maritime activity due to war shipments, widespread unemployment up to now has been avoided.

Just as in coal, however, the human costs have been staggering. In the first year of the contract, the accident rate in what has become the nation's most dangerous industry went up 20% (Longshore Bulletin, ILWU Local 10, February 8, 1962). In the same year the longshore accident rate on the East Coast declined 1/2%. To obtain this contract Bridges gave in to the employers' request that they be allowed to "buy" the elimination of the major working and safety conditions improvements won in the militant struggles of the 1930's. The long established manning scales and the 2,100 pound sling load limit were eliminated. These provisions were not only eliminated for labor performed on containerized cargo, but on the still very sizeable amount of cargo manhandled piece by piece and sack by sack.

Even more than Lewis, Bridges won the respect of employers everywhere, admiration in many liberal circles, and from the press the title of "labor statesman." The contract established one gain for only one section of the longshoremen: during the six year life of the contract those who entered the industry before 1948, had achieved union membership prior to 1960, had reached the age of 65 and who additionally had 25 years of service, could retire with a $7,900 bonus in addition to their unimproved pension. They could retire earlier if disabled and receive a smaller bonus on a pro-rated basis. Or, if they had 25 years in the industry at age 62 they could collect the $7,900 in monthly installments until they reached 65 when the regular pension payments began.

Although the fund that pays the bonuses is created by the tonnage worked by all longshoremen, the recipients are older union members who work little more than half that tonnage. The balance is moved by B men and casuals working under the jurisdiction of the union and the younger men who became union members (A men) after 1960, none of whom are allowed to share in the fund.

The B men are a permanent and regular section of the work force who get the pick of the dirtiest and heaviest jobs that are left over after the A, or union, men have taken their pick. After the B men, casuals hired on a daily basis get their turn at the remainders. The casuals get none of the regular fringe benefits and are not compensated for that loss.

The B man system was created simultaneously with negotiations for Bridges' automation contract. The production of B men is appreciably higher than that of the union men because they lack union representation on the job. They pay dues but have no vote. In Bridges' San Francisco base and home local (No. 10) they can attend union meetings providing they sit in a segregated section of the meeting hall's balcony. These eager-to-be-organized non-union men do most of the work that is performed deep in the holds of the ships, the area of production that produced the militants who built the ILWU in the Thirties.

[[Image:Longshore-offloading-Libbys-fruit-cocktails.jpg]]

'''Longshoremen offloading Libby's fruit cocktails, 1950s.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

Bridges fears these young men. In 1963, in collusion with the employers, he led the Kafkaesque purge that expelled 82 of them from the waterfront jobs they had held for 4 years. (Over 80% of the 82 are Negroes.) They were tried in secret. The charges against them were not revealed. Their number, but not their identities was made known to ILWU members. Bridges' witch hunt methods and double standards make the bureaucratic procedures used to expel his union from the CIO, and the insidious tactics used by the government to prosecute both him and James Hoffa, bland by comparison. Hoffa and Bridges at least had the right to counsel, to produce witnesses, to know the charges and to formal trial prior to judgement or sentencing.

The atmosphere of intimidation resulting from the framing of the 82 has, until now, successfully silenced open opposition among B men and younger men. However, to Bridges' surprise, a revolt against his automation contract and leadership has recently developed among the older men. Unlike B men and casuals, most of them work on the ships' decks and the docks rather than down in the hold where the major burden of the current speedup is being carried. It appeared for a time that the prospect of their receiving a bonus upon retirement and lighter daily labors were making them more conservative; but 42% of all ILWU longshoremen (union or A men) on the coast voted against the second six year "Mechanization and Modernization" Agreement negotiated in July 1966. The speedup has reached these men as well. The contract won a majority in the large San Francisco local where retired members (pensioners) are allowed to vote, but lost in the other three large Pacific Coast ports of Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle. Had the B men been allowed to vote there is little doubt that it would have been overwhelmingly defeated.

[[Image:Longshore-along-pier-17-or-19-w-Coit-Tower.jpg]]

'''Longshoring along Pier 17 with Coit Tower on Telegraph Hill in background.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library''

The dissension that has developed between Bridges and other top ILWU leaders since last July [1966] has become so deep that news of it has appeared in the San Francisco press. Rumors persist that the fallout is over the question of how to handle the growing revolt in the ranks. Whether Bridges continues to pursue the automation policies in which he has staked his entire reputation or abandons it to pursue a re-winning and improvement of the working conditions desired by his ranks, the effect will be to stimulate a continuance of the revolt. He is now plagued by lawsuits, including one filed by the expelled B men and another filed in Federal Court several years ago by ILWU Local 13 in the name of all members in the large port of Los Angeles. James B. Carey and David McDonald learned, and now Bridges is learning, that the pursuit of policies that alienate the ranks can also isolate a top leader from his co-officials and hasten his fall from power.

[[ Mechanization on the Waterfront|Prev. Document]] [[Why the 1971-72 ILWU Strike Failed|Next Document]]

[[category:Labor]] [[category:ILWU]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:1960s]] [[category:1950s]]

The Progress Club—1934 and Class Memory

2026-07-19T01:03:20Z

Ccarlsson: added category

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Chris Carlsson, 1998''

<blockquote>''The piecards [paid union officials] took the hiring hall away from us by putting goons like “Johnny Loudmouth” in control of job dispatching. His specialty is to intimidate the guys up in age. It’s a way of destroying memory. We don’t write our history. Those guys are it.'' —Hector Soromenho</blockquote>

[[Image:33LNGSHR.jpg|350px|right]]

'''Longshoring evolved over many decades into a fluid, cooperative, mutually dependent labor process'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library'']

The strategies used since the [[1934 Big Strike|1934 General Strike]] to overcome San Francisco’s working class have wrought profound changes in work, technology, and daily life. This process has been sold as “progress”—as in “you can’t stop it”—and has enjoyed explosive success on a global scale during the post-WWII growth of the world market. Progress conveniently masks changes in social arrangements, making them appear as “natural” results of technical and market rationality, rather than the self-serving moves of a powerful elite.

Progress unifies capitalist planners around shared values and assumptions, as if they were in the same social club (which they often are, literally, as well). Progress is also an ideological “club”—in the sense of “blunt instrument”—wielded against recalcitrant workers and uncooperative communities to ridicule opposition to corporate development plans. Progress as ideology has assured that all changes are both for our own good and, in any case, inevitable. Meanwhile, the forces behind progress have broken and rewoven the texture of human life at work and at home repeatedly over decades.

Progress brings modernized machinery; to accommodate new machines, work habits and production processes have been radically changed, reducing the human labor component of most jobs and making it easier to shift work from one place to another. These changes in turn have eliminated elaborate relationships based on shared cultures and artisanal knowledge. This kind of progress has also undermined organizations (like industrial unions) that grew during earlier moments in history (when there were different jobs and business structures, and the fight between workers and owners led to unions as a compromise).

A growing self-awareness and a working-class talent for wildcat strikes in the late 1930s and shook San Francisco’s controlling class to the core. The elite responded with a decades-long process to regain the upper hand in the balance of power. The forces unleashed by the Depression-era upheavals on the waterfront made San Francisco’s local class struggle a crucial staging area for reshaping ruling-class response. Ultimately, this long-term counter-offensive changed life, both at work and at home. What began as an effort to circumvent organized workers in San Francisco by regionalizing the local economy became a model for the globalization that has swept the world in the past quarter-century. San Francisco has been an important test site for our society’s most advanced techniques for improving and extending the control of capitalism.

Confronted by the full arsenal of ruling-class power over the last six decades, San Francisco’s once-vaunted labor movement at the end of the twentieth century has been reduced to whispering where it once roared. The local outcome of this old dance with capital is a restructured city economy. The once dominant waterfront is dead, replaced by a predominantly low-wage, non-union economy based on tourism, entertainment, shopping, eating, and [[WHAT DO SAN FRANCISCANS DO ALL DAY? Information Work|financial and medical services]]. The working class, rarely identified as such anymore, is fragmented along racial and status lines, and increasingly stratified at work. New categories of white-collar technicians and professionals, while still wage workers, are far removed from the gritty industrial working class of the mid-century and earlier. Another third of the working population is consigned to drift from temporary job to temporary job, under constant pressure to improve and diversify their personal skills to offer prospective employers maximum flexibility.

Accelerated residential transience within and between urban centers has further fractured and atomized workers, largely destroying the long-term institutions and facilities that help city dwellers discover each other and enliven real communities. In today’s San Francisco thousands of homeless people eke out survival amid remarkable material abundance, while most of us work and shop in an invisible but “normal” isolation. Communities based on ethnic or national origins, neighbor- hoods, or occupations have been dispersed and worn down by several decades of urban redevelopment and economic modernization. San Francisco has a much different working population in the 1990s, doing different work, than it had half a century ago, with people living in much more expensive housing for shorter durations.

The exhilarating grassroots working-class culture that discovered itself in the strikes and organizing campaigns of the 1930s has been unmade and erased in the following half a century. How did 98-percent unionization of restaurants in 1941 (a union card in the window practically required to get steady customers) become the low-wage, temporary, non-union cappuccino bars, taquerías, pizzerias, chain stores, and dessert boutiques of today? How come no one thinks there is a working class, let alone that they are in it?! Our basic ability to see our lives as a collective rather than individual predicament has practically disappeared. How did this all happen?

When the Workers Rose

The 1920s was the decade of the “American Plan” in San Francisco, with the open shop and untrammeled business power calling the shots across the city’s economy. The well-financed Industrial Association, an entity formed to carry out a coordinated labor strategy among San Francisco’s largest companies, relentlessly fought every attempt by workers to regain lost wages, shorten working days (to eight hours), and organize independently.

Shipping magnate Robert Dollar (Dollar Lines, beneficiary of over $20 million in annual federal subsidies during the late 1920s to handle mail across the Pacific Ocean) illustrated the hardball tactics that propelled owners into the driver’s seat. Speaking to a National Association of Manufacturers meeting in New York in 1923, Dollar described a recalcitrant judge who refused to jail locked-out maritime workers in 1919:

<blockquote>We told him that because of his reluctance to prosecute we had found it necessary to form a vigilance committee and if the serious conditions along the waterfront did not stop at once, our first official act would be [to] take him and string him up to a telephone pole. . . . I can see that official yet. He could not believe we really meant it, so he said to me, “Mr. Dollar, do you mean that?” I answered, “I was never more earnest in my life.” My reply brought him to time [sic] and he at once promised to cooperate with us and he did. . . . (ILWU 1963) </blockquote>

It took many years, but by 1933 waterfront workers were again organizing independently. The June 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act provided workers “the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” Longshoremen quickly deserted the company union known as the “Blue Book” and rejoined the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA). The new union militants held a convention in San Francisco in February 1934 for all the International Longshoremen’s Association longshoremen along the West Coast. The workers met for ten days but excluded paid union officials as delegates. They resolved that no agreement could be valid unless approved by a rank-and-file vote. They demanded union recognition, union-controlled hiring halls to replace the humiliating “shape-up” (in which workers had to submit to nepotistic and corrupt bosses every morning to seek work), a raise in pay, a thirty-hour week, and a coast-wide agreement covering all U.S. ports. They also called for a waterfront confederation of all marine workers, including teamsters; rank-and-file gang committees to handle grievances instead of business agents; and opposition to arbitration, since it always led to defeat. They also sought to prevent the use of new technology (“labor-saving devices”) such as four-wheel wagons and the use of jitneys to pull two wagons at once. The shippers refused to negotiate, and in [[The Waterfront Strike|May 1934 the strike that would engender so many changes began]].

Local business leaders failed to grasp the shifting balance of power that such a large, cross-occupation and well-organized rank-and-file strike could produce. William H. Crocker, grandson of the original “Big Four” railroad baron, said during the General Strike:

<blockquote>This strike is the best thing that ever happened to San Francisco. It’s costing us money, certainly. We have lost millions on the waterfront in the last few months. But it’s a good investment, a marvelous investment. It’s solving the labor problem for years to come, perhaps forever. . . . Mark my words. When this nonsense is out of the way and the men have been driven back to their jobs, we won’t have to worry about them any more. They’ll have learned their lesson. Not only do I believe we’ll never have another general strike but I don’t think we’ll have a strike of any kind in San Francisco during this generation. Labor is licked. (Nelson 1988) </blockquote>

Certain that brute force could win, as it had during the previous decade, San Francisco’s Industrial Association decided to force the issue after strikers had closed the port for two months. On July 3, 1934, using strikebreakers and the San Francisco Police Department, they forcibly moved cargo from the strike bound port to warehouses a few blocks inland. Violent confrontations between thousands of strikers and police exploded along the southeastern slopes of Rincon Hill and the waterfront. After a holiday truce, July 5, 1934, became memorialized as [[Bloody Thursday|“Bloody Thursday”]] when two men died and scores were hospitalized in day long skirmishes and hand-to-hand combat all over the waterfront. The brutality of the police shocked the city and the country.

[[Image:July 3 1934 near Pier 28 AAD-4954.jpg]]

'''Strikers face off against police on July 3, 1934 near Pier 28 on the southern waterfront.'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library''

A [[1934 Funeral March|silent funeral procession of over 40,000]] filled Market Street a few days later, and by July 13 a General Strike was spontaneously unfolding in San Francisco and around the Bay Area. The Central Labor Council, which had denounced the maritime strike leaders as communists in late May, scrambled to head off the General Strike by creating a Strike Strategy Committee, an effort characterized by activist Sam Darcy as an effort “to kill the strike, not to organize it.” (Brecher 1972)

At 8 a.m. on Monday, July 16, the San Francisco General Strike officially began, affecting around 150,000 workers around the Bay. But it had already been rolling along for a few days by then. Between July 11 and 14, over 30,000 workers went out on strike, including teamsters, butchers, laundry workers, and more; by July 12 twenty-one unions had voted to strike, most of them unanimously.

[[Image:34TANK1.jpg|left|250px]]

'''2,500 national guardsmen occupied the waterfront during the General Strike'''

''Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library''

The General Strike began to weaken almost as soon as it officially began. The National Guard occupied the waterfront and violent attacks by vigilantes (off-duty police and hired thugs, coordinated by the Industrial Association) occurred all over San Francisco. The conservative Strike Committee authorized so many workers to go on working that they dramatically undercut the movement. On the very first day, they allowed municipal carmen (running the streetcars) to return to work, ostensibly because their civil service status might be jeopardized. The chairman of the Labor Council and the Strike Committee was Edward Vandeleur, who was also president of the Municipal Carmen and had opposed the strike from the beginning. The ferryboatmen, the printing trades, electricians, and telephone and telegraph workers were never brought in on the strike. Typographical workers and reporters continued to work on newspapers that spewed forth anti strike propaganda. Labor Council leaders even went so far as to issue a work permit to striking sheet-metal workers to return to their jobs in order to repair bullet-riddled police cars.

President Franklin Roosevelt stayed officially aloof from the strike, his Labor Secretary Frances Perkins cabling him that the General Strike Committee of Twenty-Five “represents conservative leadership.” On July 19 the General Strike Committee narrowly voted to end the strike. On July 20, the Teamsters voted to return to work, fearing that the Mayor’s Committee of 500 and the Industrial Association would put strikebreakers on all the trucks in San Francisco and leave the Teamsters without any jobs. This was the end for the Longshoremen and Seamen’s strikes along the waterfront. By July 31, they ended their strikes and accepted federal arbitration, which ultimately led to partial victories on wages and hours, but the key issue of union control over hiring halls was settled with a formula that allowed for joint management of hiring halls with the shipping companies. Since the unions got to pick the dispatchers, they enjoyed control in fact if not by contract. The 1934 General Strike put a lethal dagger into the heart of fifteen years of “American Plan” propaganda (the 1920s’ version of anti-union, anti- communist, pro-American patriotism) and open shop conditions.

A Sleeping Giant Stirs

Daily life changed dramatically after 1934. In spite of a desultory and ambiguous conclusion to the 1934 upheaval, it still led to an extended period of worker activism, unionization, and a profound shift in power relations in most of the city’s workplaces, creating and reinforcing a broad sense of camaraderie and solidarity among the working class. Crocker’s gloating claim that the strike would “lick labor” and end all strikes could not have been more wrong. Workers across most occupations discovered the power of strikes, and by the late 1930s unions were becoming entrenched in most parts of San Francisco’s economy.

Each year between 1927 and 1933 saw fewer than ten strikes in the Bay Area, but after the 42 strikes involving over 100,000 workers in 1934, the rest of the 1930s saw an average of over 60 strikes per year, involving about 25,000 workers annually for about a half-million lost work days per year.

On San Francisco’s contentious waterfront the longshoremen gained practical control over the allocation of work. Worker-elected dispatchers rendered individual employers irrelevant by establishing a remarkably egalitarian “low-man-out-first” system to share the available work. (This system, which equalized opportunity to work but not necessarily income, was developed by longshoremen in San Pedro and copied by the San Francisco local. (Weir, interview with author, 1997)) Moreover, the daily rhythm of the “four-on, four-off,” along with numerous restrictive work rules spread the work out even further while maintaining a pace of work set by the longshoremen themselves. Offshore unions of sailors and others gained complete control of their own hiring hall after the violent waterfront strike of 1936.

The ILWU itself pursued an organizing strategy it called the “March Inland.” Warehouse workers were ready to join. Joe Lynch told interviewer Harvey Schwartz: “You had commercial warehouses strung along the waterfront from the Hyde Street pier over to Islais Creek; then you had cold storage warehouses; behind those you had mills, feed, flour, and grain; behind those you had grocery—big grocery, with 1500 people—and that’s the way they organized. Gee, it was terrific. Then came hardware, paper, and the patent drug industry, and the coffee, tea, and spice in ’37. Liquor and wine came in ’38. Then it was a mopping up operation after that. By World War II, the union had under contract, either wholly or partially organized, 46 different industries in warehouse, distribution, production and processing.”

Another worker, Brother Hackett, told Schwartz:

<blockquote>After the 1936–37 strike everybody organized. You went around the neighborhood on your lunch hour, found somebody havin’ lunch, and started talkin’ to ’em. If they didn’t belong to a union, you asked ’em what wages they were getting. When you found out how little they were being paid, you’d say, “We just joined the Warehouse Union and went out on strike for a lousy couple of months, and doubled our salary.” The guy’d say, “Just lead me to it.” See, there was a tremendous surge then. We had a meeting every week. There was always fifteen, fifty, or a hundred to two hundred people being sworn in. The people were just waiting in the weeds for somebody to hit them with a stick. It was just like a great awakening or a crusade. </blockquote>

With the ILWU setting the example, unionization of workers in other industries continued through the 1930s. The culinary union made rapid gains during this period. Waitresses Local 48 organized first in restaurants patronized by union clientele, spread its drives to restaurants outside working-class neighborhoods, swept up cafeteria, drugstore, and tea-room waitresses, and then included waitresses employed in the large downtown hotels and department stores. By 1941, waitresses in San Francisco had achieved almost complete organization of their trade, and Local 48 became the largest waitress local in the country.

Culinary organizers credited the new climate of solidarity:

<blockquote>There is a much better spirit of cooperation than formerly and the Culinary Workers have profited from it. We are indebted to the Maritime Unions and . . . in fact all the unions pull with us whenever we go to them with our troubles, thus our brothers did not give their lives for nothing. (Cobble 1991) </blockquote>

Workers enthusiastically took more power in worksites all over town, utilizing innovative tactics from sitdowns and occupations to costumed picket lines, theatrical demonstrations, and clever grassroots informational campaigns. After enduring hundreds of short wildcat strikes during the 1930s, employers naturally began to look at the bigger picture. How could the chokehold of organized labor be bypassed, if not defeated? The foundations for a capitalist counterattack had already been laid, even as workers took more daily control than they’d ever had before.

The Owners Regroup

Most workers flocked to the new CIO industrial unions, but less well remembered is the extent to which employers, too, saw an answer to a restive and increasingly assertive working class in the new unions. A number of large U.S. companies, including General Electric and U.S. Steel, embraced the new centralized unions of the CIO to control unruly, rebellious industrial workers. The romantic lens through which leftist historians have viewed the 1930s has underplayed the conflicting forms of working-class organization that fought each other in that tumultuous decade. Rank-and-file democratic structures created by strikers were generally dismantled as they entered the new industrial unions, and power was transferred from the shop floor to the union offices.

From 1937 through the 1950s, when organization among San Francisco restaurants remained close to 100 percent, many employers willingly complied with this system of union-sponsored industry stabilization and cooperation. Employers who failed to recognize the good business sense of unionization . . . faced increasing pressure through the [labor] council’s “We Don’t Patronize” list. Few employers could withstand the business losses of withdrawn union patronage when approximately one-fifth of San Francisco’s entire population belonged to a labor organization. (Cobble 1991; emphasis added)

In ''The Turbulent Years'', Depression labor historian Irving Bernstein recounts how in 1937 San Francisco’s “leading businessmen formed the Committee of Forty-Three, hoping to persuade the unions to join in a program to stabilize labor relations.” Though labor refused at first, the Committee soon became the Employers’ Council, whose purpose was “the recognition and exercise of the right of the employers to bargain collectively.” (Zerzan 1977) The stabilization offered by union contracts inspired most San Francisco business owners in 1938 to join the San Francisco Employers’ Council, which promoted industry-wide, multi-employer bargaining. By 1948, the single-employer contract had become the exception, with over 75 percent of all union workers falling under “master” industry-wide contracts. (Selvin 1967) But a stable, adversarial union still makes demands and puts some constraints on the power of business owners. With the benefit of a half-century of hindsight, we can see that the pragmatic accommodation with unions was not a permanent change but a temporary tactic to gain time for a much grander strategy.

Ruling-class planning in San Francisco faced an entrenched, self-confident, smart, historically savvy working class in pre-WWII San Francisco. World War II spurred cataclysmic changes worldwide, and war mobilization in San Francisco promoted a regionalization of industry and an influx of new workers, altering for- ever the composition and residential distribution of the area’s working class. Regional planning, underway since the 1920s, combined with New Deal infrastructural investments to cross the bay with new bridges and surround the region with new highways. In regionalizing the Bay Area economy, planners moved shipping to Oakland, heavy industry to the north and to the East Bay, while high-tech industries grew around university enclaves and military bases. Regionalization was pursued for its perceived economic benefits, but its purpose in the heated battle for the control of work was clear to some.

In 1948, at a Commonwealth Club debate, a San Francisco banker said:

<blockquote>Labor developments in the last decade may well be the chief contributing factor in speeding regional dispersion of industry. . . . Large aggregations of labor in one [central city] plant are more subject to outside disrupting influences, and have less happy relations with management, than in smaller [suburban] plants. (Mollenkopf, 1983) </blockquote>

Postwar economic planning expanded the logic of regionalization to globalization, under U.S. domination. San Francisco’s role was to be a corporate headquarters, overseeing a far-flung network of production and distribution. This was well underway soon after WWII, further encouraging the deindustrialization of the city. For example, banking employment in San Francisco during the 1950s more than doubled, while maritime work fell by 25 percent. (Mollenkopf 1983) Blue-collar, unionized work was under calculated assault as the logical companion of much larger dynamics in the marketplace.

Racial tensions were exacerbated by thousands of newly laid-off black shipyard workers, many of whom had come to the Fillmore and Hunters Point (as well as Oakland and Richmond in the East Bay and Marin City in Marin County) during the war, and now competed with white workers for unionized industrial jobs. After the strike wave of 1946 (the largest in U.S. history until then, with over 2 million workers taking part) President Truman and the Democrats in Congress joined with the Republican majority to attack the workers’ movement. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act constricted the legal space in which unions had flourished, outlawing effective tactics used by workers to gain power in negotiations and on the job, including secondary picketing, which can spread strikes across the boundaries of occupation and industry. Taft-Hartley also mandated that union leaders sign declarations that they were not communists. Cold War hysteria swept the union movement, driving the most radical and militant workers underground if not out of work.

The “1934 men” along San Francisco’s waterfront were subjected to unrelenting red baiting, most visibly in the multiple prosecutions and attempted deportations of ILWU president [[Harry Bridges|Harry Bridges]], because of his always-denied and oft-alleged communism. (Party membership notwithstanding, he was a close follower of the political “line” of the Communist Party of the USA, which was in turn a close follower of Stalin’s Soviet Union.) The coercive mistrust and paranoia produced by the anti-Communist crusade of the 1950s eroded much working class spontaneity. The powerful nationalism of WWII and then Cold War America was mobilized against suspected radicals and assorted malcontents and deviants. In the case of San Francisco’s waterfront, a quasi-militarization that had started during WWII was reinforced and stepped up by an August 1950 Congressional mandate to use the Coast Guard to screen out “security risks” on the docks and ships. Men who appealed their abrupt firing were shown no evidence incriminating them. The Coast Guard would simply insist, “you tell us why you think you’ve been classified a security risk.” (Larrowe 1972)

Automating Intimidation

<blockquote>Containerization is the technological underpinning of the global economy. You can bet your sweet ass that if all them transmissions was being hand- handled and put on a pallet board and sent ashore, rather than 20 tons of transmissions in a goddamned container box, transmissions’d still be built in Detroit. The container has been the physical means of exploiting cheap labor throughout the world. —Herb Mills, former ILWU Local 10 official (Mills, 1996) </blockquote>

The longshoremen under Harry Bridges stood at the radical edge of unionism in 1934. Waterfront workers maintained a work culture that was powerfully resistant to speedups and increased exploitation for twenty-five years. But after that period, affectionately remembered as “the golden age,” Bridges and his colleagues began to accept the “inevitability” of capitalist modernization. By the late 1950s, the emergence of new technologies associated with the conversion to trucking and highways (that is, containers) threatened control over work by the unionized workers.

[[Image:Loadingbags.jpg]]

'''Typical longshoring work in the 1940s.'''

''Photo: ILWU Archive''

[[Image:Containers-in-oakland 5359.jpg]]

'''Containers stacked at Port of Oakland, 2008.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

Longshoring was once a complicated job requiring great coordination and cooperation among agile, quick-thinking crews of strong men. The job changed from day to day, from dock to dock, ship to ship, and cargo to cargo. It took many finely developed skills to quickly load and unload a ship before the widespread adoption of containers. A list of typical cargoes, each packed for shipping in its own way, gives an idea of the variety facing the pre-automated longshoreman, and when you add the hundreds of different ships of all shapes and sizes, the complexity and variety increases proportionately. Typically, cargo consisted of differing sized crates and packages of varying weights shipped by small manufacturers. . . . Larger crated shipments of such variously sized and weighted items as machines and machine parts, furniture, glassware, dishes and ceramics, sports equipment, clothing, and relatively exotic or “specialty” food products; still larger and variously packaged shipments of all sorts of food—from 25 pound boxes of Norwegian sardines through 100 pound barrels of Greek olives—were common. So, too, were shipments of wines, beer, liquor, cheeses, teas, coconut and tapioca, tropical fruits, candy, cookies, and specialty desserts, plus a wide variety of canned goods. A host of industrial products—from ingots of copper, through sheet and bar steel, pipe and rails, to steel pellets, corrugated metals, and fencing—were standard. The number of sacked or bagged goods was leg- end: cement, flour, wheat, barley, coffee, and all sorts of nuts and dried fruit. Then, too, there were the offensive sacked cargoes which were worked at a penalty rate of pay, e.g. animal bones and meat scraps, blood and bone meal, fish meal, coal, lime, phosphates and nitrates, lamp black and soda ash. Baled goods were also common—cotton, rubber, rags, gunnies, jute, pulp and paper. Deck loads of lumber and/or logs, or creosoted pilings, utility poles, or railway ties, of farm and construction equipment and all sorts of commercial vehicles were almost always worked. (Mills 1976)

With the advent of the container, all that variety was buried in an endless stream of 20-ton boxes. In 1960, the famous [[Mechanization on the Waterfront|Mechanization and Modernization Agreement]] between the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association accelerated the process of capitalist restructuring that killed San Francisco’s commercial port and radically reshaped San Francisco’s economy. The ILWU reaffirmed the traditional U.S. trade union bargain: money (raises, pensions, bonuses) in exchange for control over work—its organization, its purpose, its use of technology. The owners got the long-sought power to change the structure of work and, by co-opting the longshoremen, to lay the essential foundation for the globalization of production.

In one fell swoop, the detailed work rules built up over twenty-five years of work stoppages, “quickie” strikes, hours of negotiations and scores of arbitration decisions were discarded. Gone were the double handling of cargo, the job “witnesses”—men who performed no work but only watched, manning scales, first place of rest, and so on. The employer was free to install any machines or methods he chose. The work, however, must be safe. The work of the individual longshoremen could not be made more “onerous.” (Selvin 1967)

Slingload weights increased and became derisively know as “Bridges Loads.” (Weir 1967) The M&M Agreement also contractually reinforced the old categories of worker seniority, officially denoting a three-tier hierarchy: “A” and “B” and “casual.” The B men are a permanent and regular section of the work force who get the pick of the dirtiest and heaviest jobs that are left over after the A, or union, men have taken their pick. After the B men, casuals hired on a daily basis get their turn at the remainders. The casuals get none of the regular fringe benefits. . . . [The B men] pay a pro-rata share of the hiring hall’s operating expenses, but have no vote . . . they sit in a segregated section of the [union] meeting hall’s balcony. . . . (Weir 1967)

Stan Weir organized a group of eighty-two B men who were briefly upgraded to A status (fulfilling a long-standing union promise to them) but were abruptly kicked back down to B status the very next day after the personal intervention of union president Harry Bridges. It’s a long, tangled, and much-disputed tale, but Weir argues that the real lesson of this saga was to strike fear into the A men, demonstrating that their brothers, sons, and friends were subject to the capricious whims of the union leadership if they wanted a steady union job on the waterfront. (Weir 1997) The solidity of a waterfront job was only as good as one’s loyalty to the Bridges regime. (It should be noted that some loyal ILWU stalwarts vehemently deny this version of events and insist that Stan Weir is all wrong.)

<blockquote>In 1963, in collusion with the employers [Bridges] led the Kafkaesque purge that expelled 82 [B men] from the waterfront jobs they had held for 4 years. (Over 80% of the 82 are Negroes.) They were tried in secret. The charges against them were not revealed. Their number, but not their identities was made known to ILWU members until after they were fired. [The discharged workers had no right] to counsel, to produce witnesses, to know the charges and to formal trial prior to judgment or sentencing. . . . Bridges’ witchhunt methods and double standards make the bureaucratic procedures used to expel his union from the CIO. . . . bland by comparison. (Weir 1967) </blockquote>

Bridges refused to concede anything to the dissidents, of whom Stan Weir was the most visible and outspoken. Seventeen years in various courts ultimately led to ILWU victory. Meanwhile, the ILWU carried on its “business as usual,” while many of the fired B men never recovered, their resulting despair leaving many broken lives and homes in its wake. (Weir, author’s interview 1997)

Spurred on by the Mechanization and Modernization Agreement, worklife on the waterfront was changing rapidly in the early 1960s. The M&M contract was renewed in 1966, the job security clause being dropped since the Vietnam War was keeping everyone on overtime anyway. A new clause was added, however, known as “9.43.” It allowed shippers to hire longshoremen directly to be their “steady men” running their expensive and “complex”
new cranes.

The longshoremen were divided on the owners’ demand for “steady men” to run their cranes. The older workers accepted at face value the owners’ assertion that running these big container cranes was a highly skilled activity requiring special training and skills. The younger workers soon figured out that it was “no big deal.” In fact, the new longshoring was considerably less skilled than the dangerous and varying work of loading and unloading ships in the pre-container era.

The ILWU severely weakened itself when it acquiesced to dividing the workers between those directly employed by the shippers as “steady men” and those regular longshoremen who continued to get work assignments through the union-controlled hiring hall. The almost sacred institution of the hiring hall, won at such great effort in the 1930s, withered as a consequence of this adaptation to “progress.” The longshoremen’s self-managed work-allocation system based on the hiring hall was outflanked by automation, which drastically reduced the number of workers needed. The shippers pushed their new edge further by insisting on choosing an elite group to be steadily employed, leaving union stalwarts with sporadic and insecure work assigned by the hiring hall. The economic advantages of becoming a 9.43 man (guaranteed full time hours and higher pay) were irresistible to many, and divisions soon grew within the union.

After eleven years of M&M, [[Why the 1971-72 ILWU Strike Failed|longshoremen struck in 1971]]. Rank-and-file activists were mobilized against allowing “steady men” to work the big cranes (versus those dispatched daily from the union hall), while Bridges and the union leadership focused the demands on who would be allowed to “stuff” containers and a wage increase. President Nixon’s use of the Taft-Hartley Act failed to produce a settlement (96% voted to strike at the beginning, and 92% voted to continue the strike after the Taft-Hartley injunction), but the strike’s resumption after the mandated 60-day cooling off period failed to halt the use of new waterfront technology and its consequent division of labor. The strike lasted 135 days, but the union won only modest wage increases and little else. Left for arbitration was the contentious question of the 9.43 men, and the arbitrator’s decision didn’t alter the clause or the rights of management to divide the workforce.

[[Image:Pier-80 4553.jpg]]

'''Pier 80 in San Francisco was modernized for container shipping, but too little too late. By the time the Port of San Francisco gave up on the Lighter Aboard Ship system (the betamax to the VHS of containers) most shippers had relocated to the state-of-the-art facilities in Oakland.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson, 2010''

There hasn’t been another big strike on the West Coast since 1971. Former Local 10 secretary-treasurer Herb Mills thinks the 1971 strike was undercut from within by Bridges and the International leadership at the time. (Mills 1996) He says the damage done by 9.43 and the failure of the ’71 strike has divided and weakened the workers a great deal. In fact, during the 1996 coastwide contract negotiations, the rank-and-file of the two largest locals (Local 10 in San Francisco, and Local 13 in San Pedro/Long Beach) rejected a contract proposal because it called for mild restrictions on steady men’s ability to collect tens of thousands of dollars in “side deals” with the shippers. The same contract was passed on the second try after a full-court-press campaign by the union’s top leaders. In any case, the labor relations deal that prevails on the Pacific Coast has allowed container tonnage to quadruple since 1980, while the number of work hours has remained constant for a workforce that has been reduced over 20 percent. (Pacific Maritime Association 1995) Today’s longshoreman is a well-paid worker who can easily afford an upper-middle-class lifestyle, but there are only about 9000 longshoremen on the entire West Coast. The hiring hall is no longer the unifying institution it once was, and even if you could interest longshoremen in the social/political reasons for maintaining it, cell phones and modern telecommunications have made a central dispatch hiring hall obsolete. The special culture that longshoremen created at such sacrifice and with such imaginative brilliance has been broken. The power that once so intimidated San Francisco’s rulers and planners has been bought off and made manageable by the apparatus of unionized collective bargaining, modernization and, as we shall see, co-optation.

The Home Front

Redesigning work to disconnect workers from their power was only part of the picture. After WWII, San Francisco’s leaders faced an urban landscape full of both physical and social obstacles. Whole neighborhoods had to go—community stability had become an obstacle to rapid economic growth. The story behind several decades of “urban redevelopment” in San Francisco reveals a second front in our local class war. “Progress” was as readily invoked to justify evicting thousands while bulldozing whole neighborhoods as it had been to dismantle decades of workers’ power on the job.

It is not accidental that the San Francisco neighborhoods most skilled in organizing, with the most active memory of how improvements were actually achieved, were the same neighborhoods that experienced the wrecking ball of redevelopment. Redevelopment targeted neighborhoods where relatively coherent subcultures within the working class flourished. (I speak of the predominantly [[Fillmore Redevelopment|African American Western Addition]], the [[Produce Market|Italian produce district]], and the South of Market single-room-occupancy hotels that housed thousands of retired workers who had participated in the great upsurge of the 1930s.)

The wrecking ball first cleared the old Italian Produce Market to make way for the Golden Gateway apartments and the eastward thrust of the Financial District to the bay in the early 1960s. This project also led to the demolition of the old Alaska Fishermen’s Union building between Commercial, Clay, the Embarcadero, and Drumm. With its demise the waterfront workers lost a vital social center that had served them for decades (the ground floor had housed the longshoremen’s hiring hall, and several other maritime unions had offices there). Then the Geary Boulevard corridor, known in Redevelopment-ese as Western Addition A-1, cleared a two-block corridor westward from Cathedral Hill through the heavily populated Fillmore District. By mid-1967 the Western Addition A-2 plan had been made public and was well underway, removing over a thousand old Victorians in the Fillmore District and displacing over 10,000 African Americans in the process. Further redevelopment plans targeted the South of Market, Chinatown, and Mission Districts.

By the late 1960s, citizens groups were mobilizing in every neighborhood against redevelopment. The 1968–1969 Student/Faculty Strike at San Francisco State galvanized a whole generation of young activists, many of whom threw them- selves into the blossoming neighborhood redevelopment and housing struggles around the [[I-Hotel Eviction Summary|I-Hotel]], Chinatown, the Mission, South of Market, and the Western Addition. In the Western Addition, community opposition came together in the [[WACO Attacks Redevelopment|Western Addition Community Organization (WACO)]], while in the South of Market [[TOOR (Tenants and Owners in Opposition to Redevelopment)|TOOR (Tenants and Owners in Opposition to Redevelopment)]] arose. (Hartman 1984) Thousands supported the ten-year struggle to save the I-Hotel, the last remnant of a once lively stretch known as Manilatown.

Justin Herman, head of the Redevelopment Agency, took a swing with “old reliable,” the progress club, when he angrily denounced WACO as a “passing flurry of proletarianism,” which was trying to “turn back the clock.” (Mollenkopf 1983) But the mobilized, politicized community organizations, in some cases fused with the Black and Brown Power movements of the 1960s, could not be stopped by bureaucratic scorn alone. The “redevelopers” had to gain legitimacy to proceed with their plans. They used trusted labor leaders to create the appearance of a balanced, objective consensus for progress and redevelopment.

Co-optation

Largely supporting the pro-growth consensus of the early 1960s, union leaders were seen by ruling elites as reasonable men. [[Mayor Joe Alioto|Joe Alioto]] (head of the Redevelopment Agency himself in the mid-1950s) consolidated the integration of the big unions in town when he won the mayoral election in 1967 by building an old-style political coalition of big business and big labor with overt patronage. After winning the election with strong union support (major campaign supporters were Laborers Local 261, which was 65 percent black and 25 percent Latino, and ILWU Local 10, which was 70 percent black), Mayor Alioto appointed Harry Bridges to the Port Commission. He appointed Stanley Jensen of the Machinists Union and Joe Mosely, an African American dispatcher in the ILWU, to the Redevelopment Agency, Hector Rueda of the Elevator Construction Workers Union to the Planning Commission, and Bill Chester, another black ILWU official, was made president of BART.

Former ILWU clerk Wilbur Hamilton, an African American pastor with strong roots in San Francisco, was appointed to the Redevelopment Agency in 1968 and soon got the job of project manager for the Western Addition A-2 project, the Agency’s largest project. Hamilton gave a black, pro-labor face to the essentially white racist “slum clearance” plan devised in the boardrooms of downtown San Francisco.

The unions already had a symbolically important role in the Democratic Party and the pro-development consensus. Jack Shelley had headed the San Francisco Labor Council in the 1950s before he went to Congress, and had become mayor in 1963. During his tenure he led the fight for the [[The Freeway Revolt|Panhandle–Golden Gate Park Freeway]]. His administration attempted to straddle the widening gap between the old blue-collar city and its ascendant incarnation as a corporate headquarters.

As social movements evolved through the upheavals of the 1960s and against the background of the permanent (“cold”) war, organized labor became an aggressive agent of the capitalist order. Unions supported anything that seemed to “create jobs,” leading the charge for San Francisco’s absurd and finally truncated freeway plan, as well as uncritically supporting Manhattanization and “redevelopment” of the residential neighborhoods in which workers lived.

In the South of Market, this pitted the once-vibrant and class-conscious unions against many of their own retirees during the fight over the Yerba Buena Center. Peter Mendelsohn, of the Tenants and Owners in Opposition to Redevelopment (TOOR), describes how the unions went after people fighting the Yerba Buena Center:

<blockquote>They lined up all the unions against us. They went and got all the leaders. George Woolf sent a letter to Harry Bridges, asking Bridges to hear our side. We told him, “you’ve heard Redevelopment’s side, now we’d like you to come down and hear our side.” . . . It was guys like George Woolf and me who went out and raised money when they accused him of being a communist and tried to deport him. We were two of the main guys to defend him. . . .

Harry Bridges’ answer to our letter was “I heard Redevelopment’s side, and Redevelopment’s side is good enough for me. I don’t want to hear your side.” If the unions supported us, this could never have happened. But the unions are bought off. (Resolution Film Center 1974) </blockquote>

In fact, the ILWU got a choice redevelopment property on Franklin Street atop Cathedral Hill, where the [[Harry Bridges Memorial Building|Harry Bridges Memorial Building]] now stands, home to the union, its library, and its pension fund. Individual longshoremen got homes in [[Building the St. Francis Community|co-op apartments built by the ILWU pension fund]] and the Redevelopment Agency in the Western Addition, and the Port Commission made available a South Beach lot for the ILWU’s Clerks Local 34. This is not to insinuate that any corruption was necessarily involved. Rather, this kind of deal-making is the quintessence of modern capitalism’s ability to propel itself, absorbing and redirecting oppositional movements.

[[Image:97SKYLIN.jpg]]

'''San Francisco skyline from Treasure Island in 1997, after decades of redevelopment and urban re-engineering by the local business and governing elite.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

[[Image:PIERS.jpg]]

'''Port of San Francisco. Once-bustling piers lie dormant in the shadow of San Francisco's new economy, the corporate headquarters of the Manhattanized financial district.'''

''Photo: Chris Carlsson''

Such co-optation contributed a great deal to the decline of trade unionism as a political and economic force. At best, it represents an ironic complicity in breaking transmission belts of working class culture and memory; at worst, it is a classic case of selling out the class for narrow material benefits. Union leaders who accept appointments to facilitate the corporate agenda offer us a disheartening example of ignorance, naiveté, corruption, or all three.

Capitalist modernization and social control cannot be blithely attributed to compliant union leaders, manipulative corporate planners, or complacent and forgetful workers. Our epoch is one in which historical amnesia is the rule, not the exception. Compelling visions of a different way of life (not organized to serve the market) are invisible or absent. When workers become more solid and organized, capital either mechanizes and restructures, or moves (or both). Future workplace revolts will have to plan for this. The stunted, warped life we live as “economic factors” rather than as full human beings has been utterly normalized and removed from history or social choice. We chase the buck and pay our bills because . . . well, what else is there?

Trumpeting San Francisco’s special novelty glosses over the essential sameness of life in San Francisco and elsewhere. The world’s most powerful capitalists cut their teeth and sharpened their strategies and techniques in San Francisco. Our daily life is the living proof that they have succeeded. These days “sudden revolt” sounds like a perfume or a rock band, not an implicit possibility within our collective revulsion at what passes for life.

Nevertheless, San Francisco continues to produce the seeds of revolt. The famous liberalism and tolerance for dissent helps make room for new initiatives that would be more difficult to embark on elsewhere. The half-century process of disrupting and disorganizing working-class communities at work and at home cannot prevent the inevitable re-emergence of real opposition. A new opposition, especially one that grasps the powerful levers available at work, remains to be defined. Among the fragments of our daily lives we must discover a language that reinforces our shared experiences and discoveries rather than emphasizing their identity-based differences. An inspired revolt based on a certainty that life can be much better than this is buried beneath the surface of our atomized existence. Can a new vision of progress help bring it up? Or will the progress club continue to bludgeon our aspirations for liberation? During the coming period the next chapters in San Francisco’s epic class struggle will be written, hopefully in a radically new way.

References

<blockquote>Brecher, Jeremy. 1972. ''Strike!'' Boston: South End Press. 
California, State of, 1940. ''Handbook of California Labor Statistics'', Table 37: “Workers Involved and Man-Days Idle in Strikes, by Industry Group, California, 1927-1939” and Table 36: “Workers Involved and Man-Days Idle in Strikes, California, Los Angeles City and San Francisco Bay Area, 1927-1940” 
California, State of, 1955, ''Handbook of California Labor Statistics 1953-1954'', Table 54: “Number of Work Stoppages, Workers Involved, and Man-Days Idle, Major California Cities, 1941-1951” 
Cobble, Dorothy. 1991. ''Dishing It Out: Waitresses and Their Unions in the Twentieth
Century''. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 
Hartman, Chester. 1984. ''The Transformation of San Francisco'', New York: Rowman & Allanheld. 
International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Information Dept. 1963. ''The
ILWU Story''. San Francisco, CA. 
Kazin, Michael. 1987. ''Barons of Labor: The San Francisco Building Trades and Union Power in the Progressive Era''. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 
Larrowe, Charles P. 1972. ''Harry Bridges: The Rise and Fall of Radical Labor in the United
States''. New York: Lawrence Hill & Co. 
Lens, Sidney. 1974. ''The Labor War'', New York: Anchor/Doubleday. 
Mills, Herb, 1976, “The San Francisco Waterfront: The Social Consequences of Industrial Modernization, Part One: ‘The Good Old Days’... and Part Two: ‘The Modern Longshore Operations’” reprinted from ''Urban Life''. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications: Beverly Hills 
Mollenkopf, John H. 1983. ''The Contested City'', New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 
Nelson, Bruce. 1990. ''Workers on the Waterfront: Seamen, Longshoremen, and Unionism in
the 1930s.'' Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 
Pacific Maritime Association. 1995. ''Annual Report'', San Francisco. 
Quin, Mike. 1948. ''The Big Strike''. Olema, CA: Olema Books 
Resolution Film Center. 1974. “Redevelopment: A Marxist Analysis,” film, b&w, 95 mins. 
Schwartz, Harvey, ed., July 20, 1995, ''The Dispatcher'', “The March Inland,” quoting Joe
Lynch in Part IX of the ILWU Oral History Project 
Schwartz, Harvey, ed., November 20, 1995, ''The Dispatcher'', “Rank and File Unionism in Action,” quoting Brother Hackett in Part XII of the ILWU Oral History Project 
Selvin, David. 1967. ''Sky Full of Storm''. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 
Selvin, David. 1996. ''A Terrible Anger''. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. 
Weir, Stan. 1996. “Unions With Leaders Who Stay On The Job.” In ''“We Are All Leaders”: The Alternative Unionism of the Early 1930s''. Edited by Staughton Lynd. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 
Weir, Stan. 1967. “USA—The Labor Revolt.” ''International Socialist Journal''. April and June 1967. 
Yellen, Samuel. 1936. ''American Labor Struggles''. Monad Press. New York: 1974 
Zerzan, John. 1977. ''Creation and Its Enemies: The Revolt Against Work'', “Unionization in America” Rochester, NY: Mutualist Book </blockquote>

<hr>

[[Image:Reclaiming-san-francisco.jpg|170px|left]] This article originally appeared in ''Reclaiming San Francisco: History Politics Culture'', a City Lights anthology edited by James Brook, Chris Carlsson, & Nancy J. Peters (City Lights Books, San Francisco: 1998)

[[category:Labor]][[category:ILWU]] [[category:Power and Money]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:Redevelopment]] [[category:Dissent]] [[category:1930s]] [[category:1940s]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:1934 General Strike]] [[category:Reclaiming San Francisco]]

Clark's Point

2026-07-11T05:25:13Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Woody LaBounty''

''Originally published as "A Room at Clark's Point" at [https://www.sanfranciscostory.com/a-room-at-clarks-point/ ''San Francisco Story''], June, 2026''

[[Image:German-magazine 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''The Fremont Hotel on the cover of a German magazine in 1850.'''

''Image: courtesy [https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/artifact/110564?AssetId=THF108367&ref=sanfranciscostory.com Henry Ford Museum/THF108367]''

At the dawn of the California Gold Rush, most of the early arrivals to San Francisco by sea came ashore at the southeastern edge of Telegraph Hill, land claimed by William S. Clark and called Clark’s Point.

Clark’s Point marked the northern edge of shallow, muddy [[Yerba Buena Cove|Yerba Buena Cove]] and Clark began building a fairly humble wharf there just before news of the discovery of gold in the Sierras reached the town of San Francisco in the spring of 1848.

Today the location corresponds with Broadway near Front Street, with the old cove to the south completely filled in by San Francisco’s Financial District.

[[Image:Clarks-point 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''On Broadway between Battery and Front streets, where my feet would be wet in 1848, but a good two blocks from the seawall today.'''

One gold rusher recalled pulling in to Clark’s Point in 1849 and seeing “the rising slope of Telegraph Hill directly in front,” and to the left, “the low water line, the sandy beach, the sand dunes covered with chaparral and scrub oak…”

But what he saw directly in front of him as he landed “was the largest building of any kind in this city […] on a bank, the edge of which was what is now the western line of Battery Street. It was, from the prominent position it occupied, the most striking object which met the eye of those who came into port.”

This was the Fremont Family Hotel, an enterprise of the house and ship carpenters, William Hood and Charles Wilson.

Named after “pathfinder,” self-promoter, and general problem, John C. Fremont, the two-story building with its four dormer windows opened for business in 1849 and had a great location to suck in the arriving gold seekers.

Clark’s Point was the most suitable place to land for the Argonauts pulling in via lighters, whale-boats, and dug-outs from ships anchored in deeper water.

[[Image:1848-map 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Yerba Buena Cove about to see some big changes in the fall of 1848. Clark's Point and Telegraph Hill in my red box.'''

''Image courtesy The New York Public Library/[https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/dec06470-c5ed-012f-6986-58d385a7bc34?canvasIndex=0 Stokes 1848-F-56].''

[[Image:1848-map-detail-1 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Drawn by Augustus Harrison, master of the brig "Belfast," this detail of the above map shows his vessel at Clark's Point at an early version of the Broadway wharf built by William S. Clark.''' The ''Belfast'' was the first ocean-sailing ship to moor at a San Francisco wharf. In my red circle is a penciled-in rectangle of the Fremont Family Hotel under construction. The "Old Fort" to the north is a breastwork put up during the United States conquest of California in 1846 and the reason for Battery Street's name.

A room at the Fremont Family Hotel at Clark’s Point was considered “a luxurious home for those who were fortunate to have secured lodgings there.” Ads for the business were published as far away as Germany. Its prime location, standing where “ships rode at anchor within a stone’s throw of its door-yard,” must have made the proprietors a mint in 1849-1850.

But 300,000 arriving gold-seekers need a lot of bed space. The mad entrepreneurial zeal of the Gold Rush meant competitive advantages were lost quickly. New hotels and housing options of all kinds popped up across the sandy dunes at the cove.

Humble Clark’s Point soon lost its preeminence to a frenzy of wharf building. In the summer of 1850, the ''Alta'' reported the cutting away of Telegraph Hill’s bank north of the Fremont hotel to access new piers capable of hosting “floating large class vessels and steamers.”

[[Image:1853-Coast-Survey 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Detail of the 1853 U.S. Coast Survey map showing James Cunningham’s and Laws' wharves above Clark's Point with many more stretching into the bay to the south. The need to port cargo and people ashore with small boats was ended. My white circle marks the site of the Fremont Family Hotel.'''

South of the hotel, entrepreneurs began construction of Central Wharf in 1849 at today’s Commercial and Montgomery streets. In 1850, wharves pushed out from Market and Pacific streets and more followed, extending to deeper water from Sacramento, Washington, Jackson, Clay, and Vallejo streets.

By 1853, Fremont House found itself in a metaphorical backwater of the city.

[[Image:433178 0 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Detail of an 1868 lithograph of the waterfront around Telegraph Hill with my labels. The Fremont Hotel was within my red circle. Early docks and wharves on the north (right) were quickly supplanted by larger ones to the south.'''

<big>'''An Old Relic'''</big>

In 1857, the ''Alta'' called “the old Fremont Hotel” (built just 8 years earlier) “a speculation which did not result very favorably” because the cliff sides all around the hotel had been carved away for ship ballast and street-making.

By the next year, 1858, the Fremont was called “an old relic,” an “ancient and venerable building” surrounded by large storehouses. It was land-locked, “lonely and deserted,” blocks from the waterfront, which was still being extended east. The Gold Rush hotel had lost its foundation completely to ballast-hunters and stood on posts 10 feet above those excavations.

[[Image:Vallejo-wharf-1860s 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Vallejo Street wharf in the mid 1860s with Telegraph Hill in the background. The Fremont Hotel building is hidden behind the stone warehouse at the foot of the wharf.'''

''Photo: Lawrence & Houseworth stereoview image''

Less than a decade after its construction, less than a decade removed from its status as one of the most imposing and luxurious of buildings, the state of the Fremont was assessed by a reporter:

“Its glory has departed and it wears the appearance of an old rickety, dusty old tumble-down edifice, with none so poor to make a shelter of its roof, except those well known denizens, the rats of San Francisco.”

In a city where the new is always prized and a decade-old building is a relic, the Fremont structure somehow held on for almost another 50 years.

The old hotel was used as a private hospital before transitioning into a rooming house for Italian immigrants. At the dawn of the 20th century, it was still standing on Battery Street, 60 feet north of Vallejo Street and set into a tidy row of wood-frame buildings next to a blacksmith shop.

[[Image:Fremont-hotel-1890 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''The former Fremont Hotel, second from left, used as a boarding house on the west side of the 900 block of Battery Street in 1890.'''

''Image: San Francisco Call, November 16, 1890, pg. 13.''

While recognized in the 1890s as one of the oldest structures in San Francisco, it was still judged as much of a wreck as it had been in 1858:

<blockquote>“Above the line of the cornice may be seen evidences of the ravages of time, decay and neglect. More than one-half of the panes of glass in the little dormer windows have been shattered, while the remainder are covered with cobwebs and the accumulated dust of years.” </blockquote>

The survivor of [[FIRE!|multiple fires]] in the city (five major ones just between 1849 and 1851), the old Fremont Family Hotel building likely met its end in the city’s biggest one. The entire block was wiped out by the great conflagrations following the April 18, 1906 earthquake.

The former location of the Fremont Hotel is today occupied by a large building, 901 Battery Street, which began life as the Petri Cigar Company.

[[Image:IMG 0135 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Former Petri Cigar Company building on the northwest corner of Battery and Vallejo streets.'''

Built in 1923, the cigar factory warehouse has stood almost half a century longer than the old Fremont Hotel lasted and is included in a Northeast Waterfront Historic District.

It took a while, but maybe San Franciscans started appreciating having some old relics around.

<big>'''Sources'''</big>

“Broadway Wharf,” ''The Californian'', April 12, 1848, pg. 2.

City Improvements,” ''Daily Alta California'', July 19, 1850, pg. 2.

“City Items,” ''Daily Alta California'', October 16, 1857, pg. 2.

“An Old Relic on Stilts,” ''Daily Alta California'', August 27, 1858, pg. 1.

“City Wharves,” ''Daily Alta California'', November 29, 1863, pg. 1.

“The Fremont Hotel,” ''San Francisco Call'', November 16, 1890, pg. 13.

[[category:1850s]] [[category:Gold Rush]] [[category:North Beach]] [[category:Telegraph Hill]] [[category:Buildings]]

Clark's Point

2026-07-11T05:23:22Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Woody LaBounty''

''Originally published as "A Room at Clark's Point" at [https://www.sanfranciscostory.com/a-room-at-clarks-point/ ''San Francisco Story''], June, 2026''

[[Image:German-magazine 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''The Fremont Hotel on the cover of a German magazine in 1850.'''

''Image: courtesy [https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/artifact/110564?AssetId=THF108367&ref=sanfranciscostory.com Henry Ford Museum/THF108367]''

At the dawn of the California Gold Rush, most of the early arrivals to San Francisco by sea came ashore at the southeastern edge of Telegraph Hill, land claimed by William S. Clark and called Clark’s Point.

Clark’s Point marked the northern edge of shallow, muddy [[Yerba Buena Cove|Yerba Buena Cove]] and Clark began building a fairly humble wharf there just before news of the discovery of gold in the Sierras reached the town of San Francisco in the spring of 1848.

Today the location corresponds with Broadway near Front Street, with the old cove to the south completely filled in by San Francisco’s Financial District.

[[Image:Clarks-point 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''On Broadway between Battery and Front streets, where my feet would be wet in 1848, but a good two blocks from the seawall today.'''

One gold rusher recalled pulling in to Clark’s Point in 1849 and seeing “the rising slope of Telegraph Hill directly in front,” and to the left, “the low water line, the sandy beach, the sand dunes covered with chaparral and scrub oak…”

But what he saw directly in front of him as he landed “was the largest building of any kind in this city […] on a bank, the edge of which was what is now the western line of Battery Street. It was, from the prominent position it occupied, the most striking object which met the eye of those who came into port.”

This was the Fremont Family Hotel, an enterprise of the house and ship carpenters, William Hood and Charles Wilson.

Named after “pathfinder,” self-promoter, and general problem, John C. Fremont, the two-story building with its four dormer windows opened for business in 1849 and had a great location to suck in the arriving gold seekers.

Clark’s Point was the most suitable place to land for the Argonauts pulling in via lighters, whale-boats, and dug-outs from ships anchored in deeper water.

[[Image:1848-map 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''erba Buena Cove about to see some big changes in the fall of 1848. Clark's Point and Telegraph Hill in my red box.'''

''Image courtesy The New York Public Library/[https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/dec06470-c5ed-012f-6986-58d385a7bc34?canvasIndex=0 Stokes 1848-F-56].''

[[Image:1848-map-detail-1 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Drawn by Augustus Harrison, master of the brig "Belfast," this detail of the above map shows his vessel at Clark's Point at an early version of the Broadway wharf built by William S. Clark.''' The ''Belfast'' was the first ocean-sailing ship to moor at a San Francisco wharf. In my red circle is a penciled-in rectangle of the Fremont Family Hotel under construction. The "Old Fort" to the north is a breastwork put up during the United States conquest of California in 1846 and the reason for Battery Street's name.

A room at the Fremont Family Hotel at Clark’s Point was considered “a luxurious home for those who were fortunate to have secured lodgings there.” Ads for the business were published as far away as Germany. Its prime location, standing where “ships rode at anchor within a stone’s throw of its door-yard,” must have made the proprietors a mint in 1849-1850.

But 300,000 arriving gold-seekers need a lot of bed space. The mad entrepreneurial zeal of the Gold Rush meant competitive advantages were lost quickly. New hotels and housing options of all kinds popped up across the sandy dunes at the cove.

Humble Clark’s Point soon lost its preeminence to a frenzy of wharf building. In the summer of 1850, the ''Alta'' reported the cutting away of Telegraph Hill’s bank north of the Fremont hotel to access new piers capable of hosting “floating large class vessels and steamers.”

[[Image:1853-Coast-Survey 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Detail of the 1853 U.S. Coast Survey map showing James Cunningham’s and Laws' wharves above Clark's Point with many more stretching into the bay to the south. The need to port cargo and people ashore with small boats was ended. My white circle marks the site of the Fremont Family Hotel.'''

South of the hotel, entrepreneurs began construction of Central Wharf in 1849 at today’s Commercial and Montgomery streets. In 1850, wharves pushed out from Market and Pacific streets and more followed, extending to deeper water from Sacramento, Washington, Jackson, Clay, and Vallejo streets.

By 1853, Fremont House found itself in a metaphorical backwater of the city.

[[Image:433178 0 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Detail of an 1868 lithograph of the waterfront around Telegraph Hill with my labels. The Fremont Hotel was within my red circle. Early docks and wharves on the north (right) were quickly supplanted by larger ones to the south.'''

<big>'''An Old Relic'''</big>

In 1857, the ''Alta'' called “the old Fremont Hotel” (built just 8 years earlier) “a speculation which did not result very favorably” because the cliff sides all around the hotel had been carved away for ship ballast and street-making.

By the next year, 1858, the Fremont was called “an old relic,” an “ancient and venerable building” surrounded by large storehouses. It was land-locked, “lonely and deserted,” blocks from the waterfront, which was still being extended east. The Gold Rush hotel had lost its foundation completely to ballast-hunters and stood on posts 10 feet above those excavations.

[[Image:Vallejo-wharf-1860s 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Vallejo Street wharf in the mid 1860s with Telegraph Hill in the background. The Fremont Hotel building is hidden behind the stone warehouse at the foot of the wharf.'''

''Photo: Lawrence & Houseworth stereoview image''

Less than a decade after its construction, less than a decade removed from its status as one of the most imposing and luxurious of buildings, the state of the Fremont was assessed by a reporter:

“Its glory has departed and it wears the appearance of an old rickety, dusty old tumble-down edifice, with none so poor to make a shelter of its roof, except those well known denizens, the rats of San Francisco.”

In a city where the new is always prized and a decade-old building is a relic, the Fremont structure somehow held on for almost another 50 years.

The old hotel was used as a private hospital before transitioning into a rooming house for Italian immigrants. At the dawn of the 20th century, it was still standing on Battery Street, 60 feet north of Vallejo Street and set into a tidy row of wood-frame buildings next to a blacksmith shop.

[[Image:Fremont-hotel-1890 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''The former Fremont Hotel, second from left, used as a boarding house on the west side of the 900 block of Battery Street in 1890.'''

''Image: San Francisco Call, November 16, 1890, pg. 13.''

While recognized in the 1890s as one of the oldest structures in San Francisco, it was still judged as much of a wreck as it had been in 1858:

<blockquote>“Above the line of the cornice may be seen evidences of the ravages of time, decay and neglect. More than one-half of the panes of glass in the little dormer windows have been shattered, while the remainder are covered with cobwebs and the accumulated dust of years.” </blockquote>

The survivor of [[FIRE!|multiple fires]] in the city (five major ones just between 1849 and 1851), the old Fremont Family Hotel building likely met its end in the city’s biggest one. The entire block was wiped out by the great conflagrations following the April 18, 1906 earthquake.

The former location of the Fremont Hotel is today occupied by a large building, 901 Battery Street, which began life as the Petri Cigar Company.

[[Image:IMG 0135 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Former Petri Cigar Company building on the northwest corner of Battery and Vallejo streets.'''

Built in 1923, the cigar factory warehouse has stood almost half a century longer than the old Fremont Hotel lasted and is included in a Northeast Waterfront Historic District.

It took a while, but maybe San Franciscans started appreciating having some old relics around.

<big>'''Sources'''</big>

“Broadway Wharf,” ''The Californian'', April 12, 1848, pg. 2.

City Improvements,” ''Daily Alta California'', July 19, 1850, pg. 2.

“City Items,” ''Daily Alta California'', October 16, 1857, pg. 2.

“An Old Relic on Stilts,” ''Daily Alta California'', August 27, 1858, pg. 1.

“City Wharves,” ''Daily Alta California'', November 29, 1863, pg. 1.

“The Fremont Hotel,” ''San Francisco Call'', November 16, 1890, pg. 13.

[[category:1850s]] [[category:Gold Rush]] [[category:North Beach]] [[category:Telegraph Hill]] [[category:Buildings]]

Clark's Point

2026-07-11T05:22:56Z

Ccarlsson: Created page with "''' Historical Essay ''' ''by Woody LaBounty'' ''Originally published as "A Room at Clark's Point" at [https://www.sanfranciscostory.com/a-room-at-clarks-point/ ''San Francisco Story'', June, 2026'' 800px '''The Fremont Hotel on the cover of a German magazine in 1850.''' ''Image: courtesy [https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/artifact/110..."

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Woody LaBounty''

''Originally published as "A Room at Clark's Point" at [https://www.sanfranciscostory.com/a-room-at-clarks-point/ ''San Francisco Story'', June, 2026''

[[Image:German-magazine 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''The Fremont Hotel on the cover of a German magazine in 1850.'''

''Image: courtesy [https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/artifact/110564?AssetId=THF108367&ref=sanfranciscostory.com Henry Ford Museum/THF108367]''

At the dawn of the California Gold Rush, most of the early arrivals to San Francisco by sea came ashore at the southeastern edge of Telegraph Hill, land claimed by William S. Clark and called Clark’s Point.

Clark’s Point marked the northern edge of shallow, muddy [[Yerba Buena Cove|Yerba Buena Cove]] and Clark began building a fairly humble wharf there just before news of the discovery of gold in the Sierras reached the town of San Francisco in the spring of 1848.

Today the location corresponds with Broadway near Front Street, with the old cove to the south completely filled in by San Francisco’s Financial District.

[[Image:Clarks-point 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''On Broadway between Battery and Front streets, where my feet would be wet in 1848, but a good two blocks from the seawall today.'''

One gold rusher recalled pulling in to Clark’s Point in 1849 and seeing “the rising slope of Telegraph Hill directly in front,” and to the left, “the low water line, the sandy beach, the sand dunes covered with chaparral and scrub oak…”

But what he saw directly in front of him as he landed “was the largest building of any kind in this city […] on a bank, the edge of which was what is now the western line of Battery Street. It was, from the prominent position it occupied, the most striking object which met the eye of those who came into port.”

This was the Fremont Family Hotel, an enterprise of the house and ship carpenters, William Hood and Charles Wilson.

Named after “pathfinder,” self-promoter, and general problem, John C. Fremont, the two-story building with its four dormer windows opened for business in 1849 and had a great location to suck in the arriving gold seekers.

Clark’s Point was the most suitable place to land for the Argonauts pulling in via lighters, whale-boats, and dug-outs from ships anchored in deeper water.

[[Image:1848-map 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''erba Buena Cove about to see some big changes in the fall of 1848. Clark's Point and Telegraph Hill in my red box.'''

''Image courtesy The New York Public Library/[https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/dec06470-c5ed-012f-6986-58d385a7bc34?canvasIndex=0 Stokes 1848-F-56].''

[[Image:1848-map-detail-1 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Drawn by Augustus Harrison, master of the brig "Belfast," this detail of the above map shows his vessel at Clark's Point at an early version of the Broadway wharf built by William S. Clark.''' The ''Belfast'' was the first ocean-sailing ship to moor at a San Francisco wharf. In my red circle is a penciled-in rectangle of the Fremont Family Hotel under construction. The "Old Fort" to the north is a breastwork put up during the United States conquest of California in 1846 and the reason for Battery Street's name.

A room at the Fremont Family Hotel at Clark’s Point was considered “a luxurious home for those who were fortunate to have secured lodgings there.” Ads for the business were published as far away as Germany. Its prime location, standing where “ships rode at anchor within a stone’s throw of its door-yard,” must have made the proprietors a mint in 1849-1850.

But 300,000 arriving gold-seekers need a lot of bed space. The mad entrepreneurial zeal of the Gold Rush meant competitive advantages were lost quickly. New hotels and housing options of all kinds popped up across the sandy dunes at the cove.

Humble Clark’s Point soon lost its preeminence to a frenzy of wharf building. In the summer of 1850, the ''Alta'' reported the cutting away of Telegraph Hill’s bank north of the Fremont hotel to access new piers capable of hosting “floating large class vessels and steamers.”

[[Image:1853-Coast-Survey 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Detail of the 1853 U.S. Coast Survey map showing James Cunningham’s and Laws' wharves above Clark's Point with many more stretching into the bay to the south. The need to port cargo and people ashore with small boats was ended. My white circle marks the site of the Fremont Family Hotel.'''

South of the hotel, entrepreneurs began construction of Central Wharf in 1849 at today’s Commercial and Montgomery streets. In 1850, wharves pushed out from Market and Pacific streets and more followed, extending to deeper water from Sacramento, Washington, Jackson, Clay, and Vallejo streets.

By 1853, Fremont House found itself in a metaphorical backwater of the city.

[[Image:433178 0 003 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Detail of an 1868 lithograph of the waterfront around Telegraph Hill with my labels. The Fremont Hotel was within my red circle. Early docks and wharves on the north (right) were quickly supplanted by larger ones to the south.'''

<big>'''An Old Relic'''</big>

In 1857, the ''Alta'' called “the old Fremont Hotel” (built just 8 years earlier) “a speculation which did not result very favorably” because the cliff sides all around the hotel had been carved away for ship ballast and street-making.

By the next year, 1858, the Fremont was called “an old relic,” an “ancient and venerable building” surrounded by large storehouses. It was land-locked, “lonely and deserted,” blocks from the waterfront, which was still being extended east. The Gold Rush hotel had lost its foundation completely to ballast-hunters and stood on posts 10 feet above those excavations.

[[Image:Vallejo-wharf-1860s 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Vallejo Street wharf in the mid 1860s with Telegraph Hill in the background. The Fremont Hotel building is hidden behind the stone warehouse at the foot of the wharf.'''

''Photo: Lawrence & Houseworth stereoview image''

Less than a decade after its construction, less than a decade removed from its status as one of the most imposing and luxurious of buildings, the state of the Fremont was assessed by a reporter:

“Its glory has departed and it wears the appearance of an old rickety, dusty old tumble-down edifice, with none so poor to make a shelter of its roof, except those well known denizens, the rats of San Francisco.”

In a city where the new is always prized and a decade-old building is a relic, the Fremont structure somehow held on for almost another 50 years.

The old hotel was used as a private hospital before transitioning into a rooming house for Italian immigrants. At the dawn of the 20th century, it was still standing on Battery Street, 60 feet north of Vallejo Street and set into a tidy row of wood-frame buildings next to a blacksmith shop.

[[Image:Fremont-hotel-1890 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''The former Fremont Hotel, second from left, used as a boarding house on the west side of the 900 block of Battery Street in 1890.'''

''Image: San Francisco Call, November 16, 1890, pg. 13.''

While recognized in the 1890s as one of the oldest structures in San Francisco, it was still judged as much of a wreck as it had been in 1858:

<blockquote>“Above the line of the cornice may be seen evidences of the ravages of time, decay and neglect. More than one-half of the panes of glass in the little dormer windows have been shattered, while the remainder are covered with cobwebs and the accumulated dust of years.” </blockquote>

The survivor of [[FIRE!|multiple fires]] in the city (five major ones just between 1849 and 1851), the old Fremont Family Hotel building likely met its end in the city’s biggest one. The entire block was wiped out by the great conflagrations following the April 18, 1906 earthquake.

The former location of the Fremont Hotel is today occupied by a large building, 901 Battery Street, which began life as the Petri Cigar Company.

[[Image:IMG 0135 002 ENVk.jpg|800px]]

'''Former Petri Cigar Company building on the northwest corner of Battery and Vallejo streets.'''

Built in 1923, the cigar factory warehouse has stood almost half a century longer than the old Fremont Hotel lasted and is included in a Northeast Waterfront Historic District.

It took a while, but maybe San Franciscans started appreciating having some old relics around.

<big>'''Sources'''</big>

“Broadway Wharf,” ''The Californian'', April 12, 1848, pg. 2.

City Improvements,” ''Daily Alta California'', July 19, 1850, pg. 2.

“City Items,” ''Daily Alta California'', October 16, 1857, pg. 2.

“An Old Relic on Stilts,” ''Daily Alta California'', August 27, 1858, pg. 1.

“City Wharves,” ''Daily Alta California'', November 29, 1863, pg. 1.

“The Fremont Hotel,” ''San Francisco Call'', November 16, 1890, pg. 13.

[[category:1850s]] [[category:Gold Rush]] [[category:North Beach]] [[category:Telegraph Hill]] [[category:Buildings]]

File:IMG 0135 002 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:18:50Z

Ccarlsson:

File:Fremont-hotel-1890 002 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:17:12Z

Ccarlsson:

File:Vallejo-wharf-1860s 002 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:15:50Z

Ccarlsson:

File:433178 0 003 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:13:33Z

Ccarlsson:

File:1853-Coast-Survey 002 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:12:09Z

Ccarlsson:

File:1848-map-detail-1 003 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:10:34Z

Ccarlsson:

File:1848-map 002 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:08:09Z

Ccarlsson:

File:Clarks-point 003 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:05:21Z

Ccarlsson:

File:German-magazine 002 ENVk.jpg

2026-07-11T05:03:38Z

Ccarlsson:

Peter Neumann: Pavane for a Dead Prince

2026-07-10T22:12:00Z

Ccarlsson: Created page with "''' Historical Essay ''' ''by Paulina Borsook, 2026'' 450px '''Peter G. Neumann''' ''Photo: Wikimedia Commons'' I can't stop thinking about it and I don't know how to write about it. It being the May 2026 death of august revered beloved computer scientist/computer security expert Peter Neumann at the age of 93. We were not friends; we met or talked just a f..."

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Paulina Borsook, 2026''

[[Image:Peter G Neumann.jpg|450px]]

'''Peter G. Neumann'''

''Photo: Wikimedia Commons''

I can't stop thinking about it and I don't know how to write about it.

It being the May 2026 death of august revered beloved computer scientist/computer security expert Peter Neumann at the age of 93. We were not friends; we met or talked just a few times in my role as technology journalist. But with some people, you just know: how warm, how deeply humane, how deeply wise, how deeply deep --- and a given, how brilliant.

A friend attended Neumann's memorial service in person (I logged in via Zoom) and among the holy relics on display for people to take as souvenirs of Neumann's life was a copy of ''Cyberselfish'', as comped by Public Affairs, the book's original publisher. Neumann had folded in a few reviews into the well-preserved first edition.

He was the farthest thing from being a "founder" in today's loathsome AI robot sense. He trusted research, not corporations. Yet he was an actual founder of computer-security projects and institutions, with maybe the most well-known being the ''Association for Computing Machinery Risks Forum'' newsgroup, where people reported in on the ways computers can go bad.

You could say running ''Risks'' was an act of caritas and empathy, a cataloging of harms that people should watch out for.

He was a prince among men, a mensch, all those words which mean someone deeply good. More than one grown man wept while standing on the memorial-service dais. He was a mentor, a loving family-man, a secular saint, no other way to put it. He anonymously donated $4 million to the chorus of the San Francisco Symphony (SFS), a gift which among other things gave the chorus an endowment. Somehow it seems typical of his great good character that he wanted the union-musician choristers, as well as SFS staffers, in on the discussions of the charitable gift.

Too many declarative sentences are in what follows, but I don't know how else to say what should be said. This chief scientist at the SRI thinktank-industrial lab embodied agape and philia. He worked for and believed in the sanctity and security of voting. It figures: he started his career working for 10 years at Bell Labs, another great entity dead, departed, and the like of which we will never see again.

He was one of Aristotle's great-souled men.

But now we have Zuck, Marc Andreessen, the Paypal Mafia, and the ignorant armies of AI clashing by night. Artisan AI (no really, that's its name) is the company which placed billboards all over San Francisco demanding "Stop Hiring Humans" and "Fire Steve/Hire Ava." Part of its mission statement: "Constantly apply pressure, be impatient, and strive for speed. This is a race."

Cultural institutions are shutting down or cutting back all over the Bay Area. Art isn't productive or efficient except perhaps as an asset class in an a well-diversified portfolio. Artspaces are disappearing into highest and best real estate use. Philanthropy is distasteful and pitiable and so last century; Neumann would now be considered a fool.

This is hell and we are in it.

As Steve Rappaport, a friend of forty+ years wrote in an email:

<blockquote>"When you think about it, what did they do besides ruin responsible media, shift advertising dollars to themselves, screw up entire generations, and establish themselves as royalty with divine rights?"</blockquote>

"The lamps are going out all over .... we shall not see them lit again in our life-time." Pace, Sir Edward Grey, who wrote this when World War One was starting up and hence also setting in motion the Second World War and the Communist takeovers of Eastern and Central Europe. Global immiseration, the wretched of the earth. Neumann was a lion and the superscalar despots are the donkeys, but that's really a slander on donkeys.

What have we become?

[[category:Famous characters]] [[category:Technology]] [[category:2020s]] [[category:South Bay and Peninsula]]

File:Peter G Neumann.jpg

2026-07-10T22:03:23Z

Ccarlsson:

Category:Theaters

2026-06-22T05:16:11Z

Ccarlsson:

[[Category:Theme]]

[[Image:SF-Fox.jpg]]

'''San Francisco Bids Farewell to the Fox'''

''Photo: [http://www.atos.org/Pages/Journal/Fox-SF-organ/Fox-SF-organ.html American Theatre Organ Society]''

Oral History: Dave Glass

2026-06-22T04:04:52Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Oral History '''

''Interviewed by LisaRuth Elliott and Chris Carlsson for Shaping San Francisco on March 2, 2023.''

Dave Glass has been taking photos of San Francisco going back to the 1970s. He grew up in the old Fillmore, and he was born in Mt Zion Hospital in 1951. After starting life in the Jewish neighborhood at 804A Webster Street, corner of Webster and Fulton, Glass spent some childhood years in the Fillmore before redevelopment. Later he documented the moving of Victorians around the neighborhood.

His family owned Lakeside Liquors at 2188 Mission Street at 18th in the Mission and later the first coin-operated laundromats in the Mission and Western Addition.

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/dave-glass-oral-history-december-18-2023" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's a selection of his photos from various Foundsf pages:

[[Image:1969-Nov-20-Polo-Fields-GG-Pk-Anti-war-rally-100000-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''November 20, 1969, [[Moratorium 1969|anti-Vietnam War rally]] at the Polo fields in Golden Gate Park.'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:1980-White-House-No-More-Evictions-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''The [[White House at Cole and Oak|White House]] at 404-410 Cole, as it was called in 1980 by the squatters in it, at corner of Oak Street, across from the [[Panhandle|Panhandle]].'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:Missoin District 1977 Dave Glass 3495900624 f14fa9bc3e o.jpg|720px]]

'''Street scene, [[Mission Life 1970s|1977, Mission District]].'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:1976-Victorian-on-stilts-being-moved-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''[[Moving Victorians in the Fillmore|Moving Victorians in the Fillmore]]'''

''Photo © [http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveglass/ Dave Glass], 1976-77''

[[Image:Bernal Hill Dave Glass 150867147 6ede6b88e6 o.jpg|600px]]

'''[[View from Mullen Street in the 1970s|Bernal residential]] buildings on the west slope near Fair and Mission, c. 1975.'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[category:Oral Histories]][[category:Jewish]] [[category:Photography]] [[category:Western Addition]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:2010s]] [[category:2020s]]

Oral History: Dave Glass

2026-06-22T03:59:50Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Oral History '''

''Interviewed by LisaRuth Elliott and Chris Carlsson for Shaping San Francisco on March 2, 2023.''

Dave Glass has been taking photos of San Francisco going back to the 1970s. He grew up in the old Fillmore, and he was born in Mt Zion Hospital in 1951. After starting life in the Jewish neighborhood at 804A Webster Street, corner of Webster and Fulton, Glass spent some childhood years in the Fillmore before redevelopment. Later he documented the moving of Victorians around the neighborhood.

His family owned Lakeside Liquors at 2188 Mission Street at 18th in the Mission and later a series of laundromats in the Sunset

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/dave-glass-oral-history-december-18-2023" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's a selection of his photos from various Foundsf pages:

[[Image:1969-Nov-20-Polo-Fields-GG-Pk-Anti-war-rally-100000-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''November 20, 1969, [[Moratorium 1969|anti-Vietnam War rally]] at the Polo fields in Golden Gate Park.'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:1980-White-House-No-More-Evictions-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''The [[White House at Cole and Oak|White House]] at 404-410 Cole, as it was called in 1980 by the squatters in it, at corner of Oak Street, across from the [[Panhandle|Panhandle]].'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:Missoin District 1977 Dave Glass 3495900624 f14fa9bc3e o.jpg|720px]]

'''Street scene, [[Mission Life 1970s|1977, Mission District]].'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:1976-Victorian-on-stilts-being-moved-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''[[Moving Victorians in the Fillmore|Moving Victorians in the Fillmore]]'''

''Photo © [http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveglass/ Dave Glass], 1976-77''

[[Image:Bernal Hill Dave Glass 150867147 6ede6b88e6 o.jpg|600px]]

'''[[View from Mullen Street in the 1970s|Bernal residential]] buildings on the west slope near Fair and Mission, c. 1975.'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[category:Oral Histories]][[category:Jewish]] [[category:Photography]] [[category:Western Addition]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:2010s]] [[category:2020s]]

Oral History: Dave Glass

2026-06-22T03:59:33Z

Ccarlsson: Created page with "''' Oral History ''' ''Interviewed by LisaRuth Elliott and Chris Carlsson for Shaping San Francisco on March 2, 2023.'' Dave Glass has been taking photos of San Francisco going back to the 1970s. He grew up in the old Fillmore, and he was born in Mt Zion Hospital in 1951. After starting life in the Jewish neighborhood at 804A Webster Street, corner of Webster and Fulton, Glass spent some chi..."

''' Oral History '''

''Interviewed by LisaRuth Elliott and Chris Carlsson for Shaping San Francisco on March 2, 2023.''

Dave Glass has been taking photos of San Francisco going back to the 1970s. He grew up in the old Fillmore, and he was born in Mt Zion Hospital in 1951. After starting life in the Jewish neighborhood at 804A Webster Street, corner of Webster and Fulton, Glass spent some childhood years in the Fillmore before redevelopment. Later he documented the moving of Victorians around the neighborhood.

His family owned Lakeside Liquors at 2188 Mission Street at 18th in the Mission and later a series of laundromats in the Sunset

<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/dave-glass-oral-history-december-18-2023" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's a selection of his photos from various Foundsf pages:

[[Image:1969-Nov-20-Polo-Fields-GG-Pk-Anti-war-rally-100000-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''November 20, 1969, [[Moratorium 1969|anti-Vietnam War rally]] at the Polo fields in Golden Gate Park.'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:1980-White-House-No-More-Evictions-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''The [[White House at Cole and Oak|White House]] at 404-410 Cole, as it was called in 1980 by the squatters in it, at corner of Oak Street, across from the [[Panhandle|Panhandle]].'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:Missoin District 1977 Dave Glass 3495900624 f14fa9bc3e o.jpg|720px]]

'''Street scene, [[Mission Life 1970s|1977, Mission District]].'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[Image:1976-Victorian-on-stilts-being-moved-Dave-Glass.jpg]]

'''[[Moving Victorians in the Fillmore|Moving Victorians in the Fillmore]]'''

''Photo © [http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveglass/ Dave Glass], 1976-77''

[[Image:Bernal Hill Dave Glass 150867147 6ede6b88e6 o.jpg|600px]]

'''[[View from Mullen Street in the 1970s|Bernal residential]] buildings on the west slope near Fair and Mission, c. 1975.'''

''Photo: Dave Glass''

[[category:Oral Histories]][[category:Jewish]] [[category:Photography]] [[category:Western Addition]] [[category:Fillmore]] [[category:Mission]] [[category:1950s]] [[category:1960s]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:1980s]] [[category:1990s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:2010s]] [[category:2020s]]

Legends of Early Riches

2026-06-12T23:52:10Z

Ccarlsson: Undo revision 39155 by Ccarlsson (talk)

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Steven Carey Lassoff, 2014''

[[Image:Palace Hotel 1870s Lloyd Tevis at center wnp37.00867.jpg|800px]]

'''Palace Hotel, 1870s, Lloyd Tevis sits at center with African-American staff in background. In the 1880s, the black workers were [[BLACKS AND LABOR|dismissed en masse under pressure from white labor unions]].'''

''Photo: OpenSFHistory.org, wnp37.00867''

In 1870’s San Francisco, there were more banks and millionaires than Boston and New York combined. The Titans of Commerce, men whose fortunes came from the Comstock Lode in Nevada, met and played poker in cash games for what today would be millions of dollars. Little did the Banking King and the Wheat King know that the King of the Stock Exchange would deal unbelievable hands that would leave them both All In!

After its birth on Mississippi riverboats in mid-19th century America, the game of Poker was played around the campfires of both sides of the Civil War. The game spread across the country and poker became ingrained in the culture of America, permeating all classes from the common laborer to the very rich. The rich gambled millions in risky capital investments during the day and millions in high-stakes games at night. Nowhere were these rich games more prominent than in the West’s premiere boomtown, San Francisco. Famous for the Barbary Coast and gambling palaces like the Bella Union, the city boasted wealthy cash games played with stacks of shiny $20 gold coins for chips and the pots went over $150,000. Back then, a complete steak dinner with champagne cost $2. Gold was $20 an ounce. When you do the math, $150,000 would be $7.5 million in today’s dollars!

San Francisco was the center of capitalist America during and following the Civil War period due to mineral finds in Nevada. When the Gold Rush in the Mother Lode ended, later explorations of the Sierras to the East revealed the Comstock [silver] Lode. Hoping to keep this wealth in the Union, Nevada was one of the only two territories made a state during the Civil War, the other being West Virginia when it broke away from Virginia. How did San Francisco gain control over Nevada’s silver? The day of the lone miner and his mule was over. Once placer deposits ran out, hard-rock and hydraulic mining became necessary and these undertakings required investments, venture capital and stock markets. Investors became big financiers with connections to Eastern and European banks.

Only 500+ mines were profitable in the Comstock but tens of thousands of stocks were issued for mining ventures in the mountains near Virginia City, Nevada. Everyone from mogul to waitress gambled on the mining market, betting on whatever hot tip came their way. At the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board these stocks were bought and sold, making fortunes for those who knew how to stack the deck. One institution at the center of the dealing was the Bank of California.

<big>'''William Ralston'''</big>

[[BANK OF CALIFORNIA and WILLIAM RALSTON|William Chapman Ralston]] is an enigmatic figure in California history. Born in Ohio in 1826, he was a 22-year-old clerk on a paddle-wheeler near New Orleans when the call of ’49 reached him. He ended up in Panama City, Panama, a city on the route to the gold fields and there, first involved himself with banking. One of his failed investments during this period was the financing of soldier-of-fortune William Walker’s attempt to take over Nicaragua. A partner moved to San Francisco to work for Cornelius Vanderbilt and Ralston followed in 1854. Once there, Ralston dreamed of a bank that would stand as the leading financial institution in the development of San Francisco and Northern California. To this end, Ralston created The Bank of California in 1864. California’s leading businessmen bought stock, giving Ralston $2 million to invest as he saw fit.

And what he saw was the [[Silver Legacy: San Francisco and the Comstock Lode|Comstock Lode]]. Ralston found the recently unemployed William Sharon who had traveled to California with his father-in-law in 1849. Ralston turned Sharon loose in the Comstock where he proved to be a swarm of locusts personified. Making loans to ore mills that he knew had bad credit, Sharon soon owned some of the mills and then, by undercutting the prices of his competition, all the mills. Control the mills and you control the ore; control the ore and you control the mines. In short order, Sharon and the Bank of California owned mills, mines, forests, roads, transportation, waterworks, built the only train into and out of the mines, and hired anybody that was needed, including the best Nevada state politicians money could buy. While Sharon controlled the wealth that poured out of Nevada, Ralston worked in San Francisco buying and manipulating the mining stock and making a fortune for himself and the bank.

The floor of the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board has been compared to sharks and chum by more than one observer. There was no such regulatory organization like the Federal Trade Commission. Rules were practically non-existent. San Francisco banker and future Civil War general [[Sherman's Bank in Jackson Square|William Tecumseh Sherman]] remarked of the Exchange “…the very nature of the country begats speculation, extravagance, failures and rascality.” At the Exchange, the closest thing to the illusion of honesty was the Caller for the Board, young Benjamin Howard Coit, whose on-the-floor rulings would determine the validity of disputed trades, enforced with the power to fine any broker at will. Always described as a pillar of fairness with a powerful Stentorian voice (needed to be heard above the roar of the market floor), Coit was paid a princely sum to NOT engage in stock trading to insure impartiality. But his position was mere window-dressing, a band-aid on the bullet-hole of ravenous inside-trading and corrupt manipulation that was the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board.

Ralston’s Bank Crowd was the richest and most powerful group in San Francisco. Ralston was responsible for the founding of many of California’s commercial industries and state institutions. The first: office block, factories, libraries, giant dry docks, university, grand theater and vineyards. He helped get the Transcontinental Railroad off the ground and when he couldn’t control it, fought against it. He built the largest hotel in the world at the time, the [[Palace Hotel|Palace Hotel]], with 773 rooms, an indoor horse court (so you could step from your carriage into the hotel) and indoor plumbing in all rooms—a first for the 1870s! Ralston and his bank had its hand in every big deal in California. He was the most powerful man in the richest state in the nation and could afford anything including a good poker game with men of similar means.

[[Image:Grand Victoria and Palace Hotels c 1880s.jpg|800px]]

'''Grand Victoria and Palace Hotels on either side of New Montgomery Street along south side of Market, c. 1880s.'''

''Photo: provenance unknown, via Facebook''

<big>'''Isaac Freidlander, King of Wheat'''</big>

[[Wheat King: Isaac Friedlander|Isaac Freidlander]] was a 6’7” German of Jewish background, born in Oldenburg in 1823. Arriving with other gold-seekers by way of New York and Georgia, Freidlander left the mines realizing his talents lay in the trading of goods and supplying miners’ needs in the ever-expanding market that was Gold Rush San Francisco. Fortune directed him towards the grain business and after successfully cornering the wheat market, Friedlander built California’s first industrial flour mill, the Eureka Mill. He had thoughts of export and saw that to successfully export flour, he must have reliable cargo space and a dependable shipping schedule. The system was haphazard and capricious.

He decided to charter ships based on his own crop estimates made during the sowing season, a risky proposition. It was an all-in bet, guessing the size of the crop before it came in but it paid off big for Freidlander. His system was better, confirmed arrival dates and guaranteed tonnage and quickly supplanted what was in place before it. At first, flour from California went to England. But Freidlander was a visionary and in the fall of 1854, he was the first to export flour to China. It took 100 days to get flour to England but only 30 days to get the same flour to China the dangerous Cape Horn was avoided. The Asian market was also free of competition. There were only human/animal powered grist mills to feed foreign colonies and the ever- growing number of Chinese. Freidlander offered a superior product to what local mills could supply.

It was a winning idea. He became a multimillionaire in an era where beer was 5 cents a glass. At one time, he was in a partnership that owned 500,000 acres of California’s San Joaquin Valley. He had an office building at California and Sansome, right across the street from Ralston’s Bank of California with its impressive facade.

<big>'''Origins of the Cliff House'''</big>

Where would two financial giants in the richest city in America go to play cards? Legend has it that the original [[C L I F F H O U S E|Cliff House]], facing the ocean at San Francisco’s northwestern corner near Seal Rock, was built from a lumber ship that crashed on the rocks below salvaged by the man who started the Gold Rush, Sam Brannan. In reality, in 1863 a rich real estate tycoon got investors (including a state senator) to build the Point Lobos Toll road (now Geary Blvd.) out to ocean and at its end, Cliff House, “a new and elegant hotel”. Before, the trail to the coast involved a trek through sand dunes and was hard to reach by foot or horse. A stable road of crushed red rock was built and one could rent a rig and ride out to watch the ocean and listen to the sea lions barking below while eating fine food in an elegant setting. It was an expensive proposition and not for the average person, rigs renting for up to $10/day. A separate track existed for those who craved speed and wanted to race to the beach as a single rider or in fine carriages with expensive horse teams. The wealthy took advantage of all this.

[[Image:First Cliff House from Cliff Road, pre-1868 additions opensfhistory wnp24.198a.jpg|800px]]

'''First Cliff House from Cliff Road.'''

''Photo: OpenSFHistory.org wnp27.198a''

Captain Junuis Foster was hired to run the sea-side resort and under his capable managerial hand, Cliff House became a major 19th century San Francisco destination and established a reputation that saw the visit of two presidents and many important dignitaries as guests. Anyone who’s worked in the service industry will tell you when you are lucky enough to have that special combination of mercurial things that makes a joint a success, it’s not to be messed with. But the natural desire to expand and exploit starts up a tinkering process on the original concept that tries to “fix it when it ain’t broke”. In 1868, Foster tripled the size of the building, adding two wings and a long balcony piazza facing the sea. But the place changed. Now it was always too crowded. The clientele went from society elites and prominent names to a racier set, “…gamblers, hard drinkers and secret lovers.” It became a place where politicians met inconspicuously to cut deals, a place where you brought your mistress to enjoy fine dining in elegant rooms behind closable doors. It became a place where rich men met to play cards.

One night in the early 1870’s, Ralston, Freidlander, Foster, Coit and another man named Frank Ladd met at Cliff House for a game of Five Card Draw. All had arrived except for Coit who dropped by late. After a few hands, Coit mentioned he had been detained by what sounded like a grounded ship out near Seal Rock, barely discernable through the dark nasty weather. The others looked at each other, dropped their cards and went through the French doors to the balcony to have a look. It was Coit’s deal and he began to complain about the interruption. When the men sat back down and picked up their hands, Ralston casually threw his cards down and put in a solitary chip. Friedlander was not so fast but he went two better. Ladd just saw it as did Coit. Then Coit gave Ralston one card. Friedlander took two and Ladd three. Coit took three, looked at them and dropped out, saying he was going to check on the distressed vessel. Freidlander bet $100. Ladd folded. Ralston raised. Freidlander re-raised. And now the action gets furious and mythical, depending on the telling and the teller.

The Wheat King Freidlander and the Banking King Ralston went at it, raising and re-raising until the pot was $50,000, $75,000, some say $100,000, millions in 2010 dollars. Finally the action stopped. The men looked at each other, looking at their opponents unexposed cards, almost panting. The Moment of Truth. Ralston overturned his cards. Freidlander threw his down. Ralston blinked and his mouth opened a little. Friedlander gasped and his eyes went wide. They both had…FOUR KINGS! They looked at each other for a second, trying to figure out what happened. “Coit!” gulped Ralston. Junius Foster started laughing and pointed out the window where Coit was seen, also laughing, riding back to San Francisco…in Ralston’s carriage and team! Imagine something like that happening on WPT or WSOP or some other million dollar pot! I’m sure once the shock wore off and their bets were returned, the two tycoons appreciated Coit’s practical joke, pulled with a salted deck. These men were used to risky deals and deceitful manipulations. They took it as the good stunt it was. No one was hurt. What a story they would have! They could afford to be gracious now.

Within five years, Fate would deal them much harsher hands than this. Like all over-inflated fringe markets, the Pacific mining frenzy came to a crashing halt in the financial Panic of 1875. Two Irish-American San Francisco saloon keepers who catered to the Exchange crowd purposely to garner stock tips, partnered up with two Irish-American Virginia City mining superintendents who had kept secret a recent discovery: a large silver deposit in the Consolidated Virginia mine. After the four bought up the controlling share of the mine’s stock, the claim was revealed and it was so big, it staggered the imagination. They had already cut a chamber of silver 20 feet high, 50 feet wide and 140 feet long that assayed out at up to $632 a ton. It would total out to be a $190,000,000 bonanza ($8-10 billion today), an unbelievable sum and the four—James G. Fair, James C. Flood, William S. O’Brien and John W. Mackay—became the Silver Kings. The Bank of California’s stranglehold on the Comstock was over.

When the new kings started the Bank of Nevada, the writing was on the wall for Ralston. But Ralston’s downfall was all Sharon. Sharon resented Ralston for stopping Sharon’s bid to be US senator from Nevada as a conflict of interest for the bank. Scheming for revenge, Sharon touted Ralston on to what he promised would be the next big bonanza, the Ophir mine. Sharon, who owned a large block of the stock, knew it was worthless but told Ralston it was the next Consolidated Virginia. Ralston was hoping to bolster his flagging fortunes, depleted after pouring millions into the Palace Hotel project which still needed millions more to complete. Ralston started buying huge blocks of Ophir stock, causing the price to rise. On the morning of August 26, 1875, Sharon dumped his shares of Ophir stock at its highest point. The stock collapsed, other stocks went with it and the entire market crashed, ruining the paper fortunes of thousands, wiping out businesses and causing mass unemployment. Ralston was left holding millions of shares of mining stock that had gone from $55 to $18 in one afternoon.

Within hours, there was a run on the Bank of California. Crowds of fear-driven depositors emptied its vaults and coin-racks. The bank lost $1.4 million in one day and was forced to shut its big iron doors before the close of business for the first time in its history. The next morning, August 27, 1875, a post-mortem by the bank’s board of directors revealed grave discrepancies, $9 million worth of discrepancies. Unauthorized issuance of bank stock, monies paid missing. Stocks left in trusteeship, missing. Gold left in deposit, missing. There was a failed attempt to buy up San Francisco’s water supply and sell it to the city of San Francisco for $15 million. After a newspaper exposé and a public outcry, the supervisors voted it down. The bank’s board of directors decided that Ralston should step down and hand over his keys—even though he had made every one of them rich. This was a foregone conclusion as Sharon had gone behind Ralston’s back and bought up a majority share of bank stock and therefore controlled the vote. Ralston reluctantly turned the keys over.

[[William Ralston|Ralston swam in the San Francisco Bay everyday]], no matter what and personal disaster would not keep him from his daily habit. Daily habits were about all he had left. The day after the market crash and the run on the bank and the same day as his dismissal, Ralston went out for a swim in San Francisco Bay—and drowned, leaving behind a wife and children. Heart attack? Suicide? Murder? Broken heart? The coroner’s report pointed to “apoplectic stroke”. The city that shunned his water scheme turned out for his funeral in the tens of thousands, one of the city’s biggest, lauding his praises. They repeated the stories like when the bank was funding the founding of a town at a new railroad juncture in California’s central valley. Someone suggested “Ralstonville” or “Ralstontown”. “No,” Ralston insisted. “Not after me, please.” A Spanish-speaking resident commented, “Muy modesto.” And so the town took that as its name, Modesto.

Friedlander wasn’t spared the effects of the Panic of ’75 either. His fortunes were firmly tied to the fate of the Bank of California and the Exchange so when they fell, his empire fell as well. Others took over in the flour export business and he disappeared from the financial scene, dying of a heart attack in 1878. Before he died in May, 1885, Coit had a lively old time married to Lillie Hitchcock Coit, a darling daughter of San Francisco stock, rough and tumble and a smoker of cigars. She rode along with the volunteer fire departments to watch them battle blazes when such organizations were followed like ball teams and worshipped by hoards of fans. Lillie left the city her “special” monuments: the statue of brawny volunteer firemen “manning their hoses” in Washington Square Park and Arthur Brown Jr/Henry Howard’s art deco Coit Tower, at the top of Telegraph Hill. Freudians have your field-day!

Sharon screwed Ralston as completely as possible. He bought up Ralston’s assets for pennies on the dollar including his showplace estate, Belmont, one of the first in the country to have an air conditioning system, located just south of San Francisco in the town that now bears its name. He evicted Ralston’s widow and even tried to seize the life insurance left to her before Ralston’s friends dissuaded him. Sharon took credit for reorganizing and saving the Bank of California, was finally elected Nevada state senator and when the Palace Hotel was completed, Sharon’s name was seen everywhere, Ralston’s nowhere. Perhaps it’s fitting that at this hotel Sharon met his downfall entangled in the charms and legal embraces of a beautiful young woman—but that’s another article.

Cliff House is still there today and it still offers beautiful views. After Foster’s tenure, it went through another transformation when bought by ex-SF mayor Adolph Sutro (of Mt. Sutro fame), who added Sutro Baths, the world’s largest indoor bath at the time. Sutro got rich when he had the crazy idea of drilling a seven mile tunnel from below the Comstock to drain off the scalding hot waters that block mining, another idea originally funded by Ralston that he turned against when it was clear the bank couldn’t control it.

The Bank of California exists today as Union Bank of California. The vaults of its main branch were spared the destruction of the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. Its historic contents, including many Ralston artifacts, are on display in the Bank of California museum at 400 California Street on the lower floor, open during banking hours. The Silver King’s Bank of Nevada was finally bought up by a Los Angeles bank in 1905 along with another San Francisco pioneer business that was separating its banking and express services, Wells Fargo thus Wells Fargo Bank was born. While researching a screenplay, I came across this story in an undated 1910-20’s ''SAN FRANCISCO CALL'' newspaper clipping by Walter J. Thompson in a column THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS. Many “in-the-good-old-days” articles, covering 1850’s-1900’s, are attributed to Thompson. It is in this piece he dedicates paragraphs to the poker story. Like many great tales of the West, I could not substantiate any part of it. None. There’s no identity for whoever told the story to Thompson. Thompson left no notes. The named characters and locations are real enough but with no dates to tie it down to journal entries or diaries, I have not been able to find real evidence to verify this story. Did the poker game happen? It sounds plausible and real enough from the telling. It falls in that wonderful category the history of the West finds itself oh so frequently: the Legend. And that reminds me of one the great ending to John Ford’s ''The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance''. A reporter is speaking with Sen. Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) who just finished setting the record straight about the shooting that started his career. The reporter makes the statement: “In the West, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” Amen to that, brother. So be it.

[[category:1870s]] [[category:1880s]] [[category:Power and Money]] [[category:Richmond District]] [[category:San Francisco outside the city]]

Legends of Early Riches

2026-06-12T23:50:42Z

Ccarlsson:

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Steven Carey Lassoff, 2014''

[[Image:Palace Hotel 1870s Lloyd Tevis at center wnp37.00867.jpg|800px]]

'''Palace Hotel, 1870s, Lloyd Tevis sits at center with African-American staff in background. In the 1880s, the black workers were [[BLACKS AND LABOR|dismissed en masse under pressure from white labor unions]].'''

''Photo: OpenSFHistory.org, wnp37.00867''

In 1870’s San Francisco, there were more banks and millionaires than Boston and New York combined. The Titans of Commerce, men whose fortunes came from the Comstock Lode in Nevada, met and played poker in cash games for what today would be millions of dollars. Little did the Banking King and the Wheat King know that the King of the Stock Exchange would deal unbelievable hands that would leave them both All In!

After its birth on Mississippi riverboats in mid-19th century America, the game of Poker was played around the campfires of both sides of the Civil War. The game spread across the country and poker became ingrained in the culture of America, permeating all classes from the common laborer to the very rich. The rich gambled millions in risky capital investments during the day and millions in high-stakes games at night. Nowhere were these rich games more prominent than in the West’s premiere boomtown, San Francisco. Famous for the Barbary Coast and gambling palaces like the Bella Union, the city boasted wealthy cash games played with stacks of shiny $20 gold coins for chips and the pots went over $150,000. Back then, a complete steak dinner with champagne cost $2. Gold was $20 an ounce. When you do the math, $150,000 would be $7.5 million in today’s dollars!

San Francisco was the center of capitalist America during and following the Civil War period due to mineral finds in Nevada. When the Gold Rush in the Mother Lode ended, later explorations of the Sierras to the East revealed the Comstock [silver] Lode. Hoping to keep this wealth in the Union, Nevada was one of the only two territories made a state during the Civil War, the other being West Virginia when it broke away from Virginia. How did San Francisco gain control over Nevada’s silver? The day of the lone miner and his mule was over. Once placer deposits ran out, hard-rock and hydraulic mining became necessary and these undertakings required investments, venture capital and stock markets. Investors became big financiers with connections to Eastern and European banks.

Only 500+ mines were profitable in the Comstock but tens of thousands of stocks were issued for mining ventures in the mountains near Virginia City, Nevada. Everyone from mogul to waitress gambled on the mining market, betting on whatever hot tip came their way. At the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board these stocks were bought and sold, making fortunes for those who knew how to stack the deck. One institution at the center of the dealing was the Bank of California.

<big>'''William Ralston'''</big>

[[BANK OF CALIFORNIA and WILLIAM RALSTON|William Chapman Ralston]] is an enigmatic figure in California history. Born in Ohio in 1826, he was a 22-year-old clerk on a paddle-wheeler near New Orleans when the call of ’49 reached him. He ended up in Panama City, Panama, a city on the route to the gold fields and there, first involved himself with banking. One of his failed investments during this period was the financing of soldier-of-fortune William Walker’s attempt to take over Nicaragua. A partner moved to San Francisco to work for Cornelius Vanderbilt and Ralston followed in 1854. Once there, Ralston dreamed of a bank that would stand as the leading financial institution in the development of San Francisco and Northern California. To this end, Ralston created The Bank of California in 1864. California’s leading businessmen bought stock, giving Ralston $2 million to invest as he saw fit.

And what he saw was the [[Silver Legacy: San Francisco and the Comstock Lode|Comstock Lode]]. Ralston found the recently unemployed William Sharon who had traveled to California with his father-in-law in 1849. Ralston turned Sharon loose in the Comstock where he proved to be a swarm of locusts personified. Making loans to ore mills that he knew had bad credit, Sharon soon owned some of the mills and then, by undercutting the prices of his competition, all the mills. Control the mills and you control the ore; control the ore and you control the mines. In short order, Sharon and the Bank of California owned mills, mines, forests, roads, transportation, waterworks, built the only train into and out of the mines, and hired anybody that was needed, including the best Nevada state politicians money could buy. While Sharon controlled the wealth that poured out of Nevada, Ralston worked in San Francisco buying and manipulating the mining stock and making a fortune for himself and the bank.

The floor of the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board has been compared to sharks and chum by more than one observer. There was no such regulatory organization like the Federal Trade Commission. Rules were practically non-existent. San Francisco banker and future Civil War general [[Sherman's Bank in Jackson Square|William Tecumseh Sherman]] remarked of the Exchange “…the very nature of the country begats speculation, extravagance, failures and rascality.” At the Exchange, the closest thing to the illusion of honesty was the Caller for the Board, young Benjamin Howard Coit, whose on-the-floor rulings would determine the validity of disputed trades, enforced with the power to fine any broker at will. Always described as a pillar of fairness with a powerful Stentorian voice (needed to be heard above the roar of the market floor), Coit was paid a princely sum to NOT engage in stock trading to insure impartiality. But his position was mere window-dressing, a band-aid on the bullet-hole of ravenous inside-trading and corrupt manipulation that was the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board.

Ralston’s Bank Crowd was the richest and most powerful group in San Francisco. Ralston was responsible for the founding of many of California’s commercial industries and state institutions. The first: office block, factories, libraries, giant dry docks, university, grand theater and vineyards. He helped get the Transcontinental Railroad off the ground and when he couldn’t control it, fought against it. He built the largest hotel in the world at the time, the [[Palace Hotel|Palace Hotel]], with 773 rooms, an indoor horse court (so you could step from your carriage into the hotel) and indoor plumbing in all rooms—a first for the 1870s! Ralston and his bank had its hand in every big deal in California. He was the most powerful man in the richest state in the nation and could afford anything including a good poker game with men of similar means.

[[Image:Grand Victoria and Palace Hotels c 1880s.jpg|800px]]

'''Grand Victoria and Palace Hotels on either side of New Montgomery Street along south side of Market, c. 1880s.'''

''Photo: provenance unknown, via Facebook''

<big>'''Isaac Freidlander, King of Wheat'''</big>

[[Wheat King: Isaac Friedlander|Isaac Freidlander]] was a 6’7” German of Jewish background, born in Oldenburg in 1823. Arriving with other gold-seekers by way of New York and Georgia, Freidlander left the mines realizing his talents lay in the trading of goods and supplying miners’ needs in the ever-expanding market that was Gold Rush San Francisco. Fortune directed him towards the grain business and after successfully cornering the wheat market, Friedlander built California’s first industrial flour mill, the Eureka Mill. He had thoughts of export and saw that to successfully export flour, he must have reliable cargo space and a dependable shipping schedule. The system was haphazard and capricious.

He decided to charter ships based on his own crop estimates made during the sowing season, a risky proposition. It was an all-in bet, guessing the size of the crop before it came in but it paid off big for Freidlander. His system was better, confirmed arrival dates and guaranteed tonnage and quickly supplanted what was in place before it. At first, flour from California went to England. But Freidlander was a visionary and in the fall of 1854, he was the first to export flour to China. It took 100 days to get flour to England but only 30 days to get the same flour to China the dangerous Cape Horn was avoided. The Asian market was also free of competition. There were only human/animal powered grist mills to feed foreign colonies and the ever- growing number of Chinese. Freidlander offered a superior product to what local mills could supply.

It was a winning idea. He became a multimillionaire in an era where beer was 5 cents a glass. At one time, he was in a partnership that owned 500,000 acres of California’s San Joaquin Valley. He had an office building at California and Sansome, right across the street from Ralston’s Bank of California with its impressive facade.

<big>'''Origins of the Cliff House'''</big>

Where would two financial giants in the richest city in America go to play cards? Legend has it that the original [[C L I F F H O U S E|Cliff House]], facing the ocean at San Francisco’s northwestern corner near Seal Rock, was built from a lumber ship that crashed on the rocks below salvaged by the man who started the Gold Rush, Sam Brannan. In reality, in 1863 a rich real estate tycoon got investors (including a state senator) to build the Point Lobos Toll road (now Geary Blvd.) out to ocean and at its end, Cliff House, “a new and elegant hotel”. Before, the trail to the coast involved a trek through sand dunes and was hard to reach by foot or horse. A stable road of crushed red rock was built and one could rent a rig and ride out to watch the ocean and listen to the sea lions barking below while eating fine food in an elegant setting. It was an expensive proposition and not for the average person, rigs renting for up to $10/day. A separate track existed for those who craved speed and wanted to race to the beach as a single rider or in fine carriages with expensive horse teams. The wealthy took advantage of all this.

[[Image:First Cliff House from Cliff Road, pre-1868 additions opensfhistory wnp24.198a.jpg|800px]]

'''First Cliff House from Cliff Road.'''

''Photo: OpenSFHistory.org wnp27.198a''

Captain Junuis Foster was hired to run the sea-side resort and under his capable managerial hand, Cliff House became a major 19th century San Francisco destination and established a reputation that saw the visit of two presidents and many important dignitaries as guests. Anyone who’s worked in the service industry will tell you when you are lucky enough to have that special combination of mercurial things that makes a joint a success, it’s not to be messed with. But the natural desire to expand and exploit starts up a tinkering process on the original concept that tries to “fix it when it ain’t broke”. In 1868, Foster tripled the size of the building, adding two wings and a long balcony piazza facing the sea. But the place changed. Now it was always too crowded. The clientele went from society elites and prominent names to a racier set, “…gamblers, hard drinkers and secret lovers.” It became a place where politicians met inconspicuously to cut deals, a place where you brought your mistress to enjoy fine dining in elegant rooms behind closable doors. It became a place where rich men met to play cards.

One night in the early 1870’s, Ralston, Freidlander, Foster, Coit and another man named Frank Ladd met at Cliff House for a game of Five Card Draw. All had arrived except for Coit who dropped by late. After a few hands, Coit mentioned he had been detained by what sounded like a grounded ship out near Seal Rock, barely discernable through the dark nasty weather. The others looked at each other, dropped their cards and went through the French doors to the balcony to have a look. It was Coit’s deal and he began to complain about the interruption. When the men sat back down and picked up their hands, Ralston casually threw his cards down and put in a solitary chip. Friedlander was not so fast but he went two better. Ladd just saw it as did Coit. Then Coit gave Ralston one card. Friedlander took two and Ladd three. Coit took three, looked at them and dropped out, saying he was going to check on the distressed vessel. Freidlander bet $100. Ladd folded. Ralston raised. Freidlander re-raised. And now the action gets furious and mythical, depending on the telling and the teller.

The Wheat King Freidlander and the Banking King Ralston went at it, raising and re-raising until the pot was $50,000, $75,000, some say $100,000, millions in 2010 dollars. Finally the action stopped. The men looked at each other, looking at their opponents unexposed cards, almost panting. The Moment of Truth. Ralston overturned his cards. Freidlander threw his down. Ralston blinked and his mouth opened a little. Friedlander gasped and his eyes went wide. They both had…FOUR KINGS! They looked at each other for a second, trying to figure out what happened. “Coit!” gulped Ralston. Junius Foster started laughing and pointed out the window where Coit was seen, also laughing, riding back to San Francisco…in Ralston’s carriage and team! Imagine something like that happening on WPT or WSOP or some other million dollar pot! I’m sure once the shock wore off and their bets were returned, the two tycoons appreciated Coit’s practical joke, pulled with a salted deck. These men were used to risky deals and deceitful manipulations. They took it as the good stunt it was. No one was hurt. What a story they would have! They could afford to be gracious now.

Within five years, Fate would deal them much harsher hands than this. Like all over-inflated fringe markets, the Pacific mining frenzy came to a crashing halt in the financial Panic of 1875. Two Irish-American San Francisco saloon keepers who catered to the Exchange crowd purposely to garner stock tips, partnered up with two Irish-American Virginia City mining superintendents who had kept secret a recent discovery: a large silver deposit in the Consolidated Virginia mine. After the four bought up the controlling share of the mine’s stock, the claim was revealed and it was so big, it staggered the imagination. They had already cut a chamber of silver 20 feet high, 50 feet wide and 140 feet long that assayed out at up to $632 a ton. It would total out to be a $190,000,000 bonanza ($8-10 billion today), an unbelievable sum and the four—James G. Fair, James C. Flood, William S. O’Brien and John W. Mackay—became the Silver Kings. The Bank of California’s stranglehold on the Comstock was over.

When the new kings started the Bank of Nevada, the writing was on the wall for Ralston. But Ralston’s downfall was all Sharon. Sharon resented Ralston for stopping Sharon’s bid to be US senator from Nevada as a conflict of interest for the bank. Scheming for revenge, Sharon touted Ralston on to what he promised would be the next big bonanza, the Ophir mine. Sharon, who owned a large block of the stock, knew it was worthless but told Ralston it was the next Consolidated Virginia. Ralston was hoping to bolster his flagging fortunes, depleted after pouring millions into the Palace Hotel project which still needed millions more to complete. Ralston started buying huge blocks of Ophir stock, causing the price to rise. On the morning of August 26, 1875, Sharon dumped his shares of Ophir stock at its highest point. The stock collapsed, other stocks went with it and the entire market crashed, ruining the paper fortunes of thousands, wiping out businesses and causing mass unemployment. Ralston was left holding millions of shares of mining stock that had gone from $55 to $18 in one afternoon.

Within hours, there was a run on the Bank of California. Crowds of fear-driven depositors emptied its vaults and coin-racks. The bank lost $1.4 million in one day and was forced to shut its big iron doors before the close of business for the first time in its history. The next morning, August 27, 1875, a post-mortem by the bank’s board of directors revealed grave discrepancies, $9 million worth of discrepancies. Unauthorized issuance of bank stock, monies paid missing. Stocks left in trusteeship, missing. Gold left in deposit, missing. There was a failed attempt to buy up San Francisco’s water supply and sell it to the city of San Francisco for $15 million. After a newspaper exposé and a public outcry, the supervisors voted it down. The bank’s board of directors decided that Ralston should step down and hand over his keys—even though he had made every one of them rich. This was a foregone conclusion as Sharon had gone behind Ralston’s back and bought up a majority share of bank stock and therefore controlled the vote. Ralston reluctantly turned the keys over.

[[William Ralston|Ralston swam in the San Francisco Bay everyday]], no matter what and personal disaster would not keep him from his daily habit. Daily habits were about all he had left. The day after the market crash and the run on the bank and the same day as his dismissal, Ralston went out for a swim in San Francisco Bay—and drowned, leaving behind a wife and children. Heart attack? Suicide? Murder? Broken heart? The coroner’s report pointed to “apoplectic stroke”. The city that shunned his water scheme turned out for his funeral in the tens of thousands, one of the city’s biggest, lauding his praises. They repeated the stories like when the bank was funding the founding of a town at a new railroad juncture in California’s central valley. Someone suggested “Ralstonville” or “Ralstontown”. “No,” Ralston insisted. “Not after me, please.” A Spanish-speaking resident commented, “Muy modesto.” And so the town took that as its name, Modesto.

Friedlander wasn’t spared the effects of the Panic of ’75 either. His fortunes were firmly tied to the fate of the Bank of California and the Exchange so when they fell, his empire fell as well. Others took over in the flour export business and he disappeared from the financial scene, dying of a heart attack in 1878. Before he died in May, 1885, Coit had a lively old time married to Lillie Hitchcock Coit, a darling daughter of San Francisco stock, rough and tumble and a smoker of cigars. She rode along with the volunteer fire departments to watch them battle blazes when such organizations were followed like ball teams and worshipped by hoards of fans. Lillie left the city her “special” monuments: the statue of brawny volunteer firemen “manning their hoses” in Washington Square Park and Arthur Brown Jr/Henry Howard’s art deco Coit Tower, at the top of Telegraph Hill. Freudians have your field-day!

Sharon screwed Ralston as completely as possible. He bought up Ralston’s assets for pennies on the dollar including his showplace estate, Belmont, one of the first in the country to have an air conditioning system, located just south of San Francisco in the town that now bears its name. He evicted Ralston’s widow and even tried to seize the life insurance left to her before Ralston’s friends dissuaded him. Sharon took credit for reorganizing and saving the Bank of California, was finally elected Nevada state senator and when the Palace Hotel was completed, Sharon’s name was seen everywhere, Ralston’s nowhere. Perhaps it’s fitting that at this hotel Sharon met his downfall entangled in the charms and legal embraces of a beautiful young woman—but that’s another article.

Cliff House is still there today and it still offers beautiful views. After Foster’s tenure, it went through another transformation when bought by ex-SF mayor Adolph Sutro (of Mt. Sutro fame), who added Sutro Baths, the world’s largest indoor bath at the time. Sutro got rich when he had the crazy idea of drilling a seven mile tunnel from below the Comstock to drain off the scalding hot waters that block mining, another idea originally funded by Ralston that he turned against when it was clear the bank couldn’t control it.

The Bank of California exists today as Union Bank of California. The vaults of its main branch were spared the destruction of the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. Its historic contents, including many Ralston artifacts, are on display in the Bank of California museum at 400 California Street on the lower floor, open during banking hours. The Silver King’s Bank of Nevada was finally bought up by a Los Angeles bank in 1905 along with another San Francisco pioneer business that was separating its banking and express services, Wells Fargo thus Wells Fargo Bank was born. While researching a screenplay, I came across this story in an undated 1910-20’s ''SAN FRANCISCO CALL'' newspaper clipping by Walter J. Thompson in a column THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS. Many “in-the-good-old-days” articles, covering 1850’s-1900’s, are attributed to Thompson. It is in this piece he dedicates paragraphs to the poker story. Like many great tales of the West, I could not substantiate any part of it. None. There’s no identity for whoever told the story to Thompson. Thompson left no notes. The named characters and locations are real enough but with no dates to tie it down to journal entries or diaries, I have not been able to find real evidence to verify this story. Did the poker game happen? It sounds plausible and real enough from the telling. It falls in that wonderful category the history of the West finds itself oh so frequently: the Legend. And that reminds me of one the great ending to John Ford’s ''The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance''. A reporter is speaking with Sen. Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) who just finished setting the record straight about the shooting that started his career. The reporter makes the statement: “In the West, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” Amen to that, brother. So be it.

[[category:1870s]] [[category:1880s]] [[category:Power and Money]] [[category:Richmond district]] [[category:San Francisco outside the city]]

Legends of Early Riches

2026-06-12T23:48:50Z

Ccarlsson:

Legends of Early Riches

2026-06-12T23:46:00Z

Ccarlsson: Created page with "''' Historical Essay ''' ''by Steven Carey Lassoff, 2014'' 800px '''Palace Hotel, 1870s, Lloyd Tevis sits at center with African-American staff in background. In the 1880s, the black workers were dismissed en masse under pressure from white labor unions.''' ''Photo: OpenSFHistory.org, wnp37.00867'' In..."

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Steven Carey Lassoff, 2014''

[[Image:Palace Hotel 1870s Lloyd Tevis at center wnp37.00867.jpg|800px]]

'''Palace Hotel, 1870s, Lloyd Tevis sits at center with African-American staff in background. In the 1880s, the black workers were [[BLACKS AND LABOR|dismissed en masse under pressure from white labor unions]].'''

''Photo: OpenSFHistory.org, wnp37.00867''

In 1870’s San Francisco, there were more banks and millionaires than Boston and New York combined. The Titans of Commerce, men whose fortunes came from the Comstock Lode in Nevada, met and played poker in cash games for what today would be millions of dollars. Little did the Banking King and the Wheat King know that the King of the Stock Exchange would deal unbelievable hands that would leave them both All In!

After its birth on Mississippi riverboats in mid-19th century America, the game of Poker was played around the campfires of both sides of the Civil War. The game spread across the country and poker became ingrained in the culture of America, permeating all classes from the common laborer to the very rich. The rich gambled millions in risky capital investments during the day and millions in high-stakes games at night. Nowhere were these rich games more prominent than in the West’s premiere boomtown, San Francisco. Famous for the Barbary Coast and gambling palaces like the Bella Union, the city boasted wealthy cash games played with stacks of shiny $20 gold coins for chips and the pots went over $150,000. Back then, a complete steak dinner with champagne cost $2. Gold was $20 an ounce. When you do the math, $150,000 would be $7.5 million in today’s dollars!

San Francisco was the center of capitalist America during and following the Civil War period due to mineral finds in Nevada. When the Gold Rush in the Mother Lode ended, later explorations of the Sierras to the East revealed the Comstock [silver] Lode. Hoping to keep this wealth in the Union, Nevada was one of the only two territories made a state during the Civil War, the other being West Virginia when it broke away from Virginia. How did San Francisco gain control over Nevada’s silver? The day of the lone miner and his mule was over. Once placer deposits ran out, hard-rock and hydraulic mining became necessary and these undertakings required investments, venture capital and stock markets. Investors became big financiers with connections to Eastern and European banks.

Only 500+ mines were profitable in the Comstock but tens of thousands of stocks were issued for mining ventures in the mountains near Virginia City, Nevada. Everyone from mogul to waitress gambled on the mining market, betting on whatever hot tip came their way. At the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board these stocks were bought and sold, making fortunes for those who knew how to stack the deck. One institution at the center of the dealing was the Bank of California.

<big>'''William Ralston'''</big>

[[BANK OF CALIFORNIA and WILLIAM RALSTON|William Chapman Ralston]] is an enigmatic figure in California history. Born in Ohio in 1826, he was a 22-year-old clerk on a paddle-wheeler near New Orleans when the call of ’49 reached him. He ended up in Panama City, Panama, a city on the route to the gold fields and there, first involved himself with banking. One of his failed investments during this period was the financing of soldier-of-fortune William Walker’s attempt to take over Nicaragua. A partner moved to San Francisco to work for Cornelius Vanderbilt and Ralston followed in 1854. Once there, Ralston dreamed of a bank that would stand as the leading financial institution in the development of San Francisco and Northern California. To this end, Ralston created The Bank of California in 1864. California’s leading businessmen bought stock, giving Ralston $2 million to invest as he saw fit.

And what he saw was the [[Silver Legacy: San Francisco and the Comstock Lode|Comstock Lode]]. Ralston found the recently unemployed William Sharon who had traveled to California with his father-in-law in 1849. Ralston turned Sharon loose in the Comstock where he proved to be a swarm of locusts personified. Making loans to ore mills that he knew had bad credit, Sharon soon owned some of the mills and then, by undercutting the prices of his competition, all the mills. Control the mills and you control the ore; control the ore and you control the mines. In short order, Sharon and the Bank of California owned mills, mines, forests, roads, transportation, waterworks, built the only train into and out of the mines, and hired anybody that was needed, including the best Nevada state politicians money could buy. While Sharon controlled the wealth that poured out of Nevada, Ralston worked in San Francisco buying and manipulating the mining stock and making a fortune for himself and the bank.

The floor of the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board has been compared to sharks and chum by more than one observer. There was no such regulatory organization like the Federal Trade Commission. Rules were practically non-existent. San Francisco banker and future Civil War general [[Sherman's Bank in Jackson Square|William Tecumseh Sherman]] remarked of the Exchange “…the very nature of the country begats speculation, extravagance, failures and rascality.” At the Exchange, the closest thing to the illusion of honesty was the Caller for the Board, young Benjamin Howard Coit, whose on-the-floor rulings would determine the validity of disputed trades, enforced with the power to fine any broker at will. Always described as a pillar of fairness with a powerful Stentorian voice (needed to be heard above the roar of the market floor), Coit was paid a princely sum to NOT engage in stock trading to insure impartiality. But his position was mere window-dressing, a band-aid on the bullet-hole of ravenous inside-trading and corrupt manipulation that was the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board.

Ralston’s Bank Crowd was the richest and most powerful group in San Francisco. Ralston was responsible for the founding of many of California’s commercial industries and state institutions. The first: office block, factories, libraries, giant dry docks, university, grand theater and vineyards. He helped get the Transcontinental Railroad off the ground and when he couldn’t control it, fought against it. He built the largest hotel in the world at the time, the [[Palace Hotel|Palace Hotel]], with 773 rooms, an indoor horse court (so you could step from your carriage into the hotel) and indoor plumbing in all rooms—a first for the 1870s! Ralston and his bank had its hand in every big deal in California. He was the most powerful man in the richest state in the nation and could afford anything including a good poker game with men of similar means.

[[Image:Grand Victoria and Palace Hotels c 1880s.jpg|800px]]

'''Grand Victoria and Palace Hotels on either side of New Montgomery Street along south side of Market, c. 1880s.'''

''Photo: provenance unknown, via Facebook''

<big>'''Isaac Freidlander, King of Wheat'''</big>

[[Wheat King: Isaac Friedlander|Isaac Freidlander]] was a 6’7” German of Jewish background, born in Oldenburg in 1823. Arriving with other gold-seekers by way of New York and Georgia, Freidlander left the mines realizing his talents lay in the trading of goods and supplying miners’ needs in the ever-expanding market that was Gold Rush San Francisco. Fortune directed him towards the grain business and after successfully cornering the wheat market, Friedlander built California’s first industrial flour mill, the Eureka Mill. He had thoughts of export and saw that to successfully export flour, he must have reliable cargo space and a dependable shipping schedule. The system was haphazard and capricious.

He decided to charter ships based on his own crop estimates made during the sowing season, a risky proposition. It was an all-in bet, guessing the size of the crop before it came in but it paid off big for Freidlander. His system was better, confirmed arrival dates and guaranteed tonnage and quickly supplanted what was in place before it. At first, flour from California went to England. But Freidlander was a visionary and in the fall of 1854, he was the first to export flour to China. It took 100 days to get flour to England but only 30 days to get the same flour to China the dangerous Cape Horn was avoided. The Asian market was also free of competition. There were only human/animal powered grist mills to feed foreign colonies and the ever- growing number of Chinese. Freidlander offered a superior product to what local mills could supply.

It was a winning idea. He became a multimillionaire in an era where beer was 5 cents a glass. At one time, he was in a partnership that owned 500,000 acres of California’s San Joaquin Valley. He had an office building at California and Sansome, right across the street from Ralston’s Bank of California with its impressive facade.

<big>'''Origins of the Cliff House'''</big>

Where would two financial giants in the richest city in America go to play cards? Legend has it that the original [[C L I F F H O U S E|Cliff House]], facing the ocean at San Francisco’s northwestern corner near Seal Rock, was built from a lumber ship that crashed on the rocks below salvaged by the man who started the Gold Rush, Sam Brannan. In reality, in 1863 a rich real estate tycoon got investors (including a state senator) to build the Point Lobos Toll road (now Geary Blvd.) out to ocean and at its end, Cliff House, “a new and elegant hotel”. Before, the trail to the coast involved a trek through sand dunes and was hard to reach by foot or horse. A stable road of crushed red rock was built and one could rent a rig and ride out to watch the ocean and listen to the sea lions barking below while eating fine food in an elegant setting. It was an expensive proposition and not for the average person, rigs renting for up to $10/day. A separate track existed for those who craved speed and wanted to race to the beach as a single rider or in fine carriages with expensive horse teams. The wealthy took advantage of all this.

[[Image:First Cliff House from Cliff Road, pre-1868 additions opensfhistory wnp24.198a.jpg|800px]]

'''First Cliff House from Cliff Road.'''

''Photo: OpenSFHistory.org wnp27.198a''

Captain Junuis Foster was hired to run the sea-side resort and under his capable managerial hand, Cliff House became a major 19th century San Francisco destination and established a reputation that saw the visit of two presidents and many important dignitaries as guests. Anyone who’s worked in the service industry will tell you when you are lucky enough to have that special combination of mercurial things that makes a joint a success, it’s not to be messed with. But the natural desire to expand and exploit starts up a tinkering process on the original concept that tries to “fix it when it ain’t broke”. In 1868, Foster tripled the size of the building, adding two wings and a long balcony piazza facing the sea. But the place changed. Now it was always too crowded. The clientele went from society elites and prominent names to a racier set, “…gamblers, hard drinkers and secret lovers.” It became a place where politicians met inconspicuously to cut deals, a place where you brought your mistress to enjoy fine dining in elegant rooms behind closable doors. It became a place where rich men met to play cards.

One night in the early 1870’s, Ralston, Freidlander, Foster, Coit and another man named Frank Ladd met at Cliff House for a game of Five Card Draw. All had arrived except for Coit who dropped by late. After a few hands, Coit mentioned he had been detained by what sounded like a grounded ship out near Seal Rock, barely discernable through the dark nasty weather. The others looked at each other, dropped their cards and went through the French doors to the balcony to have a look. It was Coit’s deal and he began to complain about the interruption. When the men sat back down and picked up their hands, Ralston casually threw his cards down and put in a solitary chip. Friedlander was not so fast but he went two better. Ladd just saw it as did Coit. Then Coit gave Ralston one card. Friedlander took two and Ladd three. Coit took three, looked at them and dropped out, saying he was going to check on the distressed vessel. Freidlander bet $100. Ladd folded. Ralston raised. Freidlander re-raised. And now the action gets furious and mythical, depending on the telling and the teller.

The Wheat King Freidlander and the Banking King Ralston went at it, raising and re-raising until the pot was $50,000, $75,000, some say $100,000, millions in 2010 dollars. Finally the action stopped. The men looked at each other, looking at their opponents unexposed cards, almost panting. The Moment of Truth. Ralston overturned his cards. Freidlander threw his down. Ralston blinked and his mouth opened a little. Friedlander gasped and his eyes went wide. They both had…FOUR KINGS! They looked at each other for a second, trying to figure out what happened. “Coit!” gulped Ralston. Junius Foster started laughing and pointed out the window where Coit was seen, also laughing, riding back to San Francisco…in Ralston’s carriage and team! Imagine something like that happening on WPT or WSOP or some other million dollar pot! I’m sure once the shock wore off and their bets were returned, the two tycoons appreciated Coit’s practical joke, pulled with a salted deck. These men were used to risky deals and deceitful manipulations. They took it as the good stunt it was. No one was hurt. What a story they would have! They could afford to be gracious now.

Within five years, Fate would deal them much harsher hands than this. Like all over-inflated fringe markets, the Pacific mining frenzy came to a crashing halt in the financial Panic of 1875. Two Irish-American San Francisco saloon keepers who catered to the Exchange crowd purposely to garner stock tips, partnered up with two Irish-American Virginia City mining superintendents who had kept secret a recent discovery: a large silver deposit in the Consolidated Virginia mine. After the four bought up the controlling share of the mine’s stock, the claim was revealed and it was so big, it staggered the imagination. They had already cut a chamber of silver 20 feet high, 50 feet wide and 140 feet long that assayed out at up to $632 a ton. It would total out to be a $190,000,000 bonanza ($8-10 billion today), an unbelievable sum and the four—James G. Fair, James C. Flood, William S. O’Brien and John W. Mackay—became the Silver Kings. The Bank of California’s stranglehold on the Comstock was over.

When the new kings started the Bank of Nevada, the writing was on the wall for Ralston. But Ralston’s downfall was all Sharon. Sharon resented Ralston for stopping Sharon’s bid to be US senator from Nevada as a conflict of interest for the bank. Scheming for revenge, Sharon touted Ralston on to what he promised would be the next big bonanza, the Ophir mine. Sharon, who owned a large block of the stock, knew it was worthless but told Ralston it was the next Consolidated Virginia. Ralston was hoping to bolster his flagging fortunes, depleted after pouring millions into the Palace Hotel project which still needed millions more to complete. Ralston started buying huge blocks of Ophir stock, causing the price to rise. On the morning of August 26, 1875, Sharon dumped his shares of Ophir stock at its highest point. The stock collapsed, other stocks went with it and the entire market crashed, ruining the paper fortunes of thousands, wiping out businesses and causing mass unemployment. Ralston was left holding millions of shares of mining stock that had gone from $55 to $18 in one afternoon.

Within hours, there was a run on the Bank of California. Crowds of fear-driven depositors emptied its vaults and coin-racks. The bank lost $1.4 million in one day and was forced to shut its big iron doors before the close of business for the first time in its history. The next morning, August 27, 1875, a post-mortem by the bank’s board of directors revealed grave discrepancies, $9 million worth of discrepancies. Unauthorized issuance of bank stock, monies paid missing. Stocks left in trusteeship, missing. Gold left in deposit, missing. There was a failed attempt to buy up San Francisco’s water supply and sell it to the city of San Francisco for $15 million. After a newspaper exposé and a public outcry, the supervisors voted it down. The bank’s board of directors decided that Ralston should step down and hand over his keys—even though he had made every one of them rich. This was a foregone conclusion as Sharon had gone behind Ralston’s back and bought up a majority share of bank stock and therefore controlled the vote. Ralston reluctantly turned the keys over.

Ralston swam in the San Francisco Bay everyday, no matter what and personal disaster would not keep him from his daily habit. Daily habits were about all he had left. The day after the market crash and the run on the bank and the same day as his dismissal, Ralston went out for a swim in San Francisco Bay—and drowned, leaving behind a wife and children. Heart attack? Suicide? Murder? Broken heart? The coroner’s report pointed to “apoplectic stroke”. The city that shunned his water scheme turned out for his funeral in the tens of thousands, one of the city’s biggest, lauding his praises. They repeated the stories like when the bank was funding the founding of a town at a new railroad juncture in California’s central valley. Someone suggested “Ralstonville” or “Ralstontown”. “No,” Ralston insisted. “Not after me, please.” A Spanish- speaking resident commented, “Muy modesto.” And so the town took that as its name, Modesto.

Friedlander wasn’t spared the effects of the Panic of ’75 either. His fortunes were firmly tied to the fate of the Bank of California and the Exchange so when they fell, his empire fell as well. Others took over in the flour export business and he disappeared from the financial scene, dying of a heart attack in 1878. Before he died in May, 1885, Coit had a lively old time married to Lillie Hitchcock Coit, a darling daughter of San Francisco stock, rough and tumble and a smoker of cigars. She rode along with the volunteer fire departments to watch them battle blazes when such organizations were followed like ball teams and worshipped by hoards of fans. Lillie left the city her “special” monuments: the statue of brawny volunteer firemen “manning their hoses” in Washington Square Park and Arthur Brown Jr/Henry Howard’s art deco Coit Tower, at the top of Telegraph Hill. Freudians have your field-day!

Sharon screwed Ralston as completely as possible. He bought up Ralston’s assets for pennies on the dollar including his showplace estate, Belmont, one of the first in the country to have an air conditioning system, located just south of San Francisco in the town that now bears its name. He evicted Ralston’s widow and even tried to seize the life insurance left to her before Ralston’s friends dissuaded him. Sharon took credit for reorganizing and saving the Bank of California, was finally elected Nevada state senator and when the Palace Hotel was completed, Sharon’s name was seen everywhere, Ralston’s nowhere. Perhaps it’s fitting that at this hotel Sharon met his downfall entangled in the charms and legal embraces of a beautiful young woman—but that’s another article.

Cliff House is still there today and it still offers beautiful views. After Foster’s tenure, it went through another transformation when bought by ex-SF mayor Adolph Sutro (of Mt. Sutro fame), who added Sutro Baths, the world’s largest indoor bath at the time. Sutro got rich when he had the crazy idea of drilling a seven mile tunnel from below the Comstock to drain off the scalding hot waters that block mining, another idea originally funded by Ralston that he turned against when it was clear the bank couldn’t control it.

The Bank of California exists today as Union Bank of California. The vaults of its main branch were spared the destruction of the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. Its historic contents, including many Ralston artifacts, are on display in the Bank of California museum at 400 California Street on the lower floor, open during banking hours. The Silver King’s Bank of Nevada was finally bought up by a Los Angeles bank in 1905 along with another San Francisco pioneer business that was separating its banking and express services, Wells Fargo thus Wells Fargo Bank was born. While researching a screenplay, I came across this story in an undated 1910-20’s ''SAN FRANCISCO CALL'' newspaper clipping by Walter J. Thompson in a column THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS. Many “in-the-good-old-days” articles, covering 1850’s-1900’s, are attributed to Thompson. It is in this piece he dedicates paragraphs to the poker story. Like many great tales of the West, I could not substantiate any part of it. None. There’s no identity for whoever told the story to Thompson. Thompson left no notes. The named characters and locations are real enough but with no dates to tie it down to journal entries or diaries, I have not been able to find real evidence to verify this story. Did the poker game happen? It sounds plausible and real enough from the telling. It falls in that wonderful category the history of the West finds itself oh so frequently: the Legend. And that reminds me of one the great ending to John Ford’s ''The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance''. A reporter is speaking with Sen. Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) who just finished setting the record straight about the shooting that started his career. The reporter makes the statement: “In the West, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” Amen to that, brother. So be it.

[[category:1870s]] [[category:1880s]] [[category:Power and Money]] [[category:Richmond District]] [[category:San Francisco outside the city]]

File:First Cliff House from Cliff Road, pre-1868 additions opensfhistory wnp24.198a.jpg

2026-06-12T23:40:34Z

Ccarlsson:

Mayor James Phelan

2026-06-10T22:07:17Z

Ccarlsson: added link to Serra monument piece

''' Historical Essay '''

''by Robert Cherny''

[[Image:James-Phelan-Sunset-magazine-ad-1920.jpg]]

'''James Phelan unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate in 1920. His campaign slogan in the in the 1920 Senatorial Election was "Keep California White."'''

''Image: Sunset magazine, courtesy Bancroft Library''

[[Image:James d phelan.jpg]]

'''James Duval Phelan, January 4, 1897 — January 8, 1902'''

Born in San Francisco in 1861, he grew up Catholic, studied at St. Ignatius College (now the University of San Francisco), and traveled extensively in Europe as a child and young man. His Irish-born father left him a fortune, but Phelan took little interest in what he once called "the sordid messes of business and trade." He saw himself instead as a political leader and patron of the arts. Aloof, cultured, and aristocratic, he served as mayor from 1897 to 1901, as one of California's United States senators from 1915 to 1921, and as the leader of the state's Democratic party from the late 1890s through the 1920s.

Phelan's vision derived in significant part from his readings in the classics and his travels abroad. Paris, Rome, and Athens, especially, figured prominently in his speeches—he loved to make speeches—by which he defined much of his vision. His vision was a complex one, including the built environment, city government, and social patterns.

[[Image:James-Phelan-1890s.jpg|350px|right]]

'''James Phelan in the 1890s, before he became Mayor.'''

''Photo: Bancroft Library''

Perhaps the best known aspect of Phelan's vision of the city was his commitment to beautification. He stands among the leading proponents of the City Beautiful, that turn-of-the-century movement committed to making cities more attractive places to live. Inspired by the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, the City Beautiful movement emphasized classical, monumental architecture and a harmonious, symmetrical relationship among buildings. Phelan adorned the city by contributing for decorative fountains, monuments, and statues, and by encouraging others to do the same. He never tired of promoting a plan to extend the Golden Gate Park [[Panhandle|Panhandle]] to the intersection of Van Ness and Market streets. But, for Phelan, such individual efforts needed an overall design to be most effective. Toward that end, he took the lead in securing the famous [[Burnham Plan 1905|Burnham Plan of 1905]].

While James Phelan bears major responsibility for bringing Burnham to San Francisco, his own vision of the city was more complex than the Burnham Plan. As president or director of several banking and insurance companies and owner of extensive city real estate, he was well aware of the economic life of the city. He shared the vision of San Francisco as economic capital of a Pacific empire and once called San Francisco "the handmaid of commerce between the western shores of the United States and the lands facing the great Pacific ... the capital of an empire."

But Phelan saw the city as much more than an economic marketplace. Phelan believed that the city could only be great if, like Paris under Haussman, it used its wealth to "develop the fine and useful arts and sciences to an unparalleled degree." To Phelan, greatness also required that a city be "clean . . . and healthful; [and] that its children be properly instructed."

Phelan's vision of the city gave close attention to what today would be called the infrastructure. As mayor, he promoted bond issues for a new sewer system, city hospital, parks, and schools. The people, he thought, deserved efficient and effective public utilities—water, gas, electricity, and transportation—and, reflecting the [[Progressive Municipal Reform 1890-1900|emergence of municipal progressivism]], he advocated government operation of essential utilities. He felt that the nineteenth-century pattern of granting franchises to private corporations to provide public utility services created an inevitable conflict between the corporations' need to make a profit and the public's need to receive necessities efficiently and at the lowest cost; efforts to regulate a monopoly, he warned, only led the monopoly to corrupt the political process. The late nineteenth century and early twentieth century had presented repeated examples of the corruption of city politics by utility corporations anxious to secure or protect their franchises; in one of Phelan's earliest speeches, in 1889, he drew attention to the dangers of monopolistic utility companies. For Phelan, the answer was obvious: the city should own all these utilities, thereby—he thought—reducing costs and eliminating corruption. Toward the end of his career, in 1922, he proclaimed that "I am now, and always have been, in favor of the public ownership of such utilities."

As a result in major part of his efforts Article XII of the new city charter that took effect in 1901 pledged that "It is hereby declared to be the purpose and intention of the people of the City and county that its Public utilities shall he gradually and ultimately owned by the City and County. Throughout his career, Phelan worked to realize the intent of Article XII, both as public official and private citizen. In July 1901, as a private citizen, he applied for the right to use the [[The Hetch Hetchy Story, Part I: John Muir, Preservationists vs. Conservationists|Hetch Hetchy]] Valley as a reservoir to prevent it from falling into the hands of speculators, transferred his claim to the city in February 1903, and played an important role in bringing the Hetch Hetch Project to reality. He continually advocated that the city should directly sell San Francisco citizens not only water (by buying out the privately owned water company) but also electrical power (by buying out the holdings of PG&E within the city). Similarly, Phelan in 1906, as a private citizen, incorporated the [[MUNI History II: The Progressive Era and Public Development|Municipal Street Railways of San Francisco]] to acquire existing streetcar franchises when they became available and later to transfer them to the City.

Phelan's vision of the city, it must be noted, contained clearly elitist elements. Pericles's beautification of Athens -- one of the models for his own vision—had been intended, Phelan claimed, to "render the citizens cheerful, content, yielding, self-sacrificing, capable of enthusiasm." Along with proponents of the City Beautiful, Phelan may have seen the monumental architecture of the movement as a means of refining public taste, prompting civic pride, and promoting respect for the state, especially among recent immigrants and among the working class. Daniel Burnham's justification for formal and symmetrical tree-planting reveals such a concern: "this amounts to a lesson of order and system, and its influence on the masses cannot be overestimated." In seeking election, Phelan solicited the votes of workers, but in choosing a Committee of 100 to make charter revision recommendations, Phelan appointed only four working-class representatives. The charter reforms he supported included strengthening the mayoral powers and instituting at-large elections of supervisors, which potentially reduced working-class representation. During the years from 1902 to 1911, he consistently opposed the [[1901 Labor War|Union Labor Party]], which drew its electoral strength from workers. In all, Phelan's record suggests that he saw the political role of the working class as limited largely to electing men such as himself to govern.

Phelan's vision of a clean, beautiful, efficient city was also a city for whites only. He considered people of color as incapable of being assimilated, culturally or physically, and therefore saw them as a threat to the cultural values he sought to promote through beautification and his patronage of the arts. He vehemently opposed immigration from Asia, and favored the segregation and disenfranchisement of peoples of color already here. He cut his political eyeteeth on anti-Chinese rhetoric's and, in 1912, wrote that "This is a whiteman's country ... We cannot make a homogeneous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race." While he declared on the floor of the U.S. Senate that African Americans were "a non-assimilable body, a foreign substance," his major antagonism was reserved for immigrants from Japan, who, he argued, "will destroy American civilization as surely as Europe exterminated the American Indian." His campaign slogan in the in the 1920 Senatorial Election was "Keep California White."

Phelan's vision of the city was complex. Phelan accepted the notion of San Francisco as seat of an economic empire, but added other elements to his vision: promotion of culture and learning, a [[Rise and Fall of the Statue of Franciscan Padre Junípero Serra in Golden Gate Park|monumental approach to civic beautification]], efficiently-run and municipally owned public utilities,and a racially homogeneous society. Phelan borrowed elements in his vision from others and presented a vision that was widely shared. Significant elements in it became public policy—most notably, city ownership of its water and street transportation systems and the adoption of a few elements of the Burnham Plan, such as the civic center. In the end, however, the city failed to use the Burnham Plan as a comprehensive blueprint for a "San Francisco Beautiful," even when the 1906 earthquake provided a unique opportunity to do so; hopes for municipal ownership of gas and electrical systems failed against the political prowess of PG&E; and Asian exclusion and segregation ultimately gave way to more tolerant policies and practices.

''—Robert Cherny, excerpted from "CITY COMMERCIAL, CITY BEAUTIFUL, CITY PRACTICAL: The San Francisco Visions Of William C. Ralston, James D. Phelan, And Michael M. O'Shaughnessy," originally published in ''California History'' magazine, Fall 1994''

[[Adolph Sutro|Prev. Document]] [[Mayors 1902-1912|Next Document]]

[[category:Power and Money]] [[category:1890s]] [[category:1900s]] [[category:1910s]] [[category:1920s]] [[category:Famous characters]] [[category:Civic Center]] [[category:Mayors]]