Saint Mary's College of California Saint Mary's College of California
Saint Mary's Digital Commons Saint Mary's Digital Commons
SMC Book Gallery Scholarship, Research, Creative Activities, and Community Engagement
2021
Competing Visions: A History of California Competing Visions: A History of California
Robert W. Cherny San Francisco State University
Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo Saint Mary's College of California, [emailprotected]
Richard Griswold de Castillo San Diego State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.stmarys-ca.edu/book-gallery
Part of the History Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Cherny, Robert W.; Lemke-Santangelo, Gretchen; and de Castillo, Richard Griswold, "Competing Visions: A History of California" (2021). SMC Book Gallery. 1. https://digitalcommons.stmarys-ca.edu/book-gallery/1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Scholarship, Research, Creative Activities, and Community Engagement at Saint Mary's Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMC Book Gallery by an authorized administrator of Saint Mary's Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [emailprotected].
COMPETING VISIONS
Robert W. ChernyGretchen Lemke-Santangelo Richard Griswold del Castillo
A History of California
COMPETINGVISIONS
COMPETINGVISIONSA History of California
Second Edition
Robert W. ChernySan Francisco State University
Gretchen Lemke-SantangeloSaint Mary’s College of California
Richard Griswold del CastilloSan Diego State University
The text (including graphs, maps, and charts) of Competing Visions: a History of California, by Robert W. Cherny, Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo, and Richard Griswold del Castillo is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. All photographs and artistic renderings in the text are licensed under CC BY, CC BY-NC, CC BY-SA, or CC BY-NC-SA, or are in the public domain and free of any known restrictions/permissions. The cover image, “Coit Tower Mural” by artist Ralph Stackpole, is licensed under CC BY 2.0. by Ed Bierman. The authors wish to thank Margaret Copeland of Terragrafix.com for preparing the digital version of the text, including the design of its charts, maps, and tables, and the Saint Mary’s College Filippi Fund and Office of Faculty Development for their financial support of this project.
ContentsPreface xiii
1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People,Before Spanish Settlement 1
Diversity: Origins of California and Its Native Peoples 3
Cycles of Life: The Food Quest, Spirituality, and Rituals 10The Food Quest 10Spirituality 14Rituals 16
A Closer Look: Six Regional Peoples 19The Gabrielino/Tongva 19The Chumash 21The Costanoans 22The Miwoks and Yokuts 24The Shastans 25
Significance: The Importance of California Natives and Other North AmericanNative Peoples in Non-Indian History 26
Summary 28
2 The Spanish Colonization of California,1769–1821 31
The Spanish Conquest and Empire 34Spain’s Exploration of the Californias 35Early Maritime Exploration and Encounters 38The First California Colony 39
Demographic and Ethnic Growth of California 41The Missions 42Neophyte Resistance 46Evaluation of the California Missions 48
Establishing Presidios and Pueblos 50
Gender Relations in Spanish California 53Spanish Californian Culture 56
v
Political Developments in Spanish California 57The Wars of Independence in New Spain 59Foreign Interest in Spanish California 60
Summary 62
3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture,1821–1846 65
A New Political Order 68Early Self-Government: Solá and Argüello 68The Governorship of José María Echeandía 69Rebellion Against Centralism: Governor Victoria 70Secularization of the Missions: José Figueroa 72Rebellion, Revolution, and Home Rule 74Micheltorena and the Catesby Jones Affair 76
The Rise of the Ranchos 78Environmental Changes 81
Social Relations in Mexican California 82The Growth of Town Governments 82Californianas: Mexican Californian Women 83Mexican–Indian Relations 85Immigrants and Foreigners 87
California and the World 93
Summary 94
4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American EraBegins, 1845–1855 96
The War Between the United States and Mexico 99Manifest Destiny 100Frémont and the Bear Flaggers 101Occupation and Resistance 103California Indians and the War 106Peace 107The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 107The Divided Mind of the Californios 109
The Gold Rush 110Gold! The Discovery of 1848 110The Argonauts 113Camp Life 117Nativism and Racism 120The Legendary Life of Joaquín Murrieta 121
vi Contents
California Transformed 122Conquest of the Californios 122Conquest of the Indians 123Economic Transformation 124The Golden State 124
Summary 126
5 California and the Crisis of the Union,1850–1870 129
Crisis and Conflict in the 1850s 132California Statehood and the Compromise of 1850 132San Francisco’s Crisis of Political Legitimacy: Vigilantism in the 1850s 133Violence and Displacement: California Indians in the 1850s 136The Politics of Land and Culture 138
Californians and the Crisis of the Union 141Fighting Slavery in California 141Sectional Issues and California Politics 143California and Civil War 146Reconstruction and New Understandings of Citizenship 147
Economic Growth in a Time of National Crisis 148The Transformation of Mining 148Economic Diversification 149Transportation 151Tying Together the Union With Iron 152
New Social and Cultural Patterns 155Gender Roles and New Social Institutions 155The Growth of Religious Toleration 157Writing the Gold Rush 160
Summary 161
6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900 164
The Economic Transformation of California and the West 167Railroad Expansion 168Mining and Finance 171Agriculture 172Water 174Rise of Organized Labor 176San Francisco: Metropolis of the West 177
Contents vii
New Social Patterns 180Education 180Changing Gender Roles 181California Indians 183Changing Patterns of Ethnicity 184
Politics 188Political Discontent in the 1870s 189The Second Constitutional Convention, 1878 191Politics in the 1880s 192Political Realignment in the 1890s 193California and the World: War With Spain and Acquisition of the Philippines 195
Cultural Expression 196
Summary 197
7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920 200
The Origins of California Progressivism 203The Many Shapes of Progressivism 204Municipal Reform: Los Angeles 204Municipal Reform: San Francisco 205Organized Labor in the Progressive Era 207Efforts to Reform State Government Before 1910 209
Social and Economic Change in the Progressive Era 210Immigration and Ethnic Relations 210Economic Changes 214Earthquake and Fire in 1906 216Water Wars 218California in the World Economy 221
California Progressivism, 1910–1920 222Hiram Johnson and the Victory of the Progressives, 1910–1911 222California Progressives and the Presidential Election of 1912 224Radicals in a Progressive Era 225A Second Flood of Reform, 1913 227The Progressive Tide Recedes, 1914–1920 229
Californians in a World of Revolutions and War 229Californians and the Mexican Revolution 230War in Europe and Conflict at Home 230Californians Go to War 231Peace and the Backwash of War 232
The Meaning of Progressivism for Californians 233
Summary 234
viii Contents
8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941 237
The Rise of Los Angeles: Twentieth-Century Metropolis 241The Economic Basis for Growth 241The Automobile and the Growth of Southern California 243
Prosperity Decade: The 1920s 245Politics in a Time of Prosperity 245New Economic Patterns 247New Social Patterns 249Cultural Expression 252
Depression Decade: The 1930s 254Impact of the Great Depression 254Labor Conflict 257Federal Politics: The Impact of the New Deal 261State Politics: The Rise of the Democrats 263Cultural Expression During the Depression Decade 266California on the Eve of War 268
Summary 269
9 World War II and the Great Transformation 273
Economic Expansion 276Overview of the War’s Economic Impact 276The Aircraft Industry 277Shipbuilding 278Agriculture 279Other Industry 280
Japanese Relocation and Internment 282The Unfolding Tragedy 282Relocation and Internment 285
Population Growth and Diversity 289Black Migration 290New Challenges and Opportunities 294Shifting Gender Relations 299
Daily Life and Culture 302Wartime Challenges 302Entertainment 302
Political Transformation 304Change from the Grassroots 304Change at the Top 305
Summary 307
Contents ix
10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontentin the Golden State: 1946–1963 310
Unbridled Growth 312Industrial Growth and Organized Labor 313Education 316Population and Suburban Growth 317Transportation, Energy, Water Resources, and Environmental Pollution 319
Postwar Politics 324California’s Red Scare 324Warren and Knight 327Edmund G. Brown 328Liberalism at the Municipal Level 331
Social and Cultural Dissent 333White Flight and Ghettoization 333Poverty in the Barrios and Fields 335Asian Pacific Immigration and Activism 339Opportunities and Challenges for California Indians 340Student Activism 341Cultural Developments 343
Summary 345
11 Divided We Stand: Activism and Politics,1964–1970 348
Seeds of Change 352From Civil Rights to Civil Unrest 352Black Power 356The Grassroots War on Poverty 358Justice in the Fields 360The Anti-War Movement 363The Counterculture 365Coming Together at People’s Park 367
The Movement Expands 368The Chicano Movement 368Taking the Rock 372Change and Activism Along the Pacific Rim 374Emerging Feminist and Gay Rights Movements 376
Politics in the Age of Dissent 378The Decline of Liberalism 378Reagan as Governor 380
Summary 382
x Contents
12 Era of Limits and New Opportunities:1970–1990 385
The Legacy of the ’60s 389Feminism 390Disability Rights 392Gay Pride 393Multiethnic Political Gains 395Ethnicity and Economics 398Cultural Advances 402
Economic Changes and Environmental Constraints 404The Economy 404Environmental Activism and Constraints 407
Politics in the Era of Limits 414Edmund G. Brown Jr. 414Deukmejian 418
Summary 420
13 California in Our Times 423
A New Kind of California 426The Los Angeles Riots, the O.J. Simpson Trial, and After 426The Rise of Latino California 428The Ever-Changing Ethnic Mosaic 430
The Economic Roller Coaster 435Cycles of Bust and Boom 436Technology 438Trade: Going Global 439Growing Wealth, Increasing Poverty, Shrinking Middle Class 441
A Faltering Infrastructure 442Education 443Health Care and Housing 445The Environment 446Transportation 448Energy 449
Politics in the New California 449State Politics, 1990–1998: The Governorship of Pete Wilson 450State Politics, 1998–2003: The Governorship of Gray Davis 452State Politics, 2003–2008: The Governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger 454State Politics Since 2010: The Return of Jerry Brown 456
Religious and Cultural Diversity 458Spirituality in Contemporary California 458
Contents xi
Cuisine 459Art, Literature, Film, and Music 459
Competing Visions: The History and Future of California 463
Summary 464
Governors of California: 1767 to Present 467Glossary of Spanish Terms 469Index I-1Image Links I-39
xii Contents
PrefaceThe decision to write this textbook grew out of our experience teachingCalifornia history to an increasingly diverse student population. Our class-rooms contain an exciting mix of students from a myriad of ethnic, multieth-nic, international, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Their levels ofacademic readiness also differ, and nearly all are products of a visual, ratherthan print-oriented, culture. In light of this diversity, we, as educators, neededa text geared toward varied learning styles and academic skill levels—one thatwould stress reading comprehension, critical thinking, and the synthesis andintegration of knowledge. Just as important, we needed a more inclusivetext that reflects the history of all of our students—one designed to foster activeidentification with the past, civic engagement, an appreciation of diversity, andcross-cultural communication and understanding. Thus, we wrote the text forour students and ourselves, and with the hope that our colleagues would find itequally useful.
Themes
Three major themes, which run throughout the 13 chapters, highlight continuityover time and provide a common, unifying thread for the narrative. They arealso crafted to enhance students’ global and cross-cultural awareness. The first,California and its relationship to its region, the nation, and the world, placesCalifornia within a national, and often global, context. The state, although fre-quently depicted as a trendsetter or “place apart,” has always been influencedby outside demographic, environmental, political, cultural, and economic forces.Its first people came from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and devel-oped complex trade networks that facilitated cultural and economic exchange farbeyond the state’s current boundaries.
Later, as part of Spain’s global empire, California and its people were sub-ject to new influences and pressures. In turn, Mexico’s war for independenceand America’s war with Mexico profoundly altered the state’s cultural, eco-nomic, political, and environmental landscape. More recently, California’s inte-gration into the Pacific Rim economy has created a new set of challenges andprospects. Once again, the state is in dynamic interaction with other geo-graphic entities.
A second theme is cultural richness and diversity. Here we focus on howdemographic diversity has created a broad range of cultural expression.
xiii
Beginning with California’s first people, cultural diversity has been an integralpart of the human landscape. Wave after wave of migrants and immigrants, theemergence of ethnic enclaves, and the birth of numerous subcultures haveadded additional layers of richness, and at times produced interesting culturalfusions. As a consequence, the state’s cuisine, music, art, architecture, folklore,cinema, theater, dance, and public spaces all carry the imprint of its incrediblydiverse and increasingly complex mixture of ethnic and national groups.
Such diversity has also led to competing visions of the “California Dream,”the text’s third and final theme. Since at least 1769, Californians have been atodds over the allocation of cultural, economic, and political power. The dream,synonymous with opportunity, not only placed individuals and groups in com-petition, it also carried different meanings for different people. To some, forexample, the state’s natural resources represented an opportunity for industrialexpansion and monetary advancement. To others, California’s natural endow-ment represented the opportunity to maintain an older, more traditional wayof life, a font of physical and spiritual renewal, or a fragile and irreplaceablepart of the planet’s life support system. In social terms, many equated opportu-nity with toleration and inclusion, while others saw opportunity in discrimina-tion and exclusion. Politically, many Californians linked opportunity to theprogressive or liberal traditions that encouraged a stronger role for governmentin allocating resources and guiding growth and expansion. Others, however,equated “big government” with the erosion of individual opportunity andinitiative.
Consistent with these themes, we have chosen to emphasize some topicsmore than others. In developing the history of state politics, most chaptersstress political challenges from the powerless and disenfranchised, and the com-peting visions of a diverse electorate. The state’s natural resources, and conflictsover their allocation and exploitation, also figure prominently in the text. Finallythe experience and contributions of California’s multiethnic and multinationalconstituents are integral to every chapter.
Approach
To enhance learning among a diverse student population, we crafted a text witha chronological and narrative format. This approach, while offering the advan-tages of clarity and coherence, also reflects a renewed emphasis on synthesisand the big picture among historians and educators. Moreover, the sequentialframework helps students follow, connect, and integrate historical knowledge—the foundation of learning to think historically. Within the general narrative weadded several other learning aids. Each chapter opens with a vignette about aspecific individual whose experience illuminates important developments of theperiod. This feature, representing the personal side of history, is designed topromote active engagement with the past and a sense of human agency—the
xiv Preface
sense that all Californians shape the state’s history, present, and future. Everychapter also includes a list of significant dates and events, and a series of studyquestions intended to enhance reader comprehension and promote criticalthinking and debate. Similarly, many of the photograph and illustration cap-tions ask students to look critically at what they are seeing. Concise chapterintroductions and summaries reinforce reading comprehension, and synthesizeand integrate the material. Suggested readings at the end of each chapter encour-age more in-depth research into topics of special interest.
Our individual interests as practicing historians shaped our choices as weconstructed the text. Richard Griswold del Castillo, professor of Chicana andChicano studies at San Diego State University, wrote Chapters 1 through 4.He teaches courses in Chicano history and the Mexican/United Statesborderlands. His research focuses on the 19th-century Southwest, and MexicanAmerican community history and civil rights struggles. The first chapter,devoted to the history of indigenous people, emphasizes the diversity and com-plexity of California Indian cultures. Subsequent chapters relate the history ofthe first Euro-Americans and mestizos who came north to colonize California,stressing the influence of Indian peoples on the culture and economy of themissions, presidios, and pueblos. These chapters present new perspectives onthe ways in which the Indians resisted colonial subjugation, as well as the cul-tural fusion that took place before the American era. They also emphasize theways in which the emerging Californio culture was a vital and adaptiveresponse to the new environment. The chapter on the Mexican War andGold Rush reflects the influence of 30 years of new scholarship that challengesthe older “triumphalist” vision of American progress and prosperity. The con-flicts among Indian, Spanish-Mexican and Anglo-American cultures and anassessment of what was gained and lost in the American conquest of Californiaare important features of this chapter.
Robert W. Cherny, professor emeritus of history at San Francisco StateUniversity, taught courses on U.S. history between the Civil War and WorldWar II as well as courses on the history of California. His research focuses onAmerican politics between the Civil War and World War I, and politics andlabor in California and the West from the Civil War to World War II. Hischapters, five through eight, trace the state’s history from about 1850 untilWorld War II. There is a special effort to explain economic cycles and theirrelation to the state’s economic development and diversification. Other majortopics include the experiences of an increasingly diverse population thatincluded not only the descendants of the first peoples and the Californios butalso migrants from other parts of North America, Europe, Latin America, andAsia; changing gender roles for men and women; political development, includ-ing political responses to ethnic diversity and to economic issues; and the rela-tion of cultural expression to all these other patterns. There is also attention tourbanization, especially the development of San Francisco in the late 19th cen-tury and Los Angeles in the early 20th century.
Preface xv
Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo, professor of history at Saint Mary’s Collegeof California and author of Chapters 9 through 12, teaches courses in Californiaand U.S. history, African American history, the history of American women, andU.S. environmental history. Her research focuses on African American migra-tion, 20th century movements for social change, and urban poverty. Herchapters, beginning with World War II and concluding in the late 1980s,cover standard material on population growth, economic expansion, naturalresources, environmental degradation, public policy and major political fig-ures and legislation; however, there are many features that depart from thetraditional narrative. Racial tensions and discrimination are covered in eachchapter, but with an emphasis on civil rights activism and protest. Ratherthan being portrayed as passive victims, Mexican Americans, AfricanAmericans, Asian Americans, and Indians are represented as active agentsof social, political, and cultural change. Gender also receives significant atten-tion, including in-depth coverage of women’s status and activism, and theemergence of gay, lesbian, and transgender communities and institutions.Her discussion of politics extends to neglected social movements such as thewelfare rights, disability rights, eco-feminist, environmental justice, and AIDSaction initiatives, along with more familiar ethnic power, anti-war, New Left,countercultural, gay pride, and women’s movements. Similarly, discussion ofeconomic policy and expansion is balanced with coverage of labor activism,employment and wage discrimination, class tensions and stratification, capitaland white flight, access to social services and affordable housing, and compet-ing liberal and conservative economic visions.
Chapter 13, jointly written by all the authors, covers contemporary issuesand events—many of which unfolded as we wrote: the impact of 9/11, therecall of Governor Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger, thestate’s escalating fiscal crisis and growing public distrust of both the governorand legislature, and the reelection of Jerry Brown and his proposals for a taxincrease. The chapter also covers the state’s increasing integration into theglobal economy, the erosion of California’s infrastructure (including publicschools), the declining affordability of housing and health care, immigrationpolicy and anti-immigrant hostility, increasing demographic diversity, andrecent cultural trends.
New To This Edition
Chapter 13 now discusses current events in California to the present day,including the Oakland Mehserle case and its aftermath, immigration anddemographic changes, the 2008 economic crisis, the Occupy movement, andecological and energy challenges. Based on feedback from the first edition,we have also added new chapter-opening vignettes that spotlight people inCalifornia’s history, including Mary and Joseph Tape, a Chinese-American
xvi Preface
immigrant couple; Katherine Philips Edson, a groundbreaking state politician;Catherine “Kay” Spaulding, an environmental activist; and Jacqueline Nguyen,the first Asian American to serve as a federal apellate judge. Throughout thebook, we have revised sentences, added specific information (often in responseto suggestions from the reviewers), and worked to make the text more accessi-ble at the same time we worked to emphasize our three central themes. Wehave also added a concluding section on the relation between California historyand civic engagement, challenging students to put to use what they havelearned about the state as they exercise their responsibilities as citizens.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the attentive, insightful, and creative staff atWadsworth | Cengage. Jeff Greene, ever patient, supportive, and generouswith his time, shepherded the first edition through its conceptualization to itsactual production. Megan Chrisman has been equally helpful with the prepara-tion of this revised edition. Thank you both for having faith in our vision. BobGreiner and Susan Holtz did a masterful job with layout, design, and copyedit-ing in the first edition, and Prashanth Kamavarapu and Margaret Bridges havecontinued that fine work with this edition. Thank you for your creative insightsand tact.
Josh Paddison, now of Indiana University, provided crucial assistance withthe initial development of Chapter 13. Several of our California history collea-gues carefully read and commented on three separate drafts of the originalmanuscript. Their knowledge of the subject and attention to detail make it afar more balanced, accessible, and meaningful text. In preparation for the sec-ond edition, several more colleagues reviewed the book and made invaluablesuggestions for the revision. We extend our deepest thanks to these “readers:”
Carolle J. Carter, San Jose State UniversityVanessa Crispin-Peralta, Westmont CollegePhilip Garone, California State University, StanislausAnne Hickling, De Anza CollegePaivi Hoikkala, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Linda Ivey, California State University, East BayJon Kelly, West Valley CollegeDaniel Lewis, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Joseph A. Pitti, California State University, SacramentoJohn Putman, San Diego State UniversityNancy Quam-Wickham, California State University, Long Beach E.A. Schwartz, California State University, San Marcos
Preface xvii
Dian Self, American River CollegeEdie Sparks, University of the PacificDenise S. Spooner, California State University, Northridge Ernesto S. Sweeney, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles Nancy J. Taniguchi, California State University, Stanislaus
In addition to the formal readers, several individuals and institutionsoffered invaluable support and assistance as we moved through the writingand revision process. Robert Cherny would like to thank the students in hisCalifornia history classes for their responses to the first edition and suggestionsfor improvements; the students who served as research assistants during thedevelopment of the first edition; and his family, especially his granddaughters,Cerys and Sabina Cherny, who have not only been a source of joy but also aninspiration for thinking about the importance of learning about history as avital preparation for planning for the future. Gretchen Lemke-Santangelowould especially like to thank Saint Mary’s College Office of Faculty Develop-ment, Anthony Santangelo, and Anna Marie Daniels.
Robert W. ChernyGretchen Lemke-Santangelo
Richard Griswold del Castillo
xviii Preface
CHAP
TER 1
California’s Origins:The Land and thePeople, BeforeSpanish Settlement
Main Topics
❚ Diversity: Origins of California and Its Native Peoples
❚ Cycles of Life: The Food Quest, Spirituality, and Rituals
❚ A Closer Look: Six Regional Peoples
❚ Significance: The Importance of California Nativesand Other North American Native Peoples inNon-Indian History
❚ Summary
“In the beginning on the water that was everywhere,a downy feather swirled and swirled upon a tinyfleck of foam.”
If you were a Yuki Indian child living in what is nowMendocino County in 13,000 BCE, you might have listenedenraptured as an elder began to tell this story of creation,one version of many that existed among the earliest of NorthAmerican cultures.
“Listen closely to the feather,” the elder might haveintoned, “and you will hear the singing of Taikomol, thecreator of the world, whose name means He-who-goes-alone.Swirling and singing, swirling and singing, Taikomol rose up
Yoki Indian Story, from Native Ways: California Indian Stories and Memories, edited by Malcolm Margolin andYolanda Monijo. Copyright © 1995 by Heyday Books. Reprinted by permission of Heyday Books.
1
from the water and became a man—but he was not alone.Hanging from his body was another god, the god Coyote,the selfish one of death and pain. With Coyote at his side,Taikomol made a basket from parts of his own body. Reachingdeep into the basket, he drew forth a ball of mud, which hemolded with pine pitch to make the earth. Jealous Coyoteclung to Taikomol as he traveled over the new earth fourtimes from north to south, fastening its four corners with asky made from the skins of four whales. This earth is good,Taikomol thought, and so he wanted to share all he had cre-ated. Reaching deep again into his basket, he found sticks ofwood, and placed them in a protected place, a kind of house.Through the night, Taikomol was swirling and singing over thishouse, with Coyote hovering at his side and peeking sharplyinto the dwelling with his jealousy growing. When dawn brokethe darkness, the sticks walked as people into the morning.
“Taikomol was filled with joy at his creation and wantedpeople to live forever, but jealous Coyote wanted them to die.When the first son died and was buried, Taikomol offered tobring him back to life, but Coyote said that the dead shouldremain dead. The other gods agreed, and for that reason peo-ple do not come to life again after they die.”
As the elder finished, your young eyes might have shone asyou repeated softly to yourself, “For that reason people do not
CHAPTER 1California’s Origins: The Land and the People,
Before Spanish Settlement
TRIASSIC PERIOD, 250–200 MILLION YEARS BCE
Creation of the present-day continents by the movementof tectonic plates
CENOZOIC PERIOD,66 MILLION YEARS BCE
Warm-blooded animals populate North America
MIOCENE PERIOD,23 MILLION YEARS BCE
Creation of the Sierra Nevada mountains
PLEISTOCENE PERIOD,2 MILLION YEARS BCE
Cooling and ice age create valleys and present-day coastlineof California
30,000 BCE Estimate of first human settlement in California
900 BCE Corn, beans, and squash enter Colorado River region fromMexico
100 BCE–700 CE Introduction of pottery in California
1542 CE Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo explores California coast
1602 CE Sebastián Vizcaíno discovers Monterey Bay
1769 CE First Euro-Americans settle in California
2
come to life again after they die.” Creative stories such as thisone, passed on through the generations, reflect the very diversityof California itself, distinctive from its beginnings in its geo-graphic formations, climate, variety and plenitude of flora andfauna, and the multiplicity of its Indian peoples. The earliesthuman history of this region shows that in California no singlegeneralization could ever capture reality; it has always been anunusual locale where, because of its lush environment, a largepopulation of diverse peoples could live together and thrive.
Questions to Consider
❚ What factors explain California’s distinctiveness as aplace, and how did those factors affect the characteristicsof its first settlers?
❚ What important characteristics did the first settlersshare, and what were some salient differences?
❚ How did the many achievements of the native peoplescontribute to the non-Indian history of the NorthAmerican continent?
Diversity: Origins of California and Its Native Peoples
The land that the Yukis believe was created by Taikomol was located at thattime at about the same latitude as 21st-century Cuba. It later became knownas California. For millions of years, a large portion of this land would be slowlypushed north as the tectonic plate west of the present-day Sierra Nevadamountains moved with periodic shudders we call earthquakes. The earth’s sur-face is constantly being propelled by the immense forces of the super-heatedradioactive solid iron core and the molten layers below the crust. As this move-ment takes place, the relatively thin rock earth surface has cracked and shifted,forming new land masses and the present continents. These large land massescontinued to move. Those places where the crust has broken because of thismovement are called the tectonic plates, or earthquake faults, and they havebeen a significant part of California’s history.
Sixty million years ago, ocean waves lapped the western side of the SierraNevada mountains, which were then merely well-worn hills. These hillsallowed the winds to carry torrential tropical rains eastward, where the ocean’smoisture created a tropical forest with great varieties of exotic plants and ani-mals. In some places, the annual rainfall exceeded 50 inches. This area is nowknown as the Great Basin and includes the present-day states of Nevada,Arizona, and Utah. In Cenozoic California (66 million years ago), the great
Diversity: Origins of California and Its Native Peoples 3
MEXICO
PACIFIC OCEAN
Map 1.1 California’s Principal Geographic Land Forms
dinosaurs that had once ranged over the land had already mysteriously disap-peared and warm-blooded mammals such as lions, giant sloths, and camels roamed the land.
Forty-three million years later, the earth began to move upward, thrust by tremendous volcanic pressures in its crust (Miocene period, 23 million years ago). A series of earthquakes thrust up solid rock formations, including the
4 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
OREGONIDAHO
NEVADA
CALIFORN
IA
Sierra Nevada range—pushed 10,000 feet up in the air—and the coastal moun-tain ranges. These mountains were massive enough to cut off the flow of rain-storms that had been watering the Great Basin. To the east of these mountainsa desert began to develop. Mount Lassen and other now-extinct volcanoeserupted, darkening the skies and layering the earth with a rich ash. MountShasta, Mount Whitney, and scores of other enormous peaks reached theirpresent altitudes. Simultaneously the climate began to cool around the world,perhaps because a chain of volcanoes between North and South America filledin the Panama lowlands and stopped water circulation between the Pacific andAtlantic Oceans, or perhaps because of the uplift of the great Himalayanmountain ranges, which changed airflow patterns.
After the formation of mountain ranges, a cooling continued for the nextfew million years (the late Pleistocene period). Enormous glaciers crept slowlysouth, carrying with them billions of tons of rock and earth, leveling mountainsand filling in valleys. Death Valley, the lowest spot in North America (282 feetbelow sea level), was born of the upward and downward movement of theearth’s crust and, between glacier movements, was filled with fresh water. Theglaciers cut through the mountains, creating the beautiful Yosemite Valley. Asthe polar caps grew, the ocean froze and retreated, exposing new land, includ-ing millions of acres of valleys and hills west of the mountains, which are nowthe San Joaquin Valley and southern California.
The retreating water also created a new coastline. The San Francisco,Monterey, and San Diego harbors appeared. About 100,000 years ago, a narrowland bridge connecting the Asian continent with North America was exposed.Animals began to find their way across: The horse, then merely a few feet tall,and the camel wandered north and west from North America into China, andthen Africa, where their evolution and eventual domestication changed humanhistory. From Asia to North America came new animals such as the bison andmammoth, followed by human beings.
Most American scientists believe that these humans came as part of alarger migration of people who crossed the Bering Strait from Asia, followedthe big game animals south, and reached the southern tip of South Americawithin 10,000 years—perhaps in some cases using oceangoing canoes to traveldown the Pacific Coast. Despite the general agreement among Americanscientists about the Asian origin of these people, European experts are moreskeptical of the certainty of the evidence of a Bering Strait crossing, and nativepeople themselves have different versions of their origins. There is a noticeableabsence of accounts of migration from a land of ice and snow in the traditionalstories of the American Indian peoples. The Hopis, for example, tell of travel-ing to the north from their warm lands until they reached a land of “perpetualsnow.” Some tribes believe that the earth was prepared for them by the godsand that humans did not migrate to their land but were suddenly created there.Still others have no primal origin legend at all but only stories of migrationfrom the east—not the north.
Diversity: Origins of California and Its Native Peoples 5
Although radiocarbon tests of human remains located on Santa RosaIsland off the coast of Santa Barbara indicate that these first families arrived30,000 years ago, these data are also under scrutiny. A number of scholars ofNative American history have seriously questioned the dating of human settle-ment, noting unexplained evidence that could mean human beings lived inNorth America much earlier. Indeed, anthropologists and archeologists aredebating the radiocarbon tests that show evidence of humans in the area asfar back as 40,000 BCE.
The native peoples in California were scattered and they spoke more than100 different languages. Nowhere else in North America, outside of centralMexico, did so many Indian groups congregate in such density with so muchdiversity. After almost 50 years of scientific scholarship and debate, most his-torians and anthropologists concede that perhaps as many as 300,000 peoplelived in California before the first European settlement.
Anthropologists have generally classified these first inhabitants into sixgroups, based on their common root languages, with their linguistic origins sug-gesting their movement from different geographic regions. The first, and largest,were the Penutian-speaking peoples, living in numerous bands and clans mostlyin central and northern California. They were most closely related to the Indianpeoples of the Pacific Northwest and may have arrived by moving down thecoast, by boat or on foot. Next were the Hokan-speaking peoples, scatteredthroughout the state as far north as Shasta County and as far south as SanDiego. They appear to have migrated from the Southwest—present-day Arizonaand New Mexico. The Uto-Aztecan–speaking people lived along the Kern Riverand in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts as well as in the Los Angeles basin, andseem to have traveled from the Southwest or perhaps mainland Mexico. Smallergroups included Athabascan-speaking people living in extreme northern Cali-fornia, who probably entered from Alaska, and the Algic-stock peoples, includ-ing the Yiot and Yurok Indians, who lived along the northern coast inHumboldt County. The Algic-stock languages are related to those of the Algon-quians in the eastern part of the United States. A small group of Yukian-speaking peoples lived in northern Mendocino County; their language is uniqueto California and has no relation to any other in North America. They were splitinto four groups, geographically separated from each other, and each speaking adifferent dialect of their language. Their origins are uncertain.
At first these various Indians lived in bands, small groups of two or threeextended families, whose membership was voluntary and changing. But as thepopulation increased, they began to form lineages, or larger permanent group-ings of families, who were forbidden to intermarry because they claimed acommon ancestor. Clans developed next, formed by amalgamating several bio-logically related lineages. Some of the coastal native peoples eventually createdlarger social and political systems, organizing what could be called towns. TheChumash people, for example, who lived in what later became Santa Barbaraand Ventura and on the coastal islands, had large governments and complex
6 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
0 100 Mi.
0 100 Km.50
50
ACHUMAWI
SHASTA
TOLOWA
YUROK
WIYOTWHILKUT
CHILULA
WINTUCHIMARIKO
NONGATL
YANA
KONKOW
NISENAN
KATOYUKI
POMO PATWIN
LAKEMIWOK
COASTMIWOK
WAPPO
MAIDU
MIWOK
CHUMASH
CHUMASH
GABRIELINO
SERRANO
TIPAI
IPAI
LUISEÑO
GABRIELINO
CAHUILLACUPEÑO
NORTHERN
VALLEY
YOKUTS
SOUTHERN
VALLEY
LASSIKWAILAKI
YOKUTS
ATSUGEWI
COSTANOAN
SALINAN
FOOTHILLYOKUTS
MONACHE
TABATULABALESSELEN
KITANEMUK
TATAVIAM
KA
RO
K
NO
MLA
K IMATTOLE
SINKYO
N E
HU
P
A
PACIFIC OCEAN
NEVADA
MEXICO
OREGON IDAHO
CA
LI F O
RNI A
Map 1.2 California Indian Territories
social systems. All of the 100 or so California language groups—which anthro-pologists call tribelets or village communities—had distinct territorial and spir-itual identities, group histories, and destinies.
Politically, the California natives developed two kinds of government, both with a headman assisted by a governing council. The first kind of government
Diversity: Origins of California and Its Native Peoples 7
included a lineage group who all traced their descent from a common ancestor,while the second was a band of individuals who were not all related by blood.The lineage-based governments had more institutionalized forms of politicaldecision making, with a stable council and headman. In the band-based gov-ernment, decisions were made by the headman and council as needs arose. Likethe Chumash, the Gabrielino/Tongva people (also in southern California) seemto have evolved complex political governing systems that were able to governlarge villages with many different clans and lineages, but anthropologists arenot certain as to their exact form of government. Everywhere in California,before the Spanish arrived, Native American government often mixed spiritualwith secular authority.
All of these systems grew out of this land of tremendous contrasts: lushvalleys and grasslands teeming with game and edible plants; formidable moun-tains whose deep snows made life nearly impossible in the winters; vast desertswith little water and ferocious heat in the summer; and finally, a coastal littoralwhose mild climate and multitudes of fish and wildlife invited settlement.Although its first inhabitants found the desert climates cooler and fresh watermore plentiful, Californians today share with them the area’s impressive envi-ronmental diversity, unique in the United States. In one day a person can drivefrom a foggy seashore beach through lush, irrigated valleys, past snow-coveredmountains, and into a blistering, arid desert.
In the 21st century, we find that the southwestern part of the state, includ-ing the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and San Fernando Valleys, has a relativelyarid, semi-Mediterranean climate, with large variations in rainfall from themountains to the coastal plains. The mild climate has attracted millions of resi-dents and, although the southern mountain ranges surrounding the coastal lit-toral are high enough (6000–11,000 feet) to have snow in the winter, providingsome natural springs and rivers, this is not enough water for the burgeoningpopulation. Water is imported to the south from northern California’s riversas well as from the Colorado River, and the large population has causedwater and air pollution, not to mention the decimation of native plantsand animals.
North of Santa Barbara, along the California coast, the climate changes asthe Coast Range, whose hills and mountains are between 1000 and 5000 feethigh, trap the offshore breezes and prevent the reduction of inland heat. Thenorth central coastal mountains and valleys have their own unique environ-ment, cooler than southern California, with more precipitation. Summers aregenerally overcast and foggy, while winter skies are brilliant, with the rainy sea-son beginning sometime after January. Here one can find some of the mostbeautiful coastal scenery in California. North from Santa Barbara lies MorroBay, which is guarded by an impressive rock sentry. Further north along thecoast is Big Sur, with its breathtaking ocean vistas, waterfalls, and towering red-woods. Just north of Big Sur, Monterey Bay is one of the richest aquatic wildlife
8 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
regions in the world. Inland from here are rolling hills with oak trees, grass-lands, and fertile alluvial valleys, the largest of which is Salinas Valley.
Further north is San Francisco Bay, one of the most impressive naturalharbors in the world, covering more than 400 square miles. Its entrance—theGolden Gate—is so narrow that the bay is really more like an inland sea, sur-rounded by low-lying hills rich in vegetation. The extensiveness of the bay andits connection with the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers make water trans-portation of prime importance. Today it is possible for oceangoing cargo shipsto dock at Sacramento or Stockton. The bay gives easy access to the fertileSonoma and Santa Clara Valleys. The climate in this region of California isalways cool, and much wetter than southern California. North from here theterrain changes. From the Russian River to the Oregon border, the coast is rug-ged, with steep cliffs that hug the ocean. Frequent storms lash the beaches andthere are few harbors, the most notable being Humboldt Bay. This region hasredwood and pine forests, interspersed with woodland grass and small valleys.
East of this northern coastal region, a tableland—interspersed with mountainranges and the majestic snowcapped peaks of Mount Lassen and Mount Shasta—provides evidence of a prehistoric volcanic past. Between forests of pine and firthat cover the mountain ranges are the flatlands—the product of ancient lavaflows, with an elevation between 3000 and 5000 feet, covered with sagebrush andjunipers. Rain and snow define the seasons; lakes and rivers are plentiful.
The most mountainous region of California is the Sierra Nevada, a rangerunning some 400 miles from Mount Lassen in the north to the Tejon Pass inthe south. Mount Whitney (14,494 feet in elevation), one of the tallest moun-tains in the continental United States, resides here with other peaks nearly ashigh. The Sierra mountains include the awe-inspiring Yosemite Valley andSequoia National Park, along with breathtaking waterfalls, rapidly flowingmountain streams and rivers, and the largest freshwater lake in the state, LakeTahoe. The Sierras provide much of the water that the entire state dependsupon. On average, more than 50 inches of rain are captured in the mountainsnowfall each winter, providing year-round water for the Kern, Yosemite, SanJoaquin, Sacramento, Tuolume, Stanislaus, and other rivers. The discovery ofgold here in 1848 changed California forever.
South and east of the Sierras lies a vast desert that harbors a rich diversityof plant and animal life. Sage, cacti, and grasses survive the fierce heat of thedesert summer, while juniper and piñon trees grow on the higher plateaus.After a brief rainy season in March or April, the desert explodes in wildflowers,some seeds of which can lie dormant for years. The desert region has the low-est point in the United States—Death Valley (282 feet below sea level)—as wellas several lakes of historical importance, notably Mono and Owens Lakes.Imperial and Coachella Valleys in the southern desert are of prime importancetoday as agricultural centers, thanks to irrigation. The huge Salton Sea receivesthe runoff of excess irrigation water from the Imperial Valley. It was created in
Diversity: Origins of California and Its Native Peoples 9
the early 1900s by a temporary rechanneling of the Colorado River, and todayits salinity is greater than that of seawater.
The 450-mile-long Central Valley lies between the Sierra Nevada and thecoastal mountains and is on average 50 miles wide. The valley is drained by theSan Joaquin River in the south and the Sacramento River in the north, both fedby numerous tributaries flowing from the Sierras. The two great rivers meetnear Sacramento and form a delta region. The temperate weather, richnessof the soil, and increased availability of irrigation have made this regioninvaluable farmland. Although this is a major difference from the times ofCalifornia’s first peoples, they, too, experienced a land of many contrasts—contrasts that have led some to say that there are many Californias.
Cycles of Life: The Food Quest, Spirituality, and Rituals
The Food Quest
Imagine bright sunshine and deep blue skies framing a spry old woman as sheleads her granddaughter along the path that winds through the fertile hills ofthe San Joaquin Valley around 3000 BCE. Spying something in the brush, theelder woman stops and kneels, as does the girl, looking carefully at the delicate,green plant her grandmother is grasping in strong, sure hands. “In digging wildpotatoes we never take the mother plant,” the grandmother says. “We justselect the babies that have no flowers, just leaves. We are thinning out thearea so that more will grow next year.” The girl nods as they set about collect-ing the flowerless young plants. As their baskets fill, her mind drifts to otherharvestings the two have shared, of wild onions, tobacco, and various bulbs.She breathes deeply of the clear air, remembering the late summer and earlyautumn times when it was acrid with the smell of the burnings done annuallyin the chaparral. Those fires cleared space for the young growth needed formaking baskets, and increased the places where edible and medicinal plantscould be produced. The girl thinks ahead to when she will help her grand-mother broadcast the seeds of grain-yielding grasses and green annualsbetween trees so they will be able to survive the drought.
This image, based on a 20th-century Yokut description of how the tribe’sancestors passed along knowledge of their natural environment, gives us someidea of how the early peoples managed their environment and dealt withthe depletion of larger game that accompanied the population increase ofthose times. As thousands of years of hunting and gathering gave way to agreater dependence on a variety of grass plants, acorns, and marine life as die-tary supplements, the California Indians developed techniques of cultivation,propagation, and preparation to increase their food supply. The burnings this
10 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
young girl recalls are the early incarnations of a tradition described toanthropologist Florence Shipek by elders of the Kumeyaay peoples of SanDiego County in the 1960s. The elders also reported planting and hybridizingoak tree cuttings to produce more acorns. More recently M. Kat Anderson, inher study of California Indians’ management of their natural world, concludedthat they practiced a wide variety of techniques including “burning, pruning,sowing, weeding, tilling …” –that Indians assert were practices to help naturealong. Other scholars point to the fish management traditions of the coastalIndians, particularly those living north of Monterey bay. When the Chinooksalmon had their semi-annual runs up the Klamath River, for example, it wastradition to allow some of them to pass on to the spawning grounds. The weirsthat they built to trap them were dismantled at key times to allow the fish topass, thus conserving the future stock of this important food. All these manage-ment techniques were under the spiritual direction of key shamans.
While they worked, these two women might have looked across the hillstoward the stand of oak trees near their village, grown from cuttings. Oaktrees then, as in the 21st century, could be found throughout California aswell as the greater Southwest and northern Mexico. The indigenous peoplesof Alta and Baja California developed the techniques that made the highlynutritious fruit of those trees—acorns—into a staple food. Each mature tree ofthe seven different species of oak could produce up to 500 pounds of acornsannually, but these nuts could only be gathered for a few weeks each year.
To pass the time as they pick greens, the elder reviews with her grandchildhow acorns must be leached of their bitter tannic acids to make them edible.She rejects the method of immersing the acorns in mud near a streambed forseveral months, for there are all sorts of risks involved in leaving anything onits own like that. She prefers to shell the acorns and grind them into a meal,pouring water over it until the acid leaches out through coiled baskets. Stone orsand basins were also used for the leaching process, which was probably anoriginal innovation of the California Indians. The young girl thought of howher mother, taught by her grandmother, organized the long hours of workrequired by their small family for several weeks to produce the acorn meal.Later, the meal could be boiled into mush or baked into cakes. In a good sea-son, they could gather enough acorns to make meal that would last them untilthe next gathering. She feels grateful for those bountiful years.
As the sun sinks lower and the sky turns to pinks and purples, the two womenmight spot the girl’s father and brother near the oak trees, returning from a tradejourney to the coast. The pair would be laden with fish and game received inexchange for acorns, trading as the Wiot peoples did near present-day Eureka.Trade patterns revolved around the need for food. One of the most importantand pervasive items of trade was obsidian, black volcanic glass stone used tomake arrow and spear points. Crystal salt, gathered from the Owens Valley andthe Colorado River or distilled from seawater, was also commonly traded. The
Cycles of Life: The Food Quest, Spirituality, and Rituals 11
peoples in San Diego traded acorn meal for melons grown by the Yuman(Quechan) Indians. Abalone shells from the Pacific Ocean have been found inmiddens (refuse heaps) on the eastern side of Baja California, indicating a tradein shells between the western coastal communities and those further inland.
The stories the two men would surely bring back from their trip might wellinclude tales highlighting the religious significance that the mountains, lakes,rivers, and other natural features had for them. They believed that the landwas given to them by the gods and their ancestors, with boundaries establishedthrough tradition and warfare. They not only traveled for survival, they alsomade spiritual journeys. Their concept of the land differed from that of theEuropeans both in its relation to the spiritual, and in their belief that landwas for the use of families and clans as groups—not as individuals.
Almost every native group had occasion to travel within its territory andoccasionally outside it to obtain needed foods or implements, just as this imag-inary family did. Given the diversity of California Indian language groups,lineages, bands, clans, and towns, generalizations about them as a whole aredifficult to make. We can say that, unlike the peoples living along the ColoradoRiver and further east, they did not develop maize agriculture. Those moreeastern tribes cultivated maize, corn, beans, and squash once these plants hadspread north from central Mexico after 900 BCE. For the California Indians,however, lush flora and fauna were available to those living near the coastand in the north, so there was no need to develop farming. And in any case,especially in the south, scant rainfall made agriculture without irrigation prob-lematic. Almost all the western groups had territories that crossed two or moreecological food zones, enabling them to draw from different regions in differentseasons and thus not remain wholly dependent on any one food source.
California’s various Indians were also similar in that they were perhaps themost omnivorous peoples in the Americas, eating practically everything thatwas not poisonous. Besides acorns, fish, and game, they ate insects, shellfish,grasses, lizards, snakes, cactus, and scores of species of wild plants. Baskets,pottery vessels, bows and arrows, harpoons, nets, grinding and cutting stones,and other practical implements that line the shelves of California’s museumstoday are evidence of the importance of food gathering to all of the state’s var-ious historical cultures.
The California Indians actively shaped their natural environment so as toextract its maximum food value. And they passed on their burgeoning environ-mental management techniques through oral transmission—usually throughshamans, or spiritual leaders—from generation to generation. The most com-mon management technique was the use of fire to control brush and treegrowth, to create a layer of ash that nourished the seed-bearing grasses ofthe next season, and to drive game into traps. The annual clearing of brushby fire was an important ecological activity, creating places where grassescould grow and where game could forage. Burning the chaparral regions andgrasslands promoted the growth of “burn species” of edible plants and grasses
12 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
that normally would not flourish in these areas. Frequent burnings in forestedareas also prevented the buildup of dense brush whose accidental burningmight have large-scale, disastrous results. Environmental historians believethat land management practices—especially burning—were so significant inmaintaining a balance among the land, the flora, and the fauna of pre-conquest California that the decline of the Indian population after Europeansettlement produced a change in the natural environment—a change causedby the unchecked growth of brush and chaparral. As estimated by ethnohistor-ians, perhaps 10 percent of the plants and 30 percent of the animals commonin pre-Columbian California have since disappeared, victims of encroachingEuropean plants and animals. Perhaps as much as 90 percent of all flora andfauna present in California today are not native to the region, but haveappeared since the arrival of Europeans in North America.
Many native life forms have almost disappeared in 21st-century California.Before the Spanish, the coastal region hosted thousands of acres of Americandune grass and Pacific beach grass. Beginning in the American era, these twograsses were gradually replaced by European beach grasses. These grasses trapmore sand and create huge sand dunes, which in turn make it harder for other
Many Indian women were accomplished artisans, using local materials to create both utilitarian and ornamental objects.
Cycles of Life: The Food Quest, Spirituality, and Rituals 13
Athap
asca
n Hup
a wom
an fr
om N
orthw
ester
n Cali
fornia
, Edw
ard S
. Cur
tis, L
ibrar
y of C
ongre
ss, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
restr
iction
s
varieties of plants to thrive. Similarly, the coastal prairie regions once containedperennial bunch grasses that have been replaced by varieties of Europeanspreading grasses, including Italian rye grass and wild oats and barley.
Spirituality
Although physical nourishment was a time-consuming enterprise for Indianfamilies like the imaginary Yokuts described earlier, the food quest was bal-anced in their lives with time spent striving to live in harmony with the hiddenforces of nature. Spirits inhabited the world of all native peoples in the Amer-icas; communicating with those spirits occupied a good portion of their lives,especially during changes in season and on special occasions such as coming ofage, marriage, and death.
Imagine another dawn breaking in the life of another Indian family, amongthe Cahuilla. The father has spent some weeks instructing his adolescent son inthe correct ways to dance, eat, bathe, and participate in one of the most impor-tant spiritual exercises of their community, the toloache ceremony. (In someIndian groups, girls also participated in this ritual.)
Gently, the father shakes his boy to wakefulness. “Come, my son—theelders are ready,” he says, and the boy shakes off his slumber to hurry outside.There, the boy lines up with his friends, all aged 10 to 15, as the shamaninspects them carefully. “You,” he points to one, then another, continuingdown the line. “You, and you, and you. Come.” The boys are escorted to aceremonial enclosure, where they will remain for a week while the old peopledance all night and prepare the jimsonweed potion called toloache.
Mixing the crushed roots of the poisonous datura—or jimsonweed—withwater created a narcotic potion that produced visions in those who drank it.The Indians believed these visions were a means of communicating with thesupernatural. Where the toloache cult originated and how it spread is not cer-tain, though some scholars believe it began among the peoples of southernCalifornia and diffused north and east, driven by the dislocations caused bythe Spanish occupation.
Death can be caused by ingesting toloache; it was only used with greatpreparation and supervision by the Indians, and drunk perhaps once in a per-son’s life. The process was supervised by the shaman, or religious leader of thetribe, who was also an expert in folk medicine. The shaman (usually male, butsometimes female) was key to the preservation of such rituals as the toloacheceremony. Shamans had power by virtue of an animal that came to them indreams or visions—bestowed upon them by the Great Spirit so they couldhelp people connect with each other and the natural world. It was believedthe shaman could change shapes and become the guardian spirit animal.
When the boys are called forth from their hut into a moonless night aweek later, a hush falls upon the watching crowd. The father looks proudly athis son who is standing tall, unblinking; he can tell the boy is ready to drink
14 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
and become a man. “Tonight and only tonight you taste the toloache that willtransport you to the world of the Great Spirit,” the shaman intones, holdinghigh a gourd filled with the sacred potion. Each boy drinks, and the drummingand dancing begin. One by one the boys collapse; as they do, they are carriedwith great jubilation back into the hut. The father keeps a strong face tosquelch any small anxiety he might have as he gently lays down his son, whois muttering now in the throes of his vision. “Go away, Coyote, go away,” theboy cries out suddenly. “I know your tricks and selfish ways.” Later he will tellhis father, “Coyote tempted me to jump from the highest cliff into the swirlingwaters below, saying he would catch me. ‘Drink more toloache,’ he told me, ‘forit will make you powerful like the shaman, look, like me, I am drinking all thetime—come, we will fly!’ But I told him no, I know your deceit, for my fathertold me you are self-destructive and a liar. And Coyote howled as he flew away,hanging his head in shame for his weakness. ‘You are right, wise boy, donot jump, I cannot catch you, I cannot,’ he wailed. Then he faded and I wokeup sweating.” The boy’s father nods wisely as his son finishes describinghis vision, for everyone knows Coyote is all of these things, both destructiveand regretful.
On the next night and the next, the boys are called out of the hut, taughtsongs, lore, and correct living. They learn the oral myths passed down throughgenerations—stories with many animals, like Coyote, who had human person-alities and magical powers. These stories also explained the meaning of life andrecorded the tribe’s own history. Coyote was a nearly universal mythic figurewho could be the trickster or hero, depending on local interpretations. Amongthe Maidu, for example, the Coyote and Earthmaker gods were opposed toeach other and struggled in the creation of the earth and people. Coyoteappeared in many guises: as messenger, transformer, creator, but most oftenas the divine deceiver of humankind. Often, myths were related to geographicalfeatures of tribal territory, such as a mountain peak, lake, or river. Certainly theboys had heard these tales before, as the telling of them was woven into dailylife—how the Great Spirit created the world, why death existed, why humansociety was organized as it was—but now the boys, too, became responsiblefor keeping this knowledge alive.
An introduction to medicinal lore might also have been included in theirtraining, again supervised by the shaman, who also preserved the tribe’s vastknowledge of medicine, spiritual incantations, and the uses of various herbs.Similar to the curanderos (herbal faith healers) among the Mexicans, shamanswere practitioners of holistic medicine. Using breath and touch in addition toplants and animals, shamans facilitated true cures in the only way thoughtpossible—by bringing the body and the soul into harmony with the naturalworld. A Chumash Indian, Fernando Librado, told of many cures that hewitnessed after the afflicted one had been given a toloache potion to drink.Once, a man who had been severely beaten and was near death was revivedand completely cured within a few days of drinking toloache and being
Cycles of Life: The Food Quest, Spirituality, and Rituals 15
rubbed over with tobacco. Another who was in great pain from brokenbones received almost immediate relief and was eventually healed after drink-ing toloache.
While these specialized cures were needed in serious cases, knowledge ofmedicinal plants was part of the cultural heritage of all the people. The boysmight learn about the many uses of tobacco, grown or traded by almost allthe native groups and thought to have curative and spiritual powers whenchewed, eaten, or smoked. They might be shown medicinal plants good fortreating many common ailments: from sore muscles, headaches, cramps, andnausea, to common colds, rheumatism, cuts, bites, wounds, and sores. Theirsisters, in their own coming-of-age rituals, might learn about other plants use-ful for contraception, menstrual problems, and childbirth. When the Spanishbegan to occupy California, they liberally borrowed from native medicinallore, using special herbs to treat arrow wounds, as well as wild chamomileand manzanilla for respiratory illnesses. A number of our modern medicinesderive from the plants used by the North American Indians.
Once taught the ways of the tribe, the boys eat no meat and drink nothingbut cold water for the rest of that month. After this they are men. Sitting by thefire, the young man who saw Coyote in his visions contemplates his future. Hisfather smiles softly, careful that his son does not see his pride as he observesthe seriousness on that youthful face. Then he breaks the young man’s reverie.“Tomorrow you will join us on the hunt. Today we prepare ourselves in thetemescal. Come, help carry the rocks.”
Together, father and son join the other men of the village placing heatedrocks inside the rounded structure made of saplings and covered with grassand hides. This temescal, or sweathouse, was another significant part of theirspiritual life. Sprinkling water on the rocks, the men gathered inside the steamyhut to chant, sing, smoke, and pray. An hour or two later, they would emergeand immediately plunge into cold water, purified for success in undertakingssuch as hunting and war.
Rituals
When the sun rises and the stars and the moon go down, then the old man ofthe house wakens everyone and begins with breakfast which is to eat meat andtortillas (acorn cakes), for we do not have bread. This done, he takes his bow andarrows and leaves the house with vigorous and quick step…. His old womanstaying at home makes the meal. The son, if he is a man, works with the men.
These words of Pablo Tac, a San Luis Rey mission Indian in the 1820s, offera glimpse of their daily life before the Spanish arrived. Although generalizationsabout the diverse Indian communities are difficult to make, each had its ownregional version of rituals surrounding marriage, morals, and leisure—the acti-vities that gave meaning and purpose to life—all drawn from the sustenance ofeach of their rich and varied environments.
16 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
Common to many of these activities was song of one form or another. Like the initiation rites of the Cahuilla described earlier, young girls of the Diegueño or Kumeyaay Indians participated in a Wakunish, or womanhood ceremony, at puberty. A bed of hot sand was prepared and the girl placed on top of it, sur-rounded by dancing and singing members of her village. Following this, she returned to her special hut to be instructed in the sacred affairs of the commu-nity. A sand painting was used to show the girl her place in the universe, and marriageable girls were tattooed on their chins after a period of fasting.
From
Willi
am H
. Emo
ry. Li
brar
y of C
ongre
ss, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
restr
iction
s
Cycles of Life: The Food Quest, Spirituality, and Rituals 17
In 1854, a U.S. expedition led by Lieutenant Colonel William Emory traveled through the desert regions of California and Arizona to survey the international boundary. Along the way, artists sketched the region’s plants, animals, and inhabitants. Arthur Schott created this picture of a Diegueño family in 1854. Do you see any Spanish or Mexican influence?
Song and dance also figured in marriage rituals. Chumash marriage cele-brations began with a private ceremony for the family, where invited guestsbrought presents, according to former mission Indian Fernando Librado.Later there was a feast, followed by what he called a Jealousy Dance, in whichfive figures performed a burlesque of a love affair and temptations of othermen. Pablo Tac remembered another ritual dance, of the Luiseño people:
The dancers in this dance can be as many as 30, more or less. Going out of thehouse, they turn their faces to the singers and begin to give kicks, but not hardones, because it is not the time, and when the song is finished the captain ofthe dancers, touching his feet, cries, “Hu,” and all fall silent.
In some groups, boys were married before they were 21, to a suitable brideselected by their parents from outside both the immediate family and the band.The parents gave gifts to the family of the girl, and sometimes the boy went towork for his future in-laws to prove he could provide for the girl. Among sometribelets there was no formal ceremony, merely an agreement among the par-ents. During the first weeks after the marriage, members of the village visitedthe new couple to confirm that they were part of the group.
Indian and Spanish morality differed, which was a source of great conflictbetween them. Though marriage and kinship were usually governed amongIndians by strict rules, and patriarchal values held sway, most CaliforniaIndians did not regard virginity as being of great value; consequently, premari-tal sex was rarely forbidden, according to the research of historian AlbertHurtado. Adultery and sexual misconduct by women was sometimes punishedby payment of indemnities to wronged husbands and by the whipping of errantwives; however, sexual mores among Indian groups varied as greatly as theydid between Indians and Europeans, and sweeping generalizations are perilous.In some groups, women as well as men could divorce their spouse if mis-treated. Prostitution was almost unknown among Indians, Hurtado thinks,because “marital, premarital, and extramarital associations provided sufficientsexual opportunities.”
Along with many other natives in the Americas, the California Indians alsovalued a berdache tradition, in which homosexual transvestites were thought tohave special mystical powers. Many villages regarded them as a third sex,highly valued as marriage partners because of their strength and spiritualgifts. This acceptance of homosexuality as well as the native people’s casualattitudes towards sex was regarded by Christian missionaries as proof of theIndians’ inherent sinfulness.
Many California Indians believed in cremating their dead, another practicethat was unacceptable to European Catholics of the time. “Only when everythingis burned can his spirit go into the next world and not have to keep coming backafter his things,” remembers Delfina Cuero, a Kumeyaay Indian woman born in1900, in her autobiography. The funeral ceremony of her people, the Kumeyaay,involved cremating the departed along with all their worldly possessions the dayafter they died. Their bones and ashes were preserved in jars. Gifts were sent from
18 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
other bands to the family of the deceased, along with “shell money.” Tradition dic-tated that the shell money was then returned to the band who sent it, along withmore gifts. A year later, the other bands were invited to participate in a mourningceremony, during which everyone sang songs about the eagle and deer all nightlong, followed by a great feast in the morning. Figurines made of cattails, repre-senting the dead, were burned and food and baskets were given away. Later, thevisitors returned the original gifts along with more food. Such exchanges served topromote communication and good will among the villages.
Singing was also featured in leisure time activities. Songs that kept locallegends, myths, and history alive were memorized and sung, often directedtoward the Great Spirit. Each band had one singer who knew all the songsand stories and who taught them to the others. One Luiseño story, the legendof Takwish, was told through 1050 songs that were sung from sunset Fridayuntil sunrise on Sunday. There were probably hundreds of such storiesamong the California peoples, each encapsulating the “soul” of the people,transmitting their identity and heritage to the next generation.
A popular gambling and guessing game called peon was also accompaniedby songs. The Indians also participated with great gusto in many other kinds ofgames that emphasized both competition and community. Men and boysengaged in mock battles with one another using stones instead of arrows, andchildren played a game of throwing a stick through a rolling hoop. Pablo Tacremembers a ball game resembling modern football that was played with 30 or40 men and women on each side. The idea was to unearth a hidden ball usingsticks and then to carry it to the goal while the other team sought to prevent ascore. Each game lasted three or four hours.
A Closer Look: Six Regional Peoples
Before the arrival of the Europeans, the varied lives of native Californiansreflected the diversity of the land they inhabited. A closer examination of sixof the many native groups that spread across this land provides greater insightinto their similarities as well as their differences. While there were probablymore than 500 distinctive tribelets, it is useful to focus on those which werethe largest that represent the regional adaptations of these people. From theGabrielino/Tongva peoples of the south to the Shastans of the north, each group’sdevelopment was inseparably woven into the fabric of their environment.
The Gabrielino/Tongva
The Gabrielino/Tongva peoples migrated to southern California from thegreater Southwest sometime after 500 BCE. They lived in more than 100 vil-lages scattered throughout the area of present-day Los Angeles and Orange
A Closer Look: Six Regional Peoples 19
Counties, as well as the offshore islands (see Map 1.2). Named for the SanGabriel mission constructed near their villages, or rancherías (as the Spanishcalled them), they were a Cupan-speaking people. Part of the Uto-Aztecanfamily of languages, Cupan is linguistically related to languages of the PuebloIndians in New Mexico and the Aztecs of central Mexico.
The Gabrielinos worshiped the god Qua-o-ar, also called Chingichngish.According to what is known through Spanish sources, they believed the earthwas created by a divine brother and sister, who formed the first human,Wiyot, a male who was self-generating (he had children without a woman).Wiyot was poisoned by his children, but before he died he vowed to return.As his children were cremating Wiyot, Coyote appeared and said that hewanted to die with his captain. Coyote jumped into the fire, while tearing apiece of meat from Wiyot’s stomach and eating it. Soon after that, Chingichng-ish was born, and he then created a new race of people, giving them a body oflaws and proscriptions. The reported practice of Gabrielino shamans eatinga piece of the flesh of a dead body just prior to its cremation was supposedly are-creation of the birth of their “all-powerful” god. Eventually Chingichngishwas taken up into the heavens, dancing a sacred dance, and he becamethe stars.
The worship of Chingichngish evolved into a more formalistic religionwith special worship places, elaborate ceremonies, and sacrifices to this god aswell as to the Sun and Moon, who also had divine status. The Gabrielinos alsovenerated animals, especially the Eagle, whom they considered to be the soul ofa great leader. Their religion was male-centered; only men were allowed pri-mary access to divine powers. The veneration of Chingichngish may havebeen influenced by Catholicism in a syncretic way, mixing European and nativebeliefs, but it is unclear to what degree.
The lengthiest Gabrielino rituals involved deceased tribal members. After athree-day mourning ceremony with dancing and wailing, the dead were cre-mated along with all their possessions. Each year, the family conducted anothermourning ceremony in honor of the deceased one, at which the legends of thecommunity were honored. During the eight-day celebration, the longest andmost elaborate of the year, newly born children were given their father’snames, any remaining possessions of the deceased were burned, and an eaglewas ceremonially sacrificed.
Like many California native groups, the Gabrielinos were patrilineal, trac-ing their descent through the father. Arranged marriages often took place, afterwhich a wife moved into the home of her husband and was then forbidden tovisit her family of origin, although they could visit her. Divorce was possible, inwhich case the families returned the wedding gifts. A wife’s infidelity was pun-ishable by death or beating.
Of the tribe’s three social classes, leaders and their families were at the top,followed by a middle class of respected families and then by common villagers.Upper- and middle-class families controlled land and marked the boundaries
20 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
of their possessions with symbolic figures carved on trees or posts, or paintedon rocks. Each village had its own autonomous organization dominated byone lineage and ruled by a male leader who passed on his power through hismale heir. If no male heir existed, a related woman might be selected by thefamily council.
Occasionally, feuds among the various lineages and villages erupted, withvillages sometimes allying together to engage in war. Armed and bloody con-flicts arose when other tribes trespassed on ranchería lands, when women weretaken, or when enemies invoked evil powers. The Gabrielino warriors usedheavy wooden clubs, reed armor, and bows and arrows. The whole villagetook part in battles, with women and children as helpers. Enemy woundedwere killed on the field, while captured male warriors were publicly torturedand scalped.
Most of the time, however, peace reigned, fostered by intermarriages andtrade within Gabrielino groups and with the Cahuilla, Chumash, and Luiseño.The Gabrielinos’ main trade item was steatite, a kind of rock from the island ofSanta Catalina used to make carvings of sacred animals. They imported acorns,obsidian, and deerskin from the inland territories and exchanged salt, shellfish,and sea otter pelts. They also traded with the Pueblo Indians of what is nowArizona and New Mexico.
The Chumash
The Chumash people settled in villages in central California around 1000 CE,in the area from San Luis Obispo to Malibu, on the coastal Channel Islands—San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa—and as far inland as thecentral San Joaquin Valley (see Map 1.2). They became one of the largest lan-guage groups in California and were among the native peoples sighted by theEuropean expedition led by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in October 1542.
Expert craftsmen, especially in woodworking and basketry, they con-structed planked wooden canoes up to 30 feet long that enabled them to fishfar out to sea and to visit the offshore islands. Using harpoons with stonepoints and ropes made out of yucca fiber, they hunted sea otters, seals, sword-fish, and whales. Their large carved oak bowls were the envy of the Europeans;their wooden-handled knives and arrows remain marvels of beauty. CaliforniaIndian basketry in general is noted for its decoration and workmanship, andChumash baskets were so tightly woven that when waterproofed with asphal-tum or tar, they could be used to carry and store water, as well as for cooking.The tar came from natural pools, which had oozed into a small lake located inthe western region of what is today the Los Angeles basin. The women wereresponsible for weaving these useful works of art. They also wove fishnets,floor mats, storage baskets, and strainers.
Chumash rock art paintings can be found in caves and on rocks and ledgesthroughout the Santa Barbara area. Many California native groups drew or
A Closer Look: Six Regional Peoples 21
inscribed designs and mysterious symbols on rocks, but few of these are as col-orful and dramatic as those of the Chumash. The designs are abstract, mostprobably done in conjunction with the toloache ceremony or with femalepuberty rites. The drawings may have been meant to sanctify a particularlyholy spot—almost all of them are located near water in inaccessible regions,far from the coast.
The permanent villages of the Chumash included well-constructed roundhomes built of poles and interwoven grass, some up to 50 feet in diameter andable to hold up to 70 persons. Within these homes were beds on wood frameswith divisions in between for privacy and a fire pit in the center for cooking.Every village had at least one sweathouse, a number of storehouses, a buildingused for ceremonies, a cemetery, and a recreation house.
As did many California natives, the Chumash enjoyed a variety of games.A ball game similar to soccer, played with a round wooden ball, was popularwith the boys and men; females played a hoop game that involved tryingto throw a pole through a rolling hoop. Women also gambled alongside menin various games of chance, especially a dice game using walnut shells filledwith tar.
Like the Gabrielinos, this tribe was patrilineal and had a definite class sys-tem. Those who owned the large canoes and were the heads of large familiesenjoyed high status. Wealthy family members dressed accordingly, adornedwith semiprecious stones and rare bird feathers.
The area in which the Chumash lived was blessed with many resources.Still, they had extensive trade relationships with surrounding communities. Inexchange for deerskins, acorns, obsidian, and precious stones, they traded aba-lone shells, whalebone, wooden bowls, and asphaltum. They were expert atmaking fishhooks out of shell and these were valuable trade items. Those wholived on the four offshore islands visited the mainland periodically to obtainfood and luxuries, sometimes paddling more than 40 miles in open sea andbringing with them a variety of marine items such as sea lion bristles (used asneedles), whalebones, and pelican feathers.
According to early European accounts, the Chumash were a gentle people.In the 1770s, Governor Pedro Fages wrote that they were “of good disposition,affable, liberal, and friendly toward the Spaniard.” Among them, punishmentwas rare and compensation was the modality of justice. Disputes were settledby referees, and intertribal wars were fought with restraining ritual and littlebloodshed. Their friendly and accepting manner made them good candidatesfor missionization by the Spanish priests. Within a century, however, epidemics,starvation, and displacement reduced the Chumash to near extinction.
The Costanoans
The Costanoan peoples migrated to Monterey Bay and the southern part of theSan Francisco Bay area about 500 CE and lived in more than 50 autonomous,
22 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
relatively small, permanent villages (see Map 1.2). By the time of their firstcontact with Europeans, they had a population of more than 10,000, dividedinto eight language groups and more than 30 different ethnic populations,each with different names and different dialects. Their name derives from theSpanish costa (coast), but as was the case with many native California peoples,they did not use this name themselves.
One group of Costanoans may have been the first miners in California,excavating a tunnel near present-day New Almaden to mine cinnabar, a com-pound based on mercury and used to make colorful paints. Because this wasthe only deposit of this particular mineral in California, it was a valuableasset and the Costanoans fought with surrounding tribes for the rights to themine. Indians from as far away as the Pacific Northwest traveled to Costanoanterritory to trade for cinnabar.
Like the Chumash, the Costanoans developed boats, but theirs were madeof tule reeds and used for fishing in the bays as well as for transportation andtrading expeditions. They bartered the products of the bays with the interiorIndian groups for piñon nuts, acorns, and decorative stones and shells. Warfarewith other groups seems to have been more pronounced among the Costanoanpeoples, usually caused by trespassing into their territory. (Territorial bound-aries of ethnic groups were well delineated and frequently marked.) In battle,the Costanoans killed male captives and took women; afterward, the decapi-tated heads of their enemies adorned their villages. Costanoans shared thecommon religious tradition that included a creation story involving thedestruction of the earth by flooding, followed by the rebirth of people. Theybelieved Coyote taught people to hunt and fish, and was the grandfather ofDuck Hawk, a god who helped humans by killing monsters and looking aftertheir welfare. They believed in an afterlife in which they went to another landacross the sea. On the day of death, the corpse was cremated. During themourning ceremony, members of the immediate family covered themselveswith ashes and beat themselves in sorrow, a practice which sometimes resultedin their own deaths. It was forbidden to speak a deceased’s name until it hadbeen formally given to another within the tribe.
Grizzly bears were also venerated as representing important animal spir-its and were frequently captured alive and cared for by some tribes. Specialshamans dressed in grizzly bear skins and used poisoned claws to kill enemycaptives. The Chumash Indian Fernando Librado recalled the ceremoniessurrounding the bear medicine man when he was interviewed by anthropol-ogist John P. Harrington in 1914. “To make their bear suits they would firstkill a bear and pull its skin off over the head, cutting the paws and skincarefully.” Librado remembered that occasionally other Indians would tryto kill the bear medicine man (whom they believed to be an evil spirit).But the bear shamans were believed to be protected by the supernaturalpowers they possessed (they were protected, too, by the many layers ofskins they wore).
A Closer Look: Six Regional Peoples 23
Costanoan tribal organization was similar to that of the Gabrielino/Tongva and the Chumash. The position of chief was hereditary, but any chief’sauthority was circumscribed by a strong sense of individual freedom amongcommunity members. Their social world revolved around the family of thefather and they had large families, perhaps averaging 15 per household.Wealthier men had more than one wife, which made for complex arrange-ments. Among some Costanoans there were three designations for children,indicating known parentage: man’s son, man’s daughter, and woman’s child(unknown father). Marriage appears to have been rather informal, and divorcewas easily accomplished, with the children going with the wife.
The Miwoks and Yokuts
Other Indian groups lived far from the ocean and European settlement. Two ofthese groups were the Miwoks and Yokuts. The Miwoks inhabited an area run-ning from the north and east of San Francisco Bay to Sacramento and the foot-hills of the Sierras; the Yokuts lived in the San Joaquin Valley south ofSacramento. Like other groups, these two populations settled in scattered inde-pendent villages, the members of each village speaking a different dialectalthough bound by a probable common ancestry in the ancient past.
In 1769, the Miwok population probably exceeded 25,000. They werenoted for their construction of large, round subterranean meetinghouses, some-times 40 to 50 feet in diameter, in which it was possible to assemble the wholevillage for important ceremonies and crucial discussions. The Sierra Miwoksbuilt conical homes of bark and wood, insulated by several layers to withstandthe cold winters. The Miwoks divided all creatures into two types, the waterand land descendants, and their social organization and adoption of animalnames followed this dualist system. For example, among the Sierra Miwoks,
Hupa man with a ceremonial white deerskin staff and elaborate shell necklace.
Hupa
India
n in c
erem
onial
costu
me, E
dwar
d S. C
urtis
, Libr
ary o
f Con
gress,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kn
own r
estri
ction
s
24 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
the grizzly bear represented the land and the coyote the water. Individuals weregiven a personal name according to their relationship to the land or water moi-eties (sides). The Miwoks had three types of leaders: the chief, who arbitrateddisputes and administered punishments; the speaker, who organized everyonefor ceremonies and work; and the messengers, who acted as representatives toother groups and as announcers during ritual celebrations. Hunters and gath-erers, the Miwoks developed a variety of technologies, including seed beaters,dip nets and seines for fish, specialized traps and snares for small game, anddeer runs (fenced areas that trapped prey).
The Yokuts shared the same linguistic origin as the Miwoks and numberedsome 20,000 people who lived in about 40 independent groups. In the south,the Yokuts lived along the banks of the Kern, Tule, King, and San JoaquinRivers, and along the shore of Tulare Lake. In this era, the San Joaquin Valleywas much marshier than it is now and this created a rich aquatic environment.The Yokut way of life, therefore, revolved around the marshes formed by themany rivers in the valley. The ubiquitous tule plant was used for making every-thing from baskets to canoes, and it was also used for food. Because their foodsource was always in one place, these Yokuts built permanent villages usinglarge tule mats for construction, and they perfected freshwater fishing with spe-cialized nets, floating tule mats, spring traps, and decoys. They ate mussels,turtles, geese, and ducks, along with tule and grass seeds, and supplementedthis diet with acorns, which they obtained by trade.
The Yokuts who lived along the river edges also had access to acorns as astaple food. Some built their river villages on mounds to protect against floodsand had small tule huts for each family, but they also built larger assemblystructures and sweathouses. They raised dogs, primarily, it seems, for theirmeat, and the puppies were an item of trade as far away as Monterey. Theyhad a dualistic family system like that of the Miwoks, whose territory boundedthem on the north. Among the foothill Yokuts, plural marriages and divorcewere common, and a woman’s rights were strongly protected by her family.
The Shastans
Finally, in the Klamath and Scott River Valleys of the mountainous regionsof northern California and southern Oregon, there lived about 3000 Shastan peo-ples, a collection of groups who shared dialects of the same language. Noted fortheir many feuds and wars within their own group and with other northerngroups such as the Modocs, the Shastans fought in retaliation for past insultsand injuries as well as for control of territory. Nevertheless, they maintainedtrade relations with surrounding rancherías in order to obtain baskets, obsidian,beads, and animal skins in exchange for acorn meal, salt, and wolf skins.
The Shastan peoples, too, were patrilineal, with rule by a headman or chief.Often the wife of the chief was an important political spokesperson in resolving con-flicts. Settlement of disputes usually required payment in clamshell money, deer
A Closer Look: Six Regional Peoples 25
skins, or woodpecker scalps to the aggrieved party. The headman also regulated theownership of hunting and fishing territory, which could be inherited by families.
Harsh winters impelled the Shastans to build sturdy, warm dwellings, par-tially excavated, with solid wood logs and boards as walls and roofs. During thesummer months, the families lived in temporary camps. They also built largeassembly halls for ceremonial purposes, for use as a sweathouse, and for lodg-ing during the winter.
Shastan territory was lush with small game, salmon, trout, eels, and turtles.The women were entrusted with fishing, while the men hunted. Deer meat wasa primary food source. They also had a gathering culture, with both men andwomen seeking acorns and pine nuts. Cultivated tobacco was offered up as asacrifice to ensure good hunting.
Coyote is a major figure in Shastan belief, as a source of both evil andgood. The stories used by the Shastans to pass on their beliefs were preoccu-pied with the pervasiveness of evil, which had to be combated by manipulationof the spiritual world through the offices of male shamans and female doctors.They also seem to have been preoccupied with status, prestige, and the order ofsociety, which made insults and loss of face great evils and resentments a majortheme of cultural life.
Significance: The Importance of California Nativesand Other North American Native Peoplesin Non-Indian History
Beginning in 1769, with the first Spanish settlement, and lasting until 1848, whenCalifornia was transferred to the United States, the California Indians vastly out-numbered the Euro-American population. If history were written emphasizingthe most demographically important groups, then, until the discovery of gold,California’s history would be primarily that of its native peoples, with smallattention given to the Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo immigrants. But historyreflects political and cultural power and is usually written by the conquerors.
Spanish, Mexican, and early Anglo American settlers in California werealmost uniformly critical of the native peoples. The Spanish had mixed viewsabout the Indians, whom they considered “child-like,” “indolent,” and given toindulge in “brutal appetites,” while paradoxically seeing them as innocent andnaturally God’s children. Some Mexican settlers, or pobladores, viewed thenative peoples either as dangerous threats to civilization or as lazy peoneswho needed strong guidance. The Anglos called the California Indians “diggerIndians,” classifying them as the most primitive of all North American Indianpeoples for lack of such rudimentary accomplishments of civilization as farm-ing and pottery. Such negative valuation allowed Euro-Americans to justifytaking Indian lands and destroying their societies.
26 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
Herbert Howe Bancroft, a famous and influential 19th-century Californiahistorian, believed that the California Indians were culturally inferior to thewhites. Many modern misconceptions about the level of culture attained bythe California Indians can be traced to 19th-century positivist scholars, notablyLewis Henry Morgan, one of those who conceived of all human cultural evolu-tion as progressing through stages of savagery, barbarism, and finally civiliza-tion. These scholars tended to equate “civilization” with the development ofagriculture and technology and relegated food-gathering societies to the levelof barbarism, not taking into account that human intelligence is also reflectedin successful adaptation to an environment. Such beliefs persisted into the1960s and even later, with historians and anthropologists usually characterizingthe California native cultures as “primitive” and “underdeveloped,” thus reflect-ing prejudices that are the product of ignorance as well as ethnocentrism bornout of racialist ideologies of the past.
These attitudes make it hard to remember that much of the drama ofthose years of conquest was played out against a backdrop of the extensive,rich, and diverse native culture that existed across the North American conti-nent. The many groups in California were descendants of natives who hadmigrated from the east and north, and as such they shared cultural patternswith the larger Indian society. Along with other Indian peoples in NorthAmerica in 1492, the California Indians developed a culture that fit their nat-ural environment. Few natives in what later became the United States reliedentirely on agriculture (those who did were mostly limited to New Mexicoand Arizona); most shared an economy based on hunting, gathering, and theselective cultivation of plants. Techniques developed by California Indians formaintaining the ecological balance between the population and the naturalworld of vegetation and animal life make them the first environmentalists.Their periodic burning of brush areas to stimulate the new growth of foodcrops, decrease insect pests, manage game, and open new country helped main-tain an equilibrium that was severely disturbed by the Europeans and Americans.Not until the late 20th century would scientists finally realize the wisdom ofnative management practices.
Until at least the mid-19th century, the most important workforce inCalifornia was composed of its native peoples. The foundation of the livestockindustry and of agriculture depended on native labor, as did the constructionof early public and private buildings and the first towns. The physical monu-ments to the Spanish and Mexican eras, the missions and the ranchos, werebuilt with Indian labor. The native peoples contributed elements of theirlanguage to hundreds of place names, such as Shasta, Napa, Tuolomne, Yuba,Tehachapai, Tecate, and Ukiah. They shared their knowledge of the use ofmedicinal plants with the first Spanish and Mexican settlers, and they helpedthem defend their small settlements against attacks by other Indians. Elementsof Indian culture found their way into the mission system set up by the Spanish.The first vaqueros, or cowboys, in California were Indians employed by the
Significance 27
missions to manage the cattle, sheep, and goats brought by the Spanish. Nativecultures, languages, and identities continue to exist within California, makingthese first people very much part of the history of the state from the earliesttimes to the present day.
Summary
During the course of millions of years, California evolved into a region oftremendous geographic and natural diversity. The many climates and naturalecosystems helped create the varied ways of life of its hundreds of thousandsof first settlers—migrants whose speech derived from six linguistic groups andwas expressed in more than 100 dialects. The lush plants and game thatflourished in California sustained this large Indian population, who createdinnovative ways of nurturing their natural resources.
Despite the multiplicity of their origins and languages, the Indian peoplesshared certain values, perhaps reflecting their common origin in prehistoric
In 1806, a Russian ship visited San Francisco Bay, and the artist Wilhelm GottliefTilesius von Tilenau traveled to Mission in San José, where he sketched a dance thathad been arranged for their entertainment. Compare this picture with those shown inthe earlier two photos in this chapter. Which ones seem more realistic?
Danc
e of th
e Ind
ians o
f the M
ission
of St
. Jose
ph in
New
Califo
rnia,
Letiti
a Bryn
e (en
grave
r) fro
m a s
ketch
by ar
tist W
ilhelm
Go
ttlief
Tiles
ius vo
n Tile
nau,
Libra
ry of
Cong
ress,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn re
strict
ions
28 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
time. They all managed their natural environment to produce the maximumamount of food, whether by controlled burns, hunting, or scattering of wildseeds. Almost all of them developed techniques for harvesting and grindingacorns into a staple food, and they all traded with other groups. A rich oraltradition of myths, legends, and stories—especially about the character Coyoteand the event of the flood—was common to all groups, as was the veneration ofanimal spirits. Complex ceremonies, songs, and rituals connected them to theirnatural environment. They all had shamans who organized their spiritual life,and many used jimsonweed or other psychotropic plants as part of their reli-gion, as well as the temescal or sweathouse. Their complex patterns of lineage,relationship, and status, including class systems in some groups, and their rela-tively small villages, reflected the patterns of all the native peoples on thecontinent—with the exception of the metropolitan civilizations in centralMexico. Their peaceful and nonwarlike image has some element of truth to it,despite the bloody intertribal warfare that periodically existed. Outside of cen-tral Mexico, native peoples rarely engaged in wars of conquest and territorialaggrandizement. The first Californians were neither more nor less sophisticatedor warlike than other peoples in North America before the arrival of theEuropeans.
A review of some of the most populous indigenous groups in Californiaillustrates their rich heritage and many accomplishments. Their ability tolearn how to live with the incredible diversity and richness of California’s cli-mate and geography and develop cultures that balanced human and naturalresources is an important ideal that seems to be regaining value in the newmillennium.
Modern anthropologists evaluate cultures on their own merits, not interms of a universal model of development that favors European culture, suchas the models used by 19th-century historians and positivist scholars.Ultimately, the California Indians must be understood on their own terms,not in comparison to other Indians or to European and American notions ofcivilization. In this regard, we must remind ourselves that the native culturesthat existed prior to their contact with Europeans were neither better nor worsethan those who would attempt to control them. Then, perhaps, we can betterappreciate the true diversity of California’s past and how that diversity mayshape the future.
Suggested Readings
❚ Anderson, M. Kat, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and theManagement of California’s Natural Resources (Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press, 2006). An examination of how the nativepeoples of California managed their natural environment.
Suggested Readings 29
❚ Fages, Pedro, A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California,trans. by Herbert Ingram Priestley (Berkeley: University of California Press,1937). An eyewitness account of the native cultures in California, written in1772.
❚ Griffin, Paul F., and Young Robert N., California: The New Empire State, aRegional Geography (San Francisco: Fearon Publishers, 1957). A good intro-duction to the geographic diversity of California.
❚ Heizer, Robert F., ed., “California,” in Handbook of North AmericanIndians, William C. Sturtevant, series ed. (Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1978). The best overall survey of the complexities anddiversities of the California Indians.
❚ Kroeber, Alfred L., Handbook of the Indians of California (Washington,D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, 1925). A landmarkstudy of the indigenous people done by the most respected Californiaanthropologist of the 20th century.
❚ Librado, Fernando, Breath of the Sun: Life in Early California As Told by aChumash Indian, Fernando Librado, to John P. Harrington, edited by TravisHudson (Banning, Calif.: Malki Museum Press; [S.l.]: Ventura County His-torical Society, 1979). A glimpse into the daily life of the California Indiansduring the early 1900s.
❚ Margolin, Malcolm, ed., The Way We Lived: California Indian Stories, Songsand Reminiscences (Berkeley: Heyday Books, 1981). A good collection of theoral tradition.
❚ Tac, Pablo, Indian Life and Customs at Mission San Luis Rey (Mission SanLuis Rey, 1958). A rare account of a mission Indian who wanted to be apriest.
30 CHAPTER 1 California’s Origins: The Land and the People, Before Spanish Settlement
CHAP
TER 2
The SpanishColonizationof California,1769–1821
Main Topics
❚ The Spanish Conquest and Empire
❚ Demographic and Ethnic Growth of California
❚ Establishing Presidios and Pueblos
❚ Gender Relations in Spanish California
❚ Political Developments in Spanish California
❚ Summary
Pablo Tac was a Luiseño Indian (Quechnajuichom) bornin Mission San Luis Rey in 1822. He came from a familyof six children, most of whom had been born at his peo-
ple’s ranchería (small settlement) near the mission. In 1832,Father Antonio Peyri chose Pablo and another boy to travelwith him to Mexico City to study for the priesthood. Theyarrived at the College of San Fernando, where Tac lived until1834, when Father Peyri took both boys to Spain and then toRome for further education financed by the church. In Rome,the older boy died but Tac finished his education, studyinghumanities, philosophy, and rhetoric. He took his preliminaryvows in 1839, intending to go back to California as a mission-ary, but he died before he could return.
While in the seminary, Tac was asked to prepare a grammati-cal description of the Luiseño language and a dictionary. In addi-tion to this document he wrote a history of his people and a
31
description of life in the missions, the only account written by aformer neophyte. This rare document gives us an interpretationof history through the eyes of a Christianized California Indian,but we should be cautious about relying too much on his memo-ries of his Indian past—they are in the context of his newlyfound religion and his probable desire to please his Europeanmentors. At the same time, however, some scholars have ana-lyzed the themes of resistance embedded in his narrative.
Tac recalled his people’s history of warfare with theKumeyaay peoples to the south before the Spaniards arrived.They were always at war with tribes that did not speak theirlanguage: “Always strife day and night,” he wrote. He alsodescribed their war practices. “They would surprise theenemy either when they were sleeping or when the men were
CHAPTER 2The Spanish Colonization of California,
1769–1821
1519 Cortés conquers the Aztecs in central Mexico
1542 Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo discovers San Diego Bay, namedSan Miguel
1579 Francis Drake lands on California’s coast
1602 Sebastián Vizcaíno lands in San Diego Bay and gives it its name
1769 First Spanish expeditions to settle Alta California
1770 Monterey founded by Father Junípero Serra
1775 First major Indian rebellion at Mission San Diego
1775 De Anza expedition brings new settlers to California
1776Lieutenant José Moraga founds the presidio of San Francisco;Spain actively supports American revolution with money andsupplies
1777 Pueblo of San José established
1781 Pueblo of Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles founded
1781 Yuma uprising closes all travel with Arizona
1784 Chumash uprising against the missions
1792 English explorer George Vancouver visits California harbors
1810 Beginning of wars of independence from Spain
1812 Russians build Fort Ross on California coast
1818 Pirate Hippolyte Bouchard sacks Monterey
1822 News of Mexico’s independence arrives in California
32
leaving the house, the women remaining alone; and theywould kill the women, old people, and children. This done,they burned the camp, fleeing to their homes.… In this mis-erable state they lived until merciful God freed us of thesemiseries through Father Antonio Peyri, a Catalan, who arrivedin our country in the afternoon with seven Spanish soldiers.”
Tac related stories about the arrival of the first Spanish in hisvillage and their attempts to speak to the Indian leaders. Accord-ing to Tac, they were told, “What is it that you seek here? Get outof our country!” Tac continued, “It was a great mercy that theIndians did not kill the Spanish when they arrived, and very admi-rable, because they have never wanted another people to livewith them, and until those days there was always fighting.”
Tac remembered that the priest appointed native alcaldes,who were more proficient in Spanish; each was given a staff ofauthority. At Mission San Luis Rey there were seven alcaldes.The priest communicated with the Indians through thealcaldes, who in turn carried the news to their villages. Thelaborers at the mission were accompanied by a Spanish major-domo and the alcaldes, whose purpose was “to hurry them ifthey are lazy… and to punish the guilty or lazy one who leaveshis plow and quits the field.” And, regarding the priests: “In the
This drawing is one of two done by Pablo Tac and used to illustrate his essay “Conversion of the San Luiseños of Alta California” which he wrote while in Rome. It shows two young painted men performing a traditional dance holding rattles and dressed ceremonially in feathered skirts and head dress. They are identified as “San Luiseño” and appear to be enjoying the occasion.
CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821 33
“Eag
le Da
ncer
” by P
ablo
Tac,
origi
nal h
ouse
d in t
he Bi
bliote
cha c
ommu
nale
dell’A
rchigi
nnas
io, Bo
logna
, Italy
, pub
lic do
main,
no
know
n res
tricti
ons
Mission of San Luis Rey de Francia the Fernandino Father is likea king. He has his pages, alcaldes, majordomos, musicians, sol-diers, gardens, ranchos, livestock, horses by the thousand,cows, bulls by the thousand, oxen, mules, asses, 12,000lambs, 200 goats, etc.”
Pablo Tac died on December 13, 1841, before he could beordained a priest; he was not yet 20 years old. His writtenwork is the only account of California mission life written byan Indian, and it is also the first literature published by aCalifornia Indian.
Tac’s life story dramatizes the major changes that theIndians experienced as they encountered the Euro-Americansettlers. The goal of the Spanish priests and soldiers was toconvert and pacify thousands of native peoples who livednear the California coast. They hoped to make the nativesinto loyal Spanish Catholic subjects, with the California mis-sions at the core of the Spanish project to settle California.There were some successes, as evidenced in Tac’s narrative,but by and large the process of Hispanicization resulted inthe introduction of new diseases that decimated the Indianpopulation; however, by introducing the Spanish language,culture, and political system the Europeans added new diver-sity to an already heterogeneous society. The mixture ofcultures would produce a resilient frontier environment—onethat prepared California for new challenges.
Questions to Consider
❚ How and why did the Spanish finally settle Alta California?❚ What were the characteristics of the society that theysought to create?
❚ How can we evaluate the debate over the modern inter-pretations of the California missions?
❚ What was the status of women in this colonial society?❚ What was the influence of other Europeans on Califor-nia’s history?
❚ What is the importance of the Spanish era?
The Spanish Conquest and Empire
The Spaniards were the first Europeans to colonize the New World, precedingthe English by more than 100 years. From their first settlements in theCaribbean Islands, Hispaniola, and Cuba, they soon began the exploration
34 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
and settlement of the American continents. In 1519 Hernan Cortés led anexpedition of soldiers from Cuba to confirm rumors of a powerful and wealthykingdom on the western mainland of present-day Mexico. Cortés led his menin the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire. The epic adventure took twoyears and was made possible by the assistance of hundreds of thousands ofIndians who resented Aztec tyranny, and by the use of new weapons, animals(such as the horse and dog), and most importantly, by the new diseasesbrought by the Europeans, such as influenza, smallpox, and a more virulentform of syphilis. By 1521, the Spanish had established a foothold in centralMexico. Almost immediately, Cortés began sending out expeditions to findother wealthy kingdoms.
The Spanish consolidation of political, religious, and military power overthe former Aztecs, their vassals, and outlying tribes was rapid and quiteremarkable. Within 50 years of the conquest—aided by a rapid depopulationof the Indians due to disease and mistreatment—the Spanish constructed anefficient government to exploit the labor and wealth of this land, which theycalled New Spain. The cultural transformation of this new colony would takehundreds of years, as the Indian population continued to outnumber the Espa-ñoles. Gradually a mestizo, or mixed, culture emerged with various degrees ofmixture between ancient Indian and Spanish Catholic life. The complexity ofNew Spain’s evolution in terms of racial and ethnic identity is a point thatscholars are now exploring in great depth.
Political control of this caldron of subjugated people led to the creation ofa complex bureaucracy controlled by the Spanish peninsulares and assisted byAmerican-born mestizos and criollos. At the top was the Spanish king’s repre-sentative, the viceroy, who was to implement the royal edicts and endlessadministrative decrees flowing from the Council of the Indies in Spain. Underthe viceroy, the military and the church had their complex administrative orga-nizations for the control and conversion of the Indians. The Spaniards occu-pied all of the positions of power. Soon, converted Indians and the childrenof the conquest—the mestizos, who were of mixed Indian and Spanishdescent—began to serve as lower-level administrators in the army, courts, andtown councils. Given the tremendous distances involved, the size and diversityof the indigenous populations, and the relatively small Iberian-born population,the Spanish Empire in the New World was a remarkable achievement—onethat lasted more than 300 years.
Spain’s Exploration of the Californias
California was one of the last frontiers to be colonized by the Spanish govern-ment, as a result of a change in the dynastic rulers in Spain as well as theperception of threats from other European powers. Hernan Cortés, the con-queror of the Aztecs, was an important leader in the early exploration of BajaCalifornia. His initiatives began the process of conquest that would lead to
The Spanish Conquest and Empire 35
settlement. For almost 10 years, while expanding the empire, Cortés laboredto build oceangoing vessels on the west coast of Mexico in order to look forOtro Méjico—another golden kingdom—and perhaps to discover a northwestpassage, a sea route around North America. In 1532, he sent two ships northbut they never returned. In 1533, two more ships left and landed on the BajaCalifornia peninsula at La Paz, where they encountered rumors of fabulouspearl fisheries further north. Cortés himself set out in 1534 and named theBaja California peninsula—which he thought to be an island—“Santa Cruz.”He and his men found some pearls but mostly desert lands and inhospitableIndians. In 1539, he sent Francisco de Ulloa with three vessels to search fornew kingdoms further north. Ulloa sailed up the Gulf of California, laterrenamed the Sea of Cortés, to the mouth of the Colorado River.
The name “California” probably derives from a European adventure novelpublished in 1500 by the Spaniard Garcí Ordóñez de Montalvo. His book, LasSergas de Esplandián (The Exploits of Esplandián), tells the story of a mythicalisland inhabited by Amazons and ruled by Queen Calafia. Literary scholarsregard this book as a justification of the triumph of Spanish imperialism. Inthe book, the Amazons and their queen are dark-skinned women who fightwith weapons of gold, the only metal available in their land. To aid in theirbattles, they trap and domesticate griffins (mythical dragon-like birds) andfeed them male captives, as well as their own male children. Queen Calafia,with her Amazons and griffins, appears at the siege of Constantinople andfights on the side of the Muslims. Later on, however, she converts to Christian-ity, marries a man, and returns with him to her native island of California. Theisland of Queen Calafia is described in the novel as being “at the right hand ofthe Indes” and the early explorers, including Cortés, expected to find it within10 days of sailing off the Mexican coast. Thus the name came to be applied tothe Baja California peninsula.
While the Spanish explored Baja California before 1540, more than200 years passed before Alta California became a Spanish colony. It finallybecame known to the Western world as a result of the international rivalriesof the European powers. Initially, the Spanish king hoped that the explorationof the western coast of the continent north of New Spain would lead to thediscovery of a northwest passage. This would enable Spain to outmaneuver itsrivals in trade with the Orient. In the late 16th century, the Spanish needed asuitable port on the Pacific coast to provision the valuable Manila galleons asthey made their way south to Acapulco laden with riches from the Philippines.In the 17th century, the Spanish monarchy anxiously tried to prevent otherEuropean powers from settling in the vast territories that Spain had claimed.In the east, French explorers and trappers threatened to encroach on present-day Louisiana and Texas. In the northwest, the Russians and British showedinterest in expansion. As a result, the Spanish crown slowly moved to financethe exploration and settlement of its remotest frontier possessions, Texas andAlta California. Other considerations motivated new settlement on the frontier,
36 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
including a desire by the Spanish Catholic church to expand their missionizingendeavors as far north as possible. By the late 18th century, Baja California hadalready been colonized with missions and military outposts (called presidios)and Alta California seemed to be the next logical step in the conquestof souls.
PACIFIC OCEAN
San Miguel
San Juan Bautista
San José
San Francisco de Asís
San FranciscoSolano
San Rafael
Santa Clara
BranciforteSanta Cruz
Soledad
San Luis Obispo
Santa BárbaraLa Purísima
San Antonio
San Carlosde Monterey
Santa Ynez
San Buenaventura
San Fernando Rey
San Gabriel
San Juan Capistrano
San Luis Rey
San DiegoMission San Diego de Acala
Los Ángeles
San José
0 100 Mi.
0 100 Km.50
50
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
MEXICO
OREGONIDAHO
Missions
Forts
Towns
Royal Road
Map 2.1 Missions, Presidios, and Pueblos in Alta California During the SpanishEra, 1769–1821
The Spanish Conquest and Empire 37
Early Maritime Exploration and Encounters
In 1542, an expedition led by the Portuguese navigator Juan Rodríguez Cabrilloset sail from Navidad on the northwest coast of Mexico to explore the northernterritories. On September 28, he discovered a “very good harbor,” which henamed San Miguel because it was the feast day of that saint. Anchoring nearthe mouth of the harbor, which was later renamed San Diego by SebastiánVizcaíno, Cabrillo’s men explored the bay with a small boat. A shore partyrowed toward a group of curious Kumeyaay Indians but as the Spanish nearedland, most of them ran off. Only three natives remained to inspect the strangenewcomers. Cabrillo’s men gave these three some gifts, and through handmotions the Indians communicated that they knew of other strange men likethem who had been seen inland. This news may have been related to FranciscoVásquez de Coronado’s expedition into New Mexico in 1540.
Cabrillo continued north and a group of sailors who went ashore at Cata-lina Island were met by local Gabrielino (Tongva) men. The women fled to theinterior. Later, the natives paddled their canoes out to the Spanish ship andreceived beads and other manufactured items. Leaving Catalina and sailingnorth along the coast, Cabrillo named prominent geographical features as hewent. North of Point Conception, the expedition landed at San Miguel Island(which they named Isla de la Posesión). Cabrillo had an accident and broke hisarm, but despite this injury he ordered the crew to continue north. Sailingagainst the current and the prevailing winds, they reached a point near SanFrancisco without ever discovering the entrance to the great bay, and finallyhad to turn back due to bad weather and Cabrillo’s failing health. Cabrillodied as they reached San Miguel Island. After burying Cabrillo on the island,the sailors proceeded as far north as the present southern border of Oregonand then, because of severe storms, returned to their home port of Navidad(located near present-day Puerto Vallarta on the west coast of Mexico).
The next European visitor to California was Francis Drake, an Englishpirate who was later given a royal commission and knighthood for his waragainst the Spanish. In 1578, Drake’s ship, The Golden Hind, raided Spanishsettlements in Chile and Peru and sailed up the Pacific Coast so heavily ladenwith treasure that the ship’s seams began to leak. On June 17, 1579, they putinto a harbor probably somewhere near the present-day San Francisco andstayed five weeks while they repaired the ship. Drake named the area NovaAlbion, or New England, because the white cliffs reminded him of the whitecliffs of Dover in his homeland. While on land, the sailors traded with thenative people and Drake wrote brief descriptions of the Indians, probablythe Coastal Miwoks.
Following Drake, captains of Manila galleons entered the bays alongCalifornia’s coast seeking fresh water, food, and wood for repairs. The Spanishhad begun their conquest of the Philippines in 1564 and immediately begansending treasure ships laden with silks and spices back to Spain via Mexico.
38 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
As the galleons set sail from Manila to New Spain, they followed currents andprevailing winds, traveling north to Japan and then west. The galleons struckthe American coast near Mendocino and then sailed south. The first galleon tosight the California coast took 129 days to make the passage, and in the processmany of the crew died from scurvy. For the next several hundred years, as reg-ulated by the Spanish crown, a Manila galleon annually passed down theCalifornia coast. In 1595, Sebastián Rodríguez Cermeño sailed a galleon alongthe California coast to map it and to search for possible ports. Landing inDrake’s bay, which he named “La Baya de San Francisco,” Cermeño stayed amonth and traveled inland to trade with the local Miwok Indians for food andsupplies. Unfortunately, his treasure ship was wrecked in a storm and his menhad to build a small launch to return down the coast to Mexico. Because of thisdisaster, the Spanish government forbade galleons from use in further coastalexplorations.
An intensification of rivalry over the Asian trade and the need to findports for the galleons along the Pacific Coast led the king to commission anexploration by Sebastián Vizcaíno, a Basque merchant in Acapulco who hadsailed on several galleons but was not a professional sailor. Vizcaíno sailedwith three ships from Mexico in 1602 and, because he was sailing against thecurrent and winds, took four months to reach California. He entered the baynamed San Miguel by Cabrillo on November 10 and, since the name of hisflagship was the San Diego de Alcalá and the feast day of this saint was onNovember 12, he renamed the harbor San Diego. The expedition stayed10 days, during which they refitted their ships, buried crew members whohad died from scurvy, set up a tent church, and sent an expedition inland toscout the territory.
Vizcaíno’s ships continued north to Catalina Island, and then to a bay henamed Monterey, after the Conde de Monterey, Viceroy of Mexico. Whileanchored in the bay, he noted the ideal conditions for a galleon port. It hadtall trees for repairs (unlike San Diego) and plenty of game and fish. His exag-gerated praise of Monterey as a fine harbor later convinced the Spanish author-ities that it should be the main port of a proposed colony. Vizcaíno continuednorth as far as Cape Mendocino, when storms and the illness of his crew con-vinced him to turn back. Although Vizcaíno described the potential portshe had explored in California, changes in galleon design, allowing more spacefor supplies, meant that the treasure ships bypassed California for the next165 years.
The First California Colony
In 1769, alarmed by British and Russian interest in their northern frontier pos-sessions, the Spanish government decided to establish permanent settlementsthere, in order to secure their claims and block any claims by other powers.The energetic new administrator, the Visitor-General José de Gálvez, was
The Spanish Conquest and Empire 39
determined to reorganize the northwestern frontier and expand it by settling AltaCalifornia. He commissioned two land and two sea expeditions to converge onthe harbor of San Diego; all were to be under the command of Captain Gasparde Portolá, while Father Junípero Serra was to be in charge of the founding ofmissions. The first contingent arrived on April 11, 1769, when the ship San Anto-nio, commanded by Juan Perez, anchored in San Diego bay. That same day, asremembered in Kumeyaay lore but not noted by the Spanish, an earthquakeshook the mountains and the sun was partially eclipsed—portentous signs, per-haps, that the world as they knew it was about to pass away.
A few weeks later a second ship arrived, the San Carlos, commanded byVicente Vila. This early collection of soldiers, sailors, Indians from Baja Cali-fornia, priests, and a doctor brought the colonists to a few more than 100.When they arrived, most of the sailors were sick with typhus, a debilitatingdisease transmitted by lice and fleas. Within the next few weeks more thanhalf of the men died on shore in a tent camp. On May 14, the first overlandexpedition of soldiers arrived at San Diego, commanded by Captain Fernandode Rivera y Moncada. Father Juan Crespí and a contingent of ChristianizedIndians from the southern missions accompanied the soldiers, marching over-land up the Baja California peninsula from Loreto. Soon after their arrival, thecommanders decided to abandon the beach and find a more permanent settle-ment. Pedro Fages picked the new location, a hill overlooking the bay and thenearby river. This became the site of the first settlement in California, eventu-ally a fortified presidio with a temporary mission located within the walls.
Finally, on July 1, 1769, the expedition led by Captain Gaspar de Portoláwith Father Junípero Serra arrived. Besides a contingent of soldiers, they alsobrought 44 Christianized natives from Baja California. As Father Serra cele-brated his first mass under an outdoor ramada on July 16, 1769, only 126 ofthe 219 explorers and settlers who had arrived during the past monthsremained alive. Those who were left had something to celebrate: A few daysbefore Father Serra’s mass, Portolá took a group of soldiers north to establisha settlement in Monterey and the San Antonio returned to Mexico for supplies,leaving a group of about 40 people in San Diego.
The first report of a Spanish settler’s encounter with the native people waswritten by Miguel Costansó, an engineer and mapmaker. He described hisimpressions of the Indians when a Spanish expedition set out to find water:
These Indians (the Kumeyaay) stopped every little while upon some height,watching our men, and showing the fear which the strangers caused them bythe very thing they did to hide it. They thrust one point of their bows down inthe soil, and grasping it by the other end they danced and whirled about withindescribable velocity. But, as soon as they saw our men draw near, they againwithdrew themselves with the same swiftness.
Finally, the Spaniards communicated their peaceful intent by burying theirown weapons in the dirt and giving gifts of ribbons, glass, and beads. The
40 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
Kumeyaay then indicated where to find good water, and the Spaniards beganwalking up the San Diego river valley. They soon reached another Indian vil-lage, where they met with a warm reception. Later, Costansó wrote that theKumeyaay “are of haughty temper, daring, covetous, great jesters, and brag-garts, although of little valor; they make great boast of their powers and holdthe most respect for the most valiant.” This evaluation of the character of thelocal natives presaged the tortured path that Spanish–Indian relations wouldfollow throughout California.
Demographic and Ethnic Growth of California
The demographic and ethnic growth of the new Spanish outpost shows a soci-ety composed mainly of unmarried males of diverse ethnicity. Historians havehad difficulty determining with certainty who these individuals were. For adecade San Diego was a transient presidio with very few of the soldiers remain-ing very long—a foreshadowing, perhaps, of the military future for San Diego.The leaders of the founding expedition, Fathers Serra and Crespi and CaptainPortolá, were Spaniards. This has led some to suppose that the whole expedi-tion was composed of fair-skinned Spanish conquistadors. Notwithstanding thepractical impossibility of determining the ethnicity of the surviving soldiers,there is evidence to suggest that the majority of them were probably of mixedblood—mestizos and mulattos.
The Spanish developed a complex system of classifying various mixtures ofEuropean, African, and Indian parentage. A caste system was used to excludenon-Iberians from higher political and economic posts and to create a stratifiedsociety along racial and economic lines. On the far northern frontier, however,ethnic distinctions blurred and became more fluid. In California there was agreat division between the gente de razón (literally, people of reason), meaningthose who were Catholic Christians and European in culture, and those sinrazón (without reason), the nonconverted native people. A great premiumwas given to those Spaniards who could prove their limpieza de sangre, or“purity of blood,” meaning there was no intermarriage with Jews, Moors, orother non-Christians in their ancestry. Often, people with wealth were able topurchase papers certifying that their bloodlines were pure and European, thuselevating them within the caste system.
Hubert Howe Bancroft, a historian of California’s pioneers, thought thatmost of the settlers in California were “half-breeds.” Nevertheless, in the late19th century, Americans came to think of the first Spanish-speaking settlersas Spaniards. Los Angeles’s founding families, however, are an example of theimportance of the non-Spanish-born settlers. Of the 11 male heads of house-holds who were among the founders of Los Angeles in 1781, only two were
Demographic and Ethnic Growth of California 41
Iberians; the others were a multiethnic group that was predominantly Indian,mulatto, and mestizo. Historians have found that a large number of Spanish-speaking colonists throughout the Southwest were not Iberian Spaniards at allbut rather of mixed blood, castas, and Hispanicized Indians, most of whomhad migrated from adjacent Mexican frontier provinces. The first evidence wehave of the ethnicity of the surviving colonists in the presidio of San Diego, forexample, is the Spanish census taken in 1790, which counted 190 persons. Ofthe 96 adults, 49 were españoles, but only three of those had been born inEurope. The rest had probably been “whitened” (on the frontier, people could“pass,” depending on their wealth and occupation) to meet Mexico City’srequirements that most of the soldiers be español. The census listed the balanceof the soldiers as mulattos and colores quebrados (some African ancestry), mes-tizos and coyotes (degrees of Indian–Spanish mixture), and indios.
Whatever the ethnicity of the settlers and colonists who came to AltaCalifornia from Mexico, their numbers grew slowly. Mestizaje, or the mixtureof races and cultures, began in Mexico with the conquest and continued on thefar northern frontier. Soldiers married local Indian women, and female immi-grants who came to California were mostly mestizo or mulatto. By 1800, some31 years after the initial settlement in San Diego, the total Spanish-speakingpopulation in California, excluding the mission Indians, priests, and soldiers,was probably about 550 people in about 100 families. This small group livedin three pueblos surrounded by perhaps as many as 30,000 mission Indians.Meanwhile, the vast majority of native peoples remained free of the missionsystem and never accepted Spanish domination.
The Missions
Without a doubt, the most important Spanish institutions in Alta Californiawere the missions, for they changed the way of life for thousands of nativepeople and formed the economic backbone of the province. The object of themissions was to convert the natives to Christianity as well as to Hispanicizethem, instructing them in the rudiments of the Spanish language and culture.After a period of time, specified in the Law of the Indies as 10 years, the mis-sions were to be secularized or disbanded and the mission Indians were toform new towns and be converted into loyal farmers and ranchers. In thisway, the Spanish hoped to extend their control over all of California. Thiswas the ideal, but in fact, after the 10 years, the mission fathers concludedthat the Indians were not able to make the transition and they postponed free-dom for their charges again and again. The final objective was to turn theIndian people into Christian laborers, who would be loyal to the Spanishcrown and capable of defending themselves against intrusions by hostileIndians and foreigners.
Beginning with the first mission at San Diego, Father Junípero Serralabored to found as many missions as possible. Serra was one of a generation
42 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
A depiction of Mission Santa Cruz in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Note what appear to be traditional Indian dwellings to the right of the mission structure.
of frontier priests who combined extremes of asceticism and self-denial with practical political sense and a fighting spirit. He was born on the Spanish island of Mallorca to poor parents who sent him away to a Franciscan school where, because of his intelligence, he was encouraged to become a priest. When he was only 24, he was appointed professor of theology and for five years he taught at distinguished Spanish universities. In 1749, he gave up his prestigious career to travel to Mexico. Arriving in Vera Cruz, he insisted on walking the hundreds of miles to Mexico City, an act of willpower and commitment that he repeated many times in his life. Serra worked among the Indians in Mexico as a mis-sionary and an administrator of the College of San Fernando. In 1767, the Jesuits were expelled from the New World and Serra was chosen to administer the missions they had built in Baja California. A few years later, despite being an asthmatic and suffering a chronic leg injury, Serra traveled north to lead the founding of new missions in Alta California. For the rest of his life he suffered from scurvy and from exhaustion due to walking hundreds of miles. He also practiced many mortifications of the flesh, such as wearing shirts with barbs, self-flagellation, and self-burning, in order to purify his spirit.
Father Serra established San Carlos Borromeo, the mission at Monterey, which was later moved to the Carmel River. He also founded the missions of San Antonio de Padua, San Gabriel Arcángel, San Luís Obispo de Tolosa, San Francisco de Asís, San Juan Capistrano, San Buenaventura, and Santa Clara de Asís. After Serra’s death in 1784, Father Fermín Francisco de Lasuén labored from 1785 to 1803 to complete the construction of nine more missions. The last one to be established in the Mexican era was founded in 1823, after his death. Together, the missions totaled 21, each one about a day’s ride apart and strategically located near the coast. Father Lasuén was a gentle and refined man who was wholly devoted to the memory of Father Serra. Besides building
Miss
ion Sa
nta Cr
uz, H
istor
ic Am
erica
n Buil
dings
Surve
y, Lib
rary
of Co
ngre
ss, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
restr
iction
s
Demographic and Ethnic Growth of California 43
Je de
s Hab
itans
de Ca
liforn
ia, Lo
uis Ch
oris,
Libr
ary o
f Con
gress,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn re
strict
ions
44 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
A group of Indians, possibly Ohlone, playing a game at a mission near San Francisco
new missions, Lasuén expanded and rebuilt older mission buildings, and under his diplomatic guidance the missions system prospered, experiencing less con-flict with the military and government than had been true under Serra.
The conversion of the Indians was not easy. From the beginning, the natives who were to be missionized were not willing participants in this project. At first, the harvest of souls was alarmingly meager. After its founding, a year passed at Mission San Diego before the first convert was made. This was fol-lowed by several revolts against the mission padres (fathers, or priests). At the missions located near a presidio or a pueblo, there were frequent problems between the native people and the soldiers or civilians. The priests often com-plained of the corrupting influence of Spanish ways. Rapes of Indian women were a frequent source of conflict, causing many of them to flee into the back-country to get away from the Spaniards. As a result, Serra moved two missions, San Diego and Monterey, farther away from their nearby presidios.
Conversions occurred nevertheless, because the Spanish priests offered food and goods that the native people found valuable. Ethnohistorians have argued to what degree environmental factors influenced their conversions; peri-odic droughts, along with the destruction of native plants due to grazing of
cattle, pigs, and other livestock, pressured some Indian communities to seek therelative security of mission food stores. There were other complex reasons fortheir baptism. Often, the natives came to the missions out of curiosity and wereconverted without fully understanding the import of their actions. Once bap-tized, they were called neophytes and were subject to the authority of thepadre, who began to regulate their lives to lead them toward becoming a fullmember of the Christian community. If they ran away, soldiers were sent tohunt them down, bring them back, and to help in their punishment.Sometimes the soldiers seized any Indians they could find—whether theywere runaways or not. Once the mission reached a critical mass, havingenough neophytes to farm surpluses and raise cattle, the mission became amagnet for those who needed food, and conversion to Christianity was a wayto ensure survival.
In this way, the 21 missions slowly grew in size and economic importance.During the 65 years of their existence, the fathers baptized 79,000 CaliforniaIndians. The most populous and prosperous of the missions were those insouthern California, including San Gabriel and Mission San Luis Rey. The mis-sions produced the bulk of the province’s food used to feed the colonists andsoldiers. The natives were taught to grow wheat, corn, barley, and other graincrops, to cultivate grapevines and olive orchards, and to raise cattle and otherlivestock. The mission fathers trained some neophytes as artisans—shoemakers,gunsmiths, carpenters, blacksmiths, and masons. Others learned to weave tex-tiles, make candles, and tan hides. The fathers taught their charges Europeaninstruments and music, and Indian choirs and orchestras performed religiousmusic for special masses and fiestas. The mission Indians were responsible fortending the vineyards, fruit orchards, and wheat fields, and for raising thou-sands of cattle and horses.
The work regime at the California missions followed a strict timetable,including morning and evening prayers and the segregation of workers by sex.Workers were overseen by Indian mayordomos (overseers) and alcaldes (leaders).Neophytes worked six days a week for five to eight hours a day. Roll call wastaken at every meal and those shirking their duties were punished by imprison-ment or whippings. As Pablo Tac recalled, the Indian mayordomos were there“to hurry them if they are lazy … and to punish the guilty or lazy one who leaveshis plow and quits the field.…” At night, the unmarried women and sometimesthe men were locked in dormitories. At some missions, neophytes were allowedto return to their villages for short durations to gather supplemental foods, butthey were expected to return for mass and for work when needed.
The padres controlled the allocation of food, rationing it according to theirjudgment of the economic needs of the mission and those of their charges. Aninterrogatorio, or questionnaire, sent from Mexico City in the early 1800s askedthe mission fathers a series of questions, one about the diet of the missionIndians. The answers—while allowing for the padres’ desire to make conditionsappear favorable—reveal the diversity of the missions. Father Martinez at
Demographic and Ethnic Growth of California 45
Mission San Luis Obispo stated that he gave his workers three meals a day: atole(a corn gruel) in the morning, pozole (a soup of wheat, grains, and meat) atnoon, and at night another serving of atole. At Mission San Buenaventura,Father José Señán stated that he gave the Indians one meal a day, “inasmuch aswhen they work they also eat.…” Other missionaries testified that the Indianscontinued gathering their traditional foods, which supplemented the missionfood supply.
Neophyte Resistance
For many native Californians, the missions were not a positive experience.They were coerced into working and staying against their will, fearing punish-ment if they ran away. The most dreadful consequence of their stay was theirexposure to European diseases, which often proved fatal. They had no resis-tance to chickenpox, measles, smallpox, and influenza, and deaths mountedwith each passing year, even in areas far from Spanish settlements. Venerealdisease was especially deadly; thousands of mission neophytes died from syph-ilis and gonorrhea, and the epidemic spread to non-mission Indians as well.The strict regulations, humiliation, punishments for minor offenses, and rapesof women by soldiers engendered a smoldering resentment of the Spaniards.Often, a chief grievance was the lack of food. The strict discipline of the mis-sion fathers and the destruction of the indigenous food sources by cattle, sheep,and horses created levels of starvation at some missions. Conditions were suchthat the numbers of runaways increased and in some cases there wererebellions.
The first uprising was at Mission San Diego only six years after its found-ing. On November 4, 1775, around midnight, an estimated 1000 KumeyaayIndians attacked the mission and burned most of it to the ground, killingFathers Luis Jayme and Vicente Fuster, who became California’s first martyrs.The survivors of the first attack took refuge in an adobe storehouse, where theyheld off the Indians until dawn. They were finally rescued by a group of loyalneophytes and Baja California Indians. The uprising apparently came at theinstigation of two brothers, Carlos and Francisco, both newly baptized neo-phytes who had been punished for stealing a fish from an old woman. Carloswas the chief of the local ranchería. Resenting their treatment by the padres,they ran away from the mission and began to organize an uprising of the sur-rounding rancherías. When they learned that about half the presidio garrisonhad been sent north to San Juan Capistrano, they saw this as their chance towipe out the Spaniards once and for all. In the Spanish investigation that fol-lowed, some accused the resident neophytes of helping the attackers, but theydenied it, insisting that they had been forced to go along with the uprising.
In the years that followed, there were other rebellions. In 1781, Quechan(Yuman) Indians attacked the two missions that had been built on the Califor-nia side of the Colorado River. The attack occurred when Captain Fernando de
46 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
Rivera y Moncada and a party of colonists bound for California were passingthrough. Rivera’s troops had abused some of the Quechan peoples, and thedistribution of gifts was considered inadequate. The natives attacked, destroy-ing both missions and killing four friars, 30 soldiers, and Rivera himself. Themassacre ended all further land travel between Mexico and California duringthe Spanish period.
In 1785, at Mission San Gabriel, a woman named Toypurina, along withthree other native men, planned to lead a group of indios bárbaros (non-mission Indians) from six surrounding villages and join with neophytes tooverthrow the Spanish authorities. The soldiers learned of the planned rebel-lion, however, and arrested the leaders. Put on trial, Toypurina explained hermotivations saying, “… I am angry with the padres, and all of those of themission, for living here on my native soil, for trespassing upon the land ofmy forefathers and despoiling our tribal domains.” Toypurina was banishedto Monterey, where she eventually was baptized and married a presidiosoldier.
During the Mexican period, a major rebellion took place among the Chu-mash peoples on the eve of the secularization of the missions, in 1824. Thecause of this rebellion was the mistreatment of the neophytes by the soldiersand the strict work regime. Thousands of neophytes allied with gentiles (unbap-tized Indians) from the interior and took over La Purísima and Santa Ynezmissions for more than a month, and briefly occupied Mission Santa Bárbara.After a battle in which the padres tried to prevent needless slaughter, the rebelsfled to the interior. Later, Father Vicente Sarría, accompanied by troops led byPablo de la Portilla, convinced remnants of the Santa Bárbara rebels to return.
In October of 1828, with the permission of the priest, Padre Duran, anIndian alcalde named Estanislao led scores of his fellow kinsmen away from Mis-sion San José to the interior to help his community harvest acorns, nuts, andother foods. Once there, Estanislao notified the Spanish authorities that theywere in rebellion. He was soon joined by hundreds of other runaways from thenorthern missions. Estanislao’s success in resisting the Spanish government wasundoubtedly due partly to the fact that natives from many different groups couldnow communicate with each other using a lingua franca—Spanish. For a time,Estanislao defeated the expeditions that were sent to subjugate him, until hefinally succumbed to Lt. Mariano G. Vallejo’s expedition. Eventually Estanislaoescaped, returned to Mission San José, and received a pardon for his rebellion.He died a few years later, working as an auxiliary soldier who hunted runawayneophytes. The Estanislao rebellion created tremendous fear among the Spanishsettlers in Alta California. As a result of his movement, a network to assist run-away mission Indians grew up and Indian raids on settlements from San Gabrielto San José increased.
Historian James Sandos has noted that there were a variety of other formsof resistance to the mission system, ranging from graffiti secretly scrawled onmission walls, to reports of sacred visions urging natives to renounce their
Demographic and Ethnic Growth of California 47
Evaluation of the California Missions
In the 1980s, devoted Catholics intensified a campaign to canonize FatherJunípero Serra as a saint. Immediately, a debate ensued over the record of thetreatment of the natives in the missions. Native American activists, in particu-lar, felt outrage that people wanted to honor the man who, they argued, led inthe enslavement, mistreatment, and death of their people. They assembled evi-dence of mistreatment in the form of oral testimony by native peoples. Tribalcouncils passed resolutions opposing canonization, and academics wrote posi-tion papers buttressed by historical quotes and evidence arguing that Serrashould not be honored. The issue of the California Indians’ encounter withthe Spanish is heated, provoking spirited and emotional defense of Serra bynon-Indian scholars and Catholic leaders. Beatification is a long process, andSerra has advanced through the preliminary steps. The uproar over this issuedemonstrates that the mission period is still very controversial in the lives ofpeople today.
Christian baptism. George Harwood Phillips, an expert on California Indian resistance, has noted that the stations of the cross painted by neophytes at Mis-sion San Fernando depicted Indian alcaldes as the tormentors of Christ—a sub-tle message of protest. Other methods of resistance included running away, abortion, and secret retention of traditional customs, such as the use of the temescal. In a few cases, the mission Indians were moved to kill the mission priests, as in the assassination of Father Andrés Quintana at Mission Santa Cruz in 1812.
Miss
ion Sa
n Migu
el Ar
cang
el, Sa
n Migu
el, CA
, Car
ol Hi
ghsm
ith, p
hotog
raph
er, L
ibrar
y of C
ongre
ss, pu
blic d
omain
, no
know
n res
tricti
ons
48 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
Indian artisans produced the wall and decorative art at Mission San Miguel and other Alta California missions, incorporating their own cultural aesthetic into their creations. Can you find evidence of this in the photograph?
The treatment of native peoples is a major point of debate about theSpanish colonization of the Americas. A wide range of historians and anthro-pologists as well as Indian activists agree that the mission system throughoutthe Southwest, whatever its rationale at the time, resulted in the deaths—nearlyall unintentional—of thousands of native Americans. The mission system inCalifornia was perhaps the most extensive, long-lived, and destructive of allthose established in the Spanish and Mexican frontier. The missions in Texaswere abandoned after a short period. The ones in New Mexico provoked aviolent, successful rebellion in 1680 that curtailed missionary activities untilthe Spanish reconquest in 1692. In Arizona, the missions were few and scat-tered. But in California, the 21 missions and their asistencias (branch missions)significantly changed the economy and lifestyle of those who were missionlaborers as well as the way of life of those who lived far from the missions.
The Indian population declined. The natives were concentrated in mis-sions, exposed to new and fatal diseases, and deprived of their traditionalfoods. The extent of the decimation can only be estimated. In California, themissions grew to include about 20,000 neophytes at their peak. The missionannals from 1769 to 1834 recorded 62,600 deaths but only 29,100 births.Anthropologist Sherburne Cook and historian Albert Hurtado have estimatedthat the Indian population of California decreased by more than 150,000 dur-ing the mission period. In the region where missions were established, thedecline of the population was more noticeable; almost 75 percent of the nativepeoples died.
Defenders of the missions point out that the mission fathers did not intendto expose their wards to fatal diseases and that their attitudes toward crime andpunishment were a product of the age, not especially cruel for that time. Somemartyred friars willingly sacrificed themselves rather than kill natives whoattacked them. Father Serra and other priests advocated forgiveness andpardons for those who ran away, although the military frequently exactedtheir own punishments for this offense. The priests, however, were not saintsand even Father Serra was willing to admit that “in the infliction of the punish-ment … there may have been inequalities and excesses on the part of someFathers.” Yet the mission priests’ religious devotion to the task of conversionand the spiritual welfare of their flock was beyond question. Their attitudes andbeliefs were a product of their historical culture, in which the soul was consid-ered more important than the body and severe punishments were the norm.Taken as a group, the mission fathers were not vicious for the times in whichthey lived. The tragedy was that they were helpless to prevent the deaths of thevery Indians they sought to save.
The missions accomplished a great deal in developing the first agriculturaleconomy in California. The first citrus trees, grapevines, corn, beans, wheat,barley, and oats came with the mission fathers. They promoted the raising ofhorses, cattle, pigs, goats, and sheep. The mission economy became the back-bone for the development of large ranchos in the Mexican era and farms in the
Demographic and Ethnic Growth of California 49
American era. The mission fathers trained the Indians to be vaqueros—farmersand skilled workers. As a result, the Indian work force became crucial to thedevelopment of California’s economy through much of the 19th century.
Nevertheless, we must also consider the missions from the point of view ofthe native Californians. The mission records themselves help us appreciatetheir grievances. Large numbers of neophytes ran away from the restrictivecontrols of the padres—an obvious indication of their dissatisfaction with themission. By 1817, Mission San Diego had 316 runaways, the second largestnumber in the system, topped only by Mission San Gabriel, with 595. Runningaway was often provoked by hunger and by the corporal punishments thatwere administered by the mayordomos under the direction of the padres.Despite glowing reports of mission prosperity chronicled by the missionpadres, death, disease, and hunger were daily realities of mission life. Deathsfrom disease were often hastened by malnutrition. Despite the abundance, theneophytes who worked to make it possible were badly fed. The hunger of theIndians was not limited to the missions. The introduction of European live-stock and plants soon took over key hunting and gathering grounds and therewere severe punishments for poaching. Hunger drove non-mission Indians toseek employment and food by working for the pueblo dwellers and for the pre-sidio garrisons.
Establishing Presidios and Pueblos
Throughout the western hemisphere, the Spanish king and his advisers laiddown the policies and directions that guided conquest and colonization. Theunderlying premise was that the unsettled lands were the property of the kingand that the native peoples were his subjects. Individual Spaniards were notentirely free to explore or settle where they wanted. The settlement of townsand military outposts was subject to approval, planning, and regulation. Guide-lines were articulated in a number of decrees and laws, the most influentialbeing the Recopilación de Leyes de las Indias in 1680. Despite these regula-tions, the frontier settlers often did not follow the laws to the letter.
Captain Gaspar de Portolá, commander of one of the first expeditions sentto colonize California, had specific orders to found a presidio at Monterey Bay.In 1769, he marched north from San Diego into new territory with only12 soldiers and a contingent of Baja California Indians. The ship San Antoniowas to meet them in Monterey with Father Serra and others. As they passedthrough southern California, the natives were friendly and curious. In July,they experienced a violent earthquake near the Santa Ana River and noted therichness of the grasslands in the Los Angeles basin. Portolá’s land expeditionstayed along the coast but had to cross the coastal range north of San LuisObispo. They finally saw Monterey Bay, but Portolá did not recognize it from
50 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
A lithograph of the San Francisco presidio, made from a watercolor drawing by Louis Choris, an artist who accompanied a Russian voyage around the world. The farthest northern presidio in California, San Francisco had yet to develop as a civilian settlement.
previous descriptions, so he pushed further north. Finally, a group led by Sergeant José Francisco de Ortega, Portolá’s scout, stumbled upon San Francisco Bay, viewing it for the first time from a hill. A few months later, in May, Portolá founded the presidio of Monterey, south of San Francisco, and built a wooden stockade and shelters for the troops. Father Serra, who had arrived in Monterey by ship, organized the construction of a mission called San Carlos Borromeo near the presidio and on June 3, 1770, they formally dedicated both structures.
As was true throughout Latin America, the mission and the presidio were the first undertakings in the Spanish colonization of new territories. These were soon followed by the founding of civil settlements or pueblos, forming a three-pronged strategy for settlement policy. In California’s first settlement in San Diego, the most immediate need was for more provisions and for reinforce-ments. Due to diligent lobbying by Father Serra, who returned to Mexico City after the founding of the presidio at Monterey, the government sent other expeditions to California to strengthen the tiny settlements. The new viceroy, Antonio de Bucareli, was receptive to pleas for more support because he had evidence of Russian and British interest in California. In 1773, he issued a reglamento, a statement of how the new colony should be administered. This document was later slightly modified and reissued by Felipe de Neve, the newly appointed governor of California. Known as the Neve Reglamento, this docu-ment served as the guide for the administration of the colony until the end of the Spanish period (1821). It emphasized the importance of the conversion of the natives and the establishment of missions, of careful planning in laying out
Vue d
e Pre
sidio
San F
ranc
isco,
Louis
Chor
is ar
tist, V
ictor
Adam
, litho
graph
er, L
ibrar
y of C
ongre
ss, pu
blic
doma
in, no
know
n res
tricti
ons
Establishing Presidios and Pueblos 51
towns, of careful record keeping, and of regular supply ships from Mexico.Bucareli suggested the secularization of the missions and foresaw that theywould become the center for towns.
The same year that he issued the Reglamento, Bucareli gave permission forCaptain Juan Bautista de Anza, an important frontier soldier and explorer, toopen a trail between Spanish settlements in southern Arizona and Californiaand ordered him to establish a presidio on San Francisco Bay. The next year,Anza succeeded in leading an expedition of 20 soldiers and 200 livestock overthe desert trails from Tucson to the mission at San Gabriel and then north toMonterey. In 1775, Anza led another expedition with more than 240 colonistsmaking the 1500-mile journey, during which eight babies were born and therewas only one death—a woman who died in childbirth. Most of the settlers wenton to Monterey and a contingent helped establish a new presidio. Unfortu-nately, due to political conflicts with Lieutenant Governor Fernando Rivera yMoncada, Anza was not able to lead the final expedition to settle San Franciscohimself. So, on September 17, 1776, Lieutenant José Moraga and Fathers Fran-cisco Palou and Pedro Cambón founded the presidio and the mission of SanFrancisco.
The Spanish government decided to found civil towns in California pri-marily as agricultural centers to provide food for their presidios. The missionfathers had resisted having the presidio depend on the mission for supplies.Three official pueblos were eventually founded in California during the Spanishera: San José de Guadalupe (San José), El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina delos Angeles del Río de Porciúncula (Los Angeles), and the Villa de Branciforte(Santa Cruz). Following long-established Spanish customs of town planning,the viceroy allowed the settlers certain rights, among them the right to elect atown government to regulate matters of daily life and the right to hold privateproperty or town lots. Each pueblo was given a grant of land to be adminis-tered by the local government for the common good. Usually this grantapproximated four square leagues, or nearly 20 square miles, a size thatincluded not only a village but also surrounding agricultural lands.
The civil settlements in California were populated by settlers drawn fromthe local presidios as well as from special colonizing expeditions. In 1777, theCalifornia governor, Felipe Neve, authorized 14 men and their families to leavethe presidios of Monterey and San Francisco to found the pueblo of San José.And in 1781, Neve authorized a colonizing expedition of 12 settlers and theirfamilies from Sinaloa to settle near Mission San Gabriel in southern Californianear Yangna, an Indian village. This was the pueblo of Los Angeles, foundedon September 4, 1781, by a group composed mostly of mulatto and mestizofamilies. Branciforte was the last town founded in the Spanish period, and theleast successful. In 1796, the government tried to recruit retired soldiers fromMexico to live in the new town, but no one wanted to go north to the forbid-ding lands of Alta California. Finally, the government recruited convicts andtheir families and forced them to settle the new town, but it did not flourish.
52 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
It may seem strange to us today that more Mexican colonists did not gonorth to California during the Spanish and Mexican periods. This lack of large-scale movement was attributable to a number of factors. First, there was a cul-tural predisposition to prefer urban life to life in the hinterland. The vastmajority of the Mexican population was not free to move about and livewhere they wanted. Spain and then Mexico tried to control and regulate themovement of people away from the metropolitan center. Second, most peoplein Mexico had developed deep ties to their extended families and regions andwere reluctant to abandon their homes for the dangerous unknown territory tothe north. There was widespread ignorance of the resources and climate of thenorth in addition to stories of Indian attacks, gruesome deaths, and massacreson the northern frontier. Finally, it was not easy to travel to California overlandfrom Mexico. Settlers had to traverse the Sonora and Mojave Deserts, whichwere controlled by unfriendly Indians. The cost of travel for most Mexicanswas prohibitive unless the government subsidized the expedition. Similar bar-riers worked to prevent a large-scale migration of settlers to other regionsnorth of Mexico.
Spain gave fewer than 20 land grants to individuals during its rule ofCalifornia—all to ex-soldiers, as a reward for their services. Most of the goodland was reserved for the missions, and it was not until the Mexican period(after 1821) that private land grants became common.
The civilian settlers in the three Spanish towns relied primarily on agricul-ture and stockraising for their living. To assist them in their labors, they bor-rowed Indian neophytes from the nearby missions and also employed localgentiles, or unbaptized Indians. The government tried through regulation tolimit exploitation and corruption, but this was largely ineffective. The employ-ment of mission Indians in the towns was so popular that it seriously threat-ened the mission fathers’ conversion efforts. Without California Indiansworking in the fields of the town lands, the Spanish pueblos probably wouldhave failed.
Gender Relations in Spanish California
The first expeditions of explorers and settlers to San Diego in 1769 did notinclude women, but it was evident to Spanish authorities that women wouldbe essential for the long-term success of the colonization effort. Antonia I.Castañeda, Gloria Miranda, Rosaura Sánchez, and others have written aboutthe important role women played in this period of California’s history. In gen-eral, they have reported that Spanish and Mexican women were severely limitedby the patriarchal values of their society, but they also retained a degree of prote-ction and autonomy. Indian women, however, were more likely to be victims of
Gender Relations in Spanish California 53
the early male-oriented exploration and conquest of California than Spanish andMexican women were.
Following their experience in central Mexico, the mission padres sought toeliminate Indian customs and attitudes toward sexuality that conflicted withCatholic doctrine and morals. Accordingly, the priests severely punishedwomen for sexual misconduct. For example, at Mission San Diego, one nativewoman miscarried, and then was charged with infanticide and forced to endurehumiliating punishments. The priests encouraged neophyte women’s fertility,since all children were to be born into the Christian faith. At the same time,however, the priests outlawed Indian dances, ceremonies, and songs that werepart of their fertility ritual. Women who refused to comply were sometimesaccused of being witches.
Mestizo women washing clothes and carrying water jars on their heads as a well-dressed male stands by watching them. What does this image suggest about the intersection of class/caste and gender roles in Alta California?
Een W
aterp
laats
in Ne
der C
alifor
nia, W
illiam
Redm
ond R
yan,
1850
, Libr
ary o
f Con
gress,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn
restr
iction
s
54 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
Males in the secular population, especially the soldiers, often raped Indianwomen. This became a source of conflict between the Spanish and the nativeCalifornians. Rape, as analyzed by historian Antonia Castañeda, was more thana personal act of lust. It also was a means of subjugating the native populationand expressing the power of the male colonizer over the colonized, both maleand female. It served to humiliate and subjugate the Indian men and families.
A few Spanish colonists settled down and established families with Indianwomen. Initially, a small number of soldiers married native women at theencouragement of the priests. Castañeda found that, in the 1770s, 37 percentof the Monterey presidio soldiers married local Indian women, but, for theentire period, the intermarriage rate was just 15 percent. In order to reproducethe culture of the mother country, women from Mexico were necessary, and ittherefore became a priority to import female colonists.
Non-California Indian women either came with their husbands fromMexico in the various expeditions or alone, as was the case with María Felici-ana Arballo, who traveled to California with her two children in the Anzaexpedition of 1775. Additionally, in 1800 the government sent a group of 10girls and nine boys who were orphans to California, where they were distrib-uted among families already there. The girls, with one exception, were marriedwithin a few years. Gloria Miranda has studied women in Spanish Los Angeles.She found that almost all the marriages were arranged, and at a tender age—13was the youngest age at marriage, while the average age in the pueblo was 20.Very few adult women remained single due to the overall scarcity of women.The more affluent families tended to have lots of children as befitting theirmeans. Ignacio Vicente Ferrer Vallejo, an early settler in Monterey, had 13children. His son, Mariano Vallejo, fathered 16 children, and José María Pico,a soldier in San Diego, fathered 10 children.
Spanish colonial society was patriarchal, with the ethic of honor deeplyingrained. A man’s honor depended on his ability to control others, in particu-lar the women within the family. The church’s doctrines and hierarchy sup-ported notions of male domination and superiority. Yet women were able tocarve out niches of respect, in part because, under colonial laws, they had prop-erty rights within marriage. The notion of community property for women waspart of the Spanish codes. The idea was to protect the honor of a woman andher family of origin within a marriage.
Rosaura Sánchez has studied the narratives of Mexican California womencollected by Hubert Howe Bancroft in the 1870s. Several illustrate the ways inwhich mestiza women in Spanish California related to male authority. One nar-rative is the story of Apolinaria Lorenzana, a woman who came to California asone of the orphans in 1800. She grew up in San Diego but refused to marry,working instead as a schoolteacher and then as a nurse and teacher at the mis-sion. She earned the nickname “La Beata” (the Pious One) because of her devo-tion to helping Indians. During the Mexican period, she received two rancholand grants from the governor as a reward for her services. She bought a third
Gender Relations in Spanish California 55
rancho and lived an independent life from the revenues. Lorenzana’s life revealsher independence, strength of character, and dedication to her work.
Another account is that of Eulalia Pérez, who worked as a llavera, orkeeper of the keys, at mission San Gabriel. Among other things, Eulalia wasin charge of making sure that the girls were locked in at night in their dormi-tory. She also supervised and directed many of the routines of mission life: therationing of food, the training of women as weavers, and the catechizing of theneophytes. Eulalia’s story shows a complete acceptance of the mission as ahumane institution whose primary mission was to teach. Neither Pérez norLorenzana was critical of the treatment given to mission Indians, but ratherthey saw themselves as humanizing the process of acculturation.
We also have the story of Eulalia Callis, who was the wife of Californiagovernor Pedro Fages. She desperately wanted to leave the desolate Californiafrontier and return to Mexico City. In 1785, she publicly accused her husbandof infidelity and filed a petition for legal separation. She refused to accept acompromise mediated by the priests and continued slandering the governor.The authorities arrested her and, because she was a woman, kept her lockedup inside Mission San Carlos Borromeo for two months. During that timeshe began proceedings for a divorce, but before they were completed the couplereconciled. A year later, she persuaded Fages to resign and the family returnedto Mexico. Contemporary historians see Eulalia’s story as evidence of femaleindependence and outrage in the face of patriarchy, but it also reveals thatwomen had the right to divorce, even in colonial New Spain.
Spanish Californian Culture
During the Spanish administration of California, the military and the churchwere the dominant powers enforcing discipline according to the law. Civil cul-ture existed primarily in the towns, where people were freer from authoritarianrules. Because Spain granted very few private ranchos in this period, the haci-enda lifestyle had not yet developed. Spanish society was decidedly male, pri-marily governed by the military and the church.
The culture that the Spanish settlers brought with them from centralMexico and the adjacent northern frontier settlement was one that made familythe core of society—a family that was, in theory, strictly governed by the father.Many of the families were related by marriage or by compadrazgo, godparen-tage. Thus the idea of family was not limited to the nuclear one—but to anextensive network of individuals scattered throughout the province. InHispanic cultures, godparents frequently acted as surrogate parents and theyexpected the same respect and obligations from their godchildren as they didfrom their children. Hospitality was also an important value and fact of life,given the scarcity of the population and the common religion, Catholicism.
Despite the many rules governing behavior, challenges to authority wereinevitable. Sexual misconduct by both men and women was punished. In the
56 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
1790s, Sebastián Alvitre of Los Angeles and Francisco Ávila of San José werepunished with sentences of forced work, prison, and exile for fornicating withIndian and married women. The provincial records are full of warnings fromofficials about the evils and punishments of adultery and sexual impropriety.Likewise, the authorities tried, with mixed success, to regulate gambling andthe consumption of alcohol.
There were no formal schools in Alta California before 1800, when Gover-nor Borica established the first school. The school was in a public granary inSan José and was taught by retired sergeant Manuel Vargas. Funding for theschool came from a compulsory tax of 31 cents per pupil. Eventually Vargaswas lured to teach in San Diego, where the citizens raised 250 dollars for hispay. Several other schools sprang up in San José and Santa Barbara. The pri-mary subject was La Doctrina Cristiana—the catechism and doctrine—followedby reading and writing.
By 1820, there were approximately 3270 Spanish and mestizo settlers inCalifornia, many of them children from large families. Most of the populationgrowth until this time had been through natural increase rather than immigra-tion. The kind of culture that evolved was one that was deeply influenced bythe native Indians. The missionized Indians did almost all the work in con-structing the presidios, missions, and public works. Most of the Spanish maleadult population consisted of soldiers, priests, or administrators. Intermarriagewith native women and with women who came north from Mexico producedmany children. The spirit of the culture remained that of a frontier outpostwhose survival still depended on the authoritarian institutions of the militaryand the church.
Political Developments in Spanish California
As noted earlier, the first government in California was a military one, headedin 1769 by Governor Pedro Fages. Power was shared with Father Serra, thefather-president of the missions in charge of ecclesiastical affairs. From thestart and continuing thereafter, conflicts arose between the two authorities.Serra fought with Fages over where to build the missions and over the sexualmisconduct of the soldiers toward Indian women. For the next 40 years, clericsoccasionally criticized the military government for the lack of protection of themissions or for the misbehavior of soldiers. In 1771, Felipe de Neve became themilitary governor and he energetically set about founding new pueblos andpresidios by recruiting more colonists from Mexico. Accordingly, secularauthority within the province became more important. The three puebloswere given forms of self-government, including the right to elect officials andto make local ordinances. Neve ordered that mission Indians be allowed thesame rights and that certain prerogatives of the clergy be reduced.
Political Developments in Spanish California 57
The Spanish town government established in California was a type of localdemocracy. The system underwent some changes in the Mexican era, but itsbasic character was that of a Spanish institution. Each male head of householdof the pueblo was given a small grant of land from the community landsgranted by the king. These landholders had the right to vote in elections,which were held yearly. Historian Michael Gonzalez summarized the town gov-ernment in Los Angeles in the 1830s. Although changed slightly in structure inthe Mexican era, the town government election system reflected the Spanishtraditions. At nine in the morning the property-owning pobladores were sum-moned to the plaza by a drumroll. After hearing nomination speeches for thevarious offices, they voted by a show of hands for electors, called compromisar-ios. These electors then selected the members of the town council, or ayunta-miento. These included one alcalde, or administrator/judge; two regidores, orcouncilmen; the sindico, or town attorney; and an escribano, or secretary. Dur-ing the Spanish era, the military governor appointed an additional member, thecomisionado, in lieu of an alcalde when no literate person was available. Thecomisionado had veto power over actions taken by the council. Members ofthe ayuntamiento were limited to two terms in office. The town council metweekly to hear petitions for land, listen to accusations of domestic strife, ruleon violations of public ordinances, and decide on action in times of crisis.
In the Spanish era, the military government had more control in the towncouncils than was true in the Mexican period. The exact composition andduties of the members varied from pueblo to pueblo. But essentially the ayun-tamiento allowed the Spanish colonists a form of self-government and freeexpression. Among the missionized Indians, the missionaries allowed thealcaldes to have authority to mediate minor disputes and to exercise someauthority as a leader during times of war. The mission fathers relied on theIndian alcaldes as intermediaries whose authority could be countermanded bythe padre.
The town records of the pueblos provide a glimpse into the realities ofdaily life. The pueblo of Los Angeles was the largest of the Spanish towns,with more than 615 settlers in 1820. About a third of the vecinos lived in sur-rounding ranchos and had homes in the pueblo proper. Los Angeles wasknown as a settlement where there were conflicts between the local officialsand the general population. The annals of the Spanish period are full of dis-putes, complaints, petitions, and grievances directed against the governmentby the vecinos. Pío Pico remembered that upon his arrival in Los Angelesfrom San Diego, he was ordered by the local alcalde to work on the new aque-duct. But Pico refused because he considered the alcalde a “brutish ignorantman.” José Sánchez complained that an alcalde put him in irons because herefused to copy some documents without pay. The pueblo did not have achurch until 1822 and, in order to comply with the law of attendingmass, one had to travel to Mission San Gabriel. The pobladores built theirhomes around the plaza area with streets running roughly in a grid pattern.
58 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
A zanja madre, or main irrigation ditch, ran through the center of the townand was used for washing, bathing, and drinking.
Other small civilian settlements, ruled by military officials from the localpresidios, appeared in San Diego, Monterey, and San Francisco. Their growthwould increase during the Mexican period. The civilian settlers were dependenton the missions for surplus food and skilled and unskilled workers and on thepresidios for protection. The church and military authorities sought to controlthe settlers’ lives but, with the increase in population and with political changesbrought about by independence from Spain, this control diminished.
The Wars of Independence in New Spain
In 1810, the colonists living in New Spain began a lengthy rebellion and civilwar that eventually resulted in independence in 1821. The precipitating causesof the rebellion in New Spain, soon to be called Mexico, were the exclusion ofmany criollos (the children of Spaniards who were born in the New World)from important political and ecclesiastical posts, and the long-term oppressionof the Indian population. In a complex series of events—involving the over-throw of the Spanish government by a French revolutionary army in 1809 anda struggle among the Creoles and Spaniards over who would be the caretaker ofroyal authority in the Americas—millions of Indians, mulattos, and mestizoscame to question the legitimacy of the royal government. Eventually, FatherMiguel Hidalgo y Costilla, a priest in the small town of Dolores, emerged asthe leader of an insurrection. Although he was captured and executed a yearlater, the rebellion continued with new leaders, lasting more than 11 years andravaging Mexico’s economy and population. In the process, California becameeven more isolated from the central government of Mexico as resources wereused by the king to fight both the rebels in the New World and the French inEurope. This lack of resources created an economic crisis throughout the bor-derlands, which weakened the missions as well as the presidios.
News traveled slowly and the Californians did not learn of the rebellionuntil 1811. Most clerics were loyal to Spain, since many of them were Spanishpeninsulares. The military commanders similarly owed allegiance and theircareers to the established monarchy. A few young Californios decided to jointhe rebellion. In 1811, Francisco María Ruiz, the comandante of the presidio atSan Diego, discovered a “seditious” paper being circulated among some of thetroops. This was probably propaganda from the Hidalgo rebellion in Mexico.Ruiz found that 60 men had formed a conspiracy to overthrow Spanish author-ity and he promptly arrested five of the ringleaders, including José María Pico,the father of the future Mexican governor of California, Pío Pico. Two of theSan Diego conspirators were eventually released, but three others died in ironswithin the presidio jail.
Years passed without incident until the fall of 1818, when news camethat the French pirate, Hippolyte Bouchard, was working his way down the
Political Developments in Spanish California 59
California coast, ravaging Spanish settlements. He raided Monterey andtorched the presidio in November, then sailed down the coast and landed aparty at Dana Point to get supplies from Mission San Juan Capistrano. Newsof an impending attack on San Diego made for sleepless nights, but Bouchardbypassed the harbor. The only result of this agitation was to motivate the gov-ernment to send more troops and money to San Diego.
The California garrisons remained loyal to Spain, as did the missionfathers. The idea of a social rebellion of Indians led by Creole liberals wasanathema to the Spanish-speaking residents of the pueblos. Everyone knewthat in California the natives outnumbered the colonists by more than 10 toone. There would be no revolution in California, at least not yet.
On April 20, 1822, news of the proclamation of Mexico’s independencefrom Spain arrived by ship in San Diego harbor. Throughout the province,the officers, soldiers, and civilians were required to take oaths of allegiance tothe newly independent government. The friars and neophytes were required totake a similar oath. There were no reported protests to this change of allegiance.A few Spanish priests left California, but most stayed. Within a few months thede razón (Spanish and mestizo) male population of the province began involv-ing themselves in the politics of the new government. While Mexico’s indepen-dence seemed to make no apparent immediate difference in the daily lives ofthe Californios, profound social and economic transformations were on theway that would radically alter the lives of natives and Californios alike.
Foreign Interest in Spanish California
One of the motives for the founding of a Spanish colony in Alta California hadbeen to preempt other European powers from encroaching on the PacificCoast. During the 52 years of Spanish control, Britain, France, and Russialaunched exploration expeditions to the coast of California. These Europeanrivals threatened the Spanish monopoly in the Pacific and were of great con-cern to the Spanish king and his advisers.
In 1786, the French Comte de la Pérouse visited Monterey for 10 days dur-ing a voyage around the world. He surveyed the mission system, pronounced itan abject failure, and made notes about the cultural and military weaknesses ofthe Spanish settlement. This, of course, was to justify and encourage a possibleFrench takeover of Spanish California. Later, he published his impressionsalong with some of the first European sketches of the California natives andcountryside.
Another explorer who made known the resources of the Pacific Coast wasAlexandro Malaspina, an Italian commissioned by the king of Spain to visit hisAmerican possessions and search for the Northwest Passage. Malaspina hadartists and scientists on board to report on the local environments and cultures.In 1792, his ships visited Monterey, where he stayed for two weeks makingobservations on the flora and fauna as well as the local inhabitants.
60 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
The English explorer George Vancouver visited California ports threetimes between 1792 and 1794. He later published his observations about thedeficiencies of the Spanish settlements. Secretly, he reported the weaknessesof the Spanish defenses in California to the English king, an indication ofEngland’s interest in acquiring this territory.
In 1796, the first American ship, the Otter, commanded by Ebenezer Dorr,visited California. Dorr’s visit was noticeable mainly because he left behind11 Australian convicts who had stowed away on his ship. For a year, they workedas skilled artisans in Monterey but then the governor sent them by ship to Spain.Following this first visit, other American otter-hunting ships navigated off thecoast and illegally traded manufactured goods with the locals.
One of the most memorable foreign visits to California was made byNikolai Rezanov, a representative of the Russian-American Fur Company. In1806, he visited San Francisco ostensibly to obtain supplies for the Russianfur outpost at Sitka, but more probably to investigate the fur-trading prospectsin California. The California governor was initially opposed to giving aid to theRussians since that would strengthen their colony, which was in territoryclaimed by Spain. During his stay, Rezanov met and fell in love with Concep-ción Argüello, the 16-year-old daughter of the comandante of the presidio atSan Francisco. The family agreed to the marriage, with Concepción’s approval.The governor also granted permission for a cargo of food to be sent to Sitka.Promising to return after he was granted permission by the czar to marry,Rezanov returned to Russia. Unfortunately, while crossing Siberia on his wayto St. Petersburg, he died. Meanwhile, Concepción waited in vain for the returnof Count Rezanov; her vigil lasted 35 years until she finally received news ofRezanov’s death. For the rest of her life she refused all suitors and took onthe robes of a beata, a holy woman, devoting herself to acts of charity. Inlater years, this tragic love story became the subject of poems and novels, partof Spanish California’s romantic past.
Following the Rezanov visit, other Russian ships visited California portsseeking sea otter pelts, sealskins, and provisions. In 1812 the Russian-American Fur Company, after negotiating with the Pomo Indians, built awooden stockade fort 18 miles north of Bodega Bay. They called it FortRossiya, an archaic name for Russia. (Americans later called it Fort Ross.)The purpose of Fort Rossiya was to provide a base to grow food for the fur-hunting colonies located farther north in Kodiak and Sitka. Eventually, the col-ony grew to more than 400, a mixture of Aleuts, Russians, and local Indians,and intermarriages between the Aleuts and the local natives promoted peace.The Russian priests were not very active in trying to convert the Indians.Soon the Russians established a seasonal settlement at Bodega Bay as well.
Through the writings of la Pérouse and Vancouver, in addition to the visitsof the Russian and American fur hunters, the richness of California’s naturalresources became more widely known. The recurring observation that theSpanish authorities were not very successful in exploiting this wealth and that
Political Developments in Spanish California 61
their colony was poorly defended and underpopulated was also of great inter-est. In subsequent decades, after Mexican independence, California’s mythicname, as an island of unknown wealth, magnetized the imaginations of increas-ing numbers of non-Spanish speakers.
Summary
The Spanish colonization of California left its imprint for subsequent genera-tions. Beginning in 1769, the Spanish-speaking colonists struggled to survive inthe midst of hundreds of thousands of native Indians. While Spanish in thepolitical sense, the first California settlers were mostly mestizos, various mix-tures of European, Indian, and African ethnicities. They transplanted their cul-ture to this remote corner of empire. To protect themselves and control theIndians, they built military outposts, presidios, and constructed missions. Inthis they were marginally successful while assimilating tens of thousands ofnatives. But their colonial strategies also provoked periodic uprisings, manyrunaways, and the spread of deadly diseases. The California settlers weremore successful in transplanting their political and material culture, the firsttown governments, cattle ranching, and agriculture.
The Spanish era lasted less than 60 years, but it forged a path thatCalifornians can still see. During the next few decades, the surplus of cattle inCalifornia’s economy and the reliance on Indian labor were the very founda-tions of the Mexican and early American eras. The importance of family loyaltyand Catholic piety, community life, and the ethic of gracious hospitality allcontinued without interruption among the Spanish-speaking residents. Themost visible remnants of Spain in California today are the rebuilt and recon-structed missions, most of which still serve as houses of worship. As symbols ofa distant era, they have been romanticized in novels and movies. Most aretourist attractions whose tranquil atmosphere suggests a peaceful, pastoralpast. For some, however, they stand as symbols of an oppressive regime thatbegan the destruction of a way of life. Spain succeeded in transferring her lan-guage and culture to Alta California. Place names echo this heritage: La Jolla,Santa Ana, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Sierra Nevada, San Francisco, and manymore. The layout of towns, Spanish-style architecture, the patio, the plaza, therancho, all survive in altered forms as elements in California’s built environ-ment. The Spanish settlers introduced European plants and animals that for-ever changed the flora and fauna of California.
Some elements of Spanish town government and statutory law survive tothis day. The lands owned by the municipalities of San Diego, Los Angeles, andSan José are based on the generous Spanish government grants to the pueblos.The Spanish law concerning water rights as a communal rather than a private
62 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
resource continues to influence California’s legal history. So too does the Span-ish legal doctrine of community property.
Increasingly, the Spanish language is an important second language inCalifornia, as Latinos—whose roots extend into Mexico and Latin America—continue with a second chapter in the Spanish colonization project. The lan-guage spoken by Father Serra, the presidio soldiers and settlers, as well asmany mission Indians, can be heard in the streets and fields of California inthe 21st century. Thus the profound changes begun in 1769 continue to echointo the present.
Suggested Readings
❚ Bolton, Herbert Eugene. One of the most prolific scholars in Spanish Californiastudies. Students should consult his book-length studies on Father Juan Crespi,De Anza, and especially his translation of Father Francisco Palou’s HistoricalMemoirs of New California (New York: Russell & Russell, 1966).
❚ Castañeda, Antonia I., “Presidarias y Pobladores: Spanish-Mexican Womenin Frontier Monterey, Alta California, 1770–1821” (Ph.D. dissertation, Stan-ford University, 1990). One of the few book-length monographs aboutSpanish women in this period.
❚ Cook, Sherburne F., The Conflict Between the California Indian and WhiteCivilization (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,1976). An anthropologist who has interpreted a wealth of data to help usunderstand the dimensions of the conflict.
❚ Costo, Rupert, and Costo, Jeannette H., The Missions of California: A Legacyof Genocide (San Francisco: Indian Historian Press, 1987). A historical attackon the pro-Spanish interpretation of the missions written by CaliforniaIndian historians.
❚ Engelhardt, Father Zephyrin, The Missions and Missionaries of California(San Francisco: James Barry, 1908–1929). The classic defense of theCalifornia missions is this four-volume work by the Franciscan priest, aswell as the scholarly writings of Msgr. Francis J. Weber, in his individualhistories of the missions.
❚ Geiger, Father Maynard, The Life and Times of Fray Junípero Serra, O.F.M.;or, The Man Who Never Turned Back, 1713–1784: A Biography (Washington:Academy of American Franciscan History, 1959). The classic study of FatherSerra’s labors in California.
❚ Gutiérrez, Ramón A., and Orsi, Richard J., eds., Contested Eden: CaliforniaBefore the Gold Rush (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Suggested Readings 63
Press, 1998). An anthology of the most recent interpretations of California’shistory before 1848. New essays on the ecological consequences of conquest.
❚ Monroy, Douglas, Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Cul-ture in Frontier California (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Califor-nia Press, 1990). A well-written discussion of the California Indianinteractions with the Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo frontiers.
❚ Peelo, Sarah, “Baptism Among the Salinan Neophytes of Mission San Anto-nio de Padua: Investigating the Ecological Hypothesis,” Ethnohistory 200956(4):589–624. Presents evidence for and against the environmental pres-sures as explaining wide-spread native conversions.
❚ Weber, David J., The Spanish Frontier in North America (New Haven andLondon: Yale University Press, 1992). The masterwork by one of the lead-ing borderlands scholars, setting the California experience in a largercontext.
64 CHAPTER 2 The Spanish Colonization of California, 1769–1821
CHAP
TER 3
Mexican Californios:Conflict and Culture,1821–1846
Main Topics
❚ A New Political Order
❚ The Rise of the Ranchos
❚ Social Relations in Mexican California
❚ California and the World
❚ Summary
In 1877, a Californio ranchero named José del Carmen Lugorecalled life during the Mexican era for Thomas Savage, oneof historian Hubert Howe Bancroft’s research assistants.
His memory about the work routine provides important detailsabout the reality of rancho life in Mexican California—specificsthat contradict the vision of an idyllic, lazy, pastoral existencethat has often been depicted in literature and film. The romanceof the rancho has become a staple for California promoters andwriters. Seldom do people consider the mundane and harshrealities that surrounded rancho life in the Mexican era.
The Californian way of life in my early years was as follows:at eight o’clock in the evening the entire family was occu-pied in its prayers. In commending themselves to God, theyrecited the rosary, and other special prayers which each one
From José Carmen del Lugo, “Vida de un Ranchero,” Quarterly of the Historical Society of Southern California,Vol. 31, No. 1 (September 1950), p. 21. Reprinted by permission of the Historical Society of Southern California.
65
addressed to the saint of his or her name or devotion. Hus-band and wife slept in the same room, and nearly always inthe same bed. The children—if there were any, and thedwelling had conveniences and separate apartments—slept,the men in the galleries outside in the open-air, and womenin an enclosed quarter of which the parents kept the key, ifthere was the key, a thing that was not very common.
At three o’clock in the morning the entire familywas summoned to their prayers. After this, the womenbetook themselves to the kitchen and other domestictasks, such as sweeping, cleaning, dusting, and so on.The men went to their labor in the field—some to thecattle, others to look after the horses. The milking of thecattle was done by the men or the Indian servants.Ordinarily some women had charge of the milking, tosee that the milk was cleaned and strained. The womenand the Indian servants under them made the small,hard, flat cheeses, the cheese proper, butter, curds, and amixture made to use with beans.
CHAPTER 3Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture,
1821–1846
1822 Luis Argüello elected as jefe político, or governor, of newlyindependent California
1824 Chumash rebellion against missions ends
1825 José María Echeandía selected as California’s governor;unofficial capital in San Diego
1826Beginning of secularization of the missions; American furtrapper Jedediah Smith enters California; partial emancipationof mission Indians.
1831 Rebellion against Governor Manuel Victoria by southernCalifornians (sureños)
1833 José María Padrés and José María Híjar recruit 204 settlers to goto California
1834 Governor José Figueroa continues secularization of the missions
1836 Norteños led by Juan Bautista de Alvarado rebel againstGovernor Mariano Chico
1838 Civil war: sureños and norteños battle for control of the province
1839 Governor Juan Bautista de Alvarado and the norteños win
1840 John Sutter obtains land grant at junction of Sacramento andAmerican Rivers
1841 Bidwell-Bartleson overland expedition enters California
1842Governor Manuel Micheltorena appointed; Americans led byCommodore Thomas ap Catesby Jones occupy the port ofMonterey
1843 Andrés and Pío Pico obtain grant to Rancho San Onofre yMargarita, largest rancho in California
1846 Donner expedition ends in tragedy
66
The women’s labors last until seven or eight in themorning. After that they were busy cooking, sewing, orwashing. The men passed the day in labor in the fieldsaccording to the location—some preparing the ground forsowing the seed, bringing in wood, sowing the seed, reaping,and so on. Some planted cotton, some hemp, some plantedboth. This was done by those who had facilities for it; theyplanted and harvested in the things they needed most forthe benefit of their families, such as rice, corn, beans, barley,and other grains, squash, watermelons, and cantaloupes.
The lands in the immediate vicinity of Los Angeleswere set to fruit trees such as grapes, pears, apples, pome-granates, here and there an olive, cactus fruit, peaches, andother minor fruits. The owners of fields who could notobtain seeds of oranges, lemons, or producing fruits werefound at the missions because the Padres selfishly refusedto allow them to grow elsewhere than at their missions.
In José del Carmen Lugo’s memory, the Mexican era ofCalifornia’s history was one in which industry and labor weretransforming the land. Prosperity seemed to be less an automaticresult of climate than the result of family and individual efforts.Indeed, this was a major change from the Spanish era. Themission no longer had a monopoly on the land and labor. Now,private rancheros rather than mission friars shaped the economicand the political destiny of California. To be sure, there was
General Don Andres Pico (1810-1876) of Los Angeles standing in the corridor of one of his farm buildings which was formerly the property of Mission San Fernando. The “neighboring” Lugo family lived in a two story adobe in Los Angeles, and held title to several large land grants stretching from San Diego to Sonoma. By 1870 the Lugo’s vast holdings had dwindled to less than 400 acres.
A Cali
fornia
Mag
nate
in his
Hom
e, by
Edwa
rd Vi
scher
is lic
ense
d und
er CC
BY by
the U
niver
sity o
f So
uther
n Cali
fornia
Libr
ary a
nd th
e Cali
fornia
Hist
orica
l Soc
iety,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn
restr
iction
s
CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846 67
much continuity in everyday life, but the older order was passingaway and in its place a Mexican Californio way of life emerged.
Questions to Consider
❚ What were the main characteristics of Mexican politicallife in Alta California?
❚ How did the creation of the ranchos change the socialand economic development of the province?
❚ How did secularization of the missions affect the Californianatives?
❚ To what degree did these changes lead to greater foreigninfluence?
❚ What kind of impact did these foreigners have on theMexican and Indian peoples?
A New Political Order
In the decades following Mexican independence from Spain, the European set-tlers of Alta California became more independent in spirit as they developed astronger regional identity. They began to call themselves “Californios,” Spanish-speaking inheritors of a frontier society that had an intense loyalty to family andto place. Ironically, the landholding Californios of this era owed their prosperityand independent spirit to the policies of the central government of Mexico,whose policies led to the redistribution of the mission lands and the creationof new wealthy families. The Mexican government enacted secularization lawsdesigned to end the Catholic Church’s tutelage of native people and to create anation of independent farmers. Under these laws, the Christianized natives whohad worked for the missions were supposed to be emancipated and given smalltracts of land. But the land hunger of the Californios and the failure of the mis-sions to fully assimilate the natives resulted in the former mission Indiansbecoming a landless, exploited, and homeless class. Upon the departure of themission padres, most of the neophytes left the missions and soon their landswere declared abandoned and open to petition for a land grant from the gov-ernment. Ultimately, the mission lands passed to the hands of several hundredCalifornio families who became the new leaders of Alta California. For thenative people, who outnumbered the Mexican population, sporadic resistanceagainst the settlers and ranchers continued.
Early Self-Government: Solá and Argüello
With independence from Mexico, California’s political situation became muchmore complicated as a succession of Mexican governors who attempted to
68 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
administer the affairs of the province provoked conspiracies and rebellions.The end result of the many Californio uprisings was a greater local indepen-dence and a tradition of opposition to centralized control. In many ways, thecontroversies in California during the Mexican era mirrored the struggle goingon in Mexico, where the federalists and centralists battled one another over thedegree of authority the central government should have. The Californioslearned of the liberal ideas flowing from the American and French Revolutionsand the Spanish liberal Constitution of 1812—ideas of democracy, secularism,and freedom of expression, all concepts that had been banned under the Span-ish regime. These ideas, mixed with strong ties to family, an identification withand loyalty to the region, and a geographic isolation from Mexico City, shapedthe distinctive path of Californio politics.
California’s new republican politics began in 1822, with news that AgustínIturbide had proclaimed himself emperor of Mexico. Soon, a commissionerfrom Mexico City arrived with instructions on how to proceed. A diputación,or provincial legislature, was to be elected by the ayuntamiento (town council)and army officers, and this local body, in turn, was to elect a new governor.Accordingly, a group of Californios elected native born Luis Argüello, fromSan Francisco, as the new governor.
Argüello’s two-year term as governor was marked by revolts of the missionIndians at Santa Barbara, Santa Inés, and Purísima Concepción, and by conflictwith the mission administrators over the relocation of Mission San Francisco.The Indian rebellion was ultimately put down (see Chapter 2), and Argüellocompromised with the church authorities to allow Mission San Francisco toremain where it was and to allow the founding of the last mission, SanFrancisco Solano, near present-day Sonoma. Finally, in 1824, news came ofIturbide’s abdication and the creation of a Mexican Federal Republic governedby a constitution. While this seemed to promise more home rule for theCalifornios on paper, the immediate consequence, ironically, was to deny thelocal population the right to elect their own governor.
The Governorship of José María Echeandía
In 1825, the Mexican government selected José María Echeandía as the new gover-nor of the territory of Alta California. Traveling by ship to the port of San Diego,Echeandía decided to remain in the presidio there because he preferred the mildclimate compared to that of the designated capital, Monterey. With Echeandía’sresidence in San Diego, a rivalry developed between north and south. The politicosof the north resented the south’s emergence as the de facto seat of government.Nevertheless, for the next few years San Diego was the unofficial capital of the ter-ritory and the governor carried out all of his official business there. Occasionally hewould venture forth to Los Angeles and even to Monterey for short periods.
For the next five years, Governor Echeandía sought to implement policiesthat reflected the changing direction of the Mexican government. One of those
A New Political Order 69
policies was to ensure the loyalty of the former-Spanish subjects to the MexicanRepublic. The missionary priests, most of whom were Spanish, had refused totake an oath of loyalty to the new Mexican government. On April 28, 1826, thegovernor met in San Diego with a group of padres and, after some discussion,the priests agreed to take the oath if it was “compatible with our religion andprofession.” Finally, all five of the padres of the San Diego district and those inthe other missions agreed to take the oath. Several of the older priests returnedto Spain to retire. In all of Alta California there were about 36 mission priestswho were affected by this new change of government.
The Mexican government passed a series of secularization laws that man-dated the dismantling of the remnants of Spain’s power in Mexico. This meantbreaking up the mission system and converting the lands to private property.Echeandía began to implement this secularization of mission lands. OnApril 28, 1826, he began discussions with the padres to determine how bestto carry this out. They suggested that Indians “of good conduct and long ser-vice” could form independent towns near the missions. In the spirit of this dis-cussion, Echeandía issued a decree of partial emancipation on July 25, 1826.Indians could leave the mission if they had been Christians since childhoodor for 15 years, were married, and had a means of earning a living. They hadto apply to the comandante of the local presidio and get a written permit inorder to travel from place to place. The proclamation initially applied only tothe San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Monterey districts, but it was later extendedto other missions. Only a very few mission Indians could meet the require-ments, and only a small number participated. Governor Echeandía broughthis secularization plan before the territorial assembly on July 20, 1830, and itwas approved.
Rebellion Against Centralism: Governor Victoria
In 1830, the Mexican central government appointed Lieutenant Colonel ManuelVictoria to succeed Governor Echeandía as the jefe político of Alta California.Before Victoria could assume office, a group of San Diego’s most prominentfamilies, in league with other Californios, sought to influence Echeandía tocarry out a more rapid secularization policy, so that they might take possessionof the mission lands, properties, herds, and Indian labor. The young reformersincluded the Bandinis, Carrillos, Vallejos, Picos, and Alvarados—men who wereenthusiastic about republicanism and the possibility of obtaining new rancholands. They persuaded governor Echeandía to carry out the secularization ofmore mission lands before the new governor took over. As soon as Victoriaassumed office, however, he overturned Echeandía’s decrees. He representedthe centralists, a more conservative political faction that opposed ideas ofliberalism.
One of the themes that developed in the Mexican era—and continuestoday—was the rivalry between the northern and southern Californians. Each
70 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
side competed for the location of the customs house and territorial govern-ment. Under Mexico’s laws, all foreign vessels had to pay duties at the port ofentry in Monterey before being allowed to engage in trade. Whoever controlledthe customs house would thus have the economic benefit of being first in linefor trade. Similarly, there was pride in being the capital of the territorial gov-ernment and local families would have greater influence over decisions affect-ing land grants as well as trade. Pride was mixed with politics and economics
Confirmed Mexican Land Grants in California (total 8,987,000 acres)enlarged 120%
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
MEXICO
IDAHOOREGON
PACIFIC OCEAN
Map 3.1 Confirmed Mexican Land Grants in California
A New Political Order 71
in the various struggles between the sureños (southern Californians) and thenorteños (northern Californians). This competition would intensify in theAmerican period.
Thus, from the start, Governor Victoria was not popular with manysureños. He removed the territorial government from San Diego and went tolive in the official capital, Monterey. Victoria represented the centralist, anti-democratic, pro-church factions then resurgent in Mexico. Despite a requestfrom a group of delegates from the San Francisco presidio, Victoria refused toconvene the territorial diputación and announced his intention to restore mili-tary rule and abolish all elected government. The governor then ordered theexecution of several persons who were convicted of minor offenses and sus-pended the ayuntamiento of Santa Barbara. He exiled several influentialnorteños, including José Antonio Carrillo, without a trial. Carrillo then beganagitating for a revolt against the governor.
For the next few months, the sureños secretly and then openly led a move-ment to remove Victoria from office. Juan Bandini, a Peruvian immigrant whohad come to San Diego in the 1820s, was perhaps the most active leader of theanti-Victoria movement. On November 29, 1831, Pico, Bandini, and Carrillo,with “about a dozen” companions, took over the San Diego presidio and issueda pronunciamento (a statement justifying a rebellion). The Pronunciamentode San Diego was California’s first written declaration of political indepen-dence. Probably penned by Juan Bandini, in the florid literary style of theday, it set forth the reasons for people to join the rebellion against Victoria. Itaccused Victoria of “criminal abuse” and of breaking the law, while claimingthat the pronunciamento signers were motivated by “love of country” and“respect for the laws.” It listed as grievances the governor’s suspension of thegovernment of Santa Barbara, the execution of several people in violation ofthe procedures of law, and the banishment of several prominent Californios.The document called Victoria a despot.
The Victoria rebellion was ultimately resolved when a military force ofsureños from San Diego and Los Angeles met Victoria’s small group of only30 men near Cahuenga Pass in December 1831. After a short skirmish, twomen were killed and Victoria was wounded. His army retreated to MissionSan Gabriel, where he finally agreed to resign his governorship. The followingmonth, he traveled to the port of San Diego and on January 17, 1832, he leftfor Mexico.
Secularization of the Missions: José Figueroa
After the rebellion against Victoria, the political struggles among Californios,between families, and between the norteños and sureños complicated thingsfor many months. Agustín Zamorano led a norteño faction that claimed to bethe legitimate government of the territory north of Santa Barbara, whileEcheandía claimed jurisdiction over the south. Zamorano, who later imported
72 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
the first printing press in California, served until the arrival of José Figueroa,the new governor appointed by Mexico City. Although Figueroa felt that thesureño Californio leaders were a “clique of conceited and ignorant men,”the Californios eventually benefited through his implementation of the finalsecularization of the mission lands.
During the 1830s, the intention of the Mexican government was to convertthe California mission properties into Indian pueblos. This policy, which hadenvisioned free settlements of Hispanicized natives, ultimately was subverted bythe local Californios, many of whom regarded the Indians as incapable of self-government or property ownership. The secularization of the mission landsand the emancipation of the neophytes, however, proceeded rapidly underGovernor Figueroa, and subsequent Mexican governors completed the legalprocess.
The secularization of the missions affected about 18,000 Christianizednatives in California. At the beginning, Governor Figueroa took the unusualstep of traveling to some of the missions to explain the benefits of emancipa-tion to the natives in person. In San Diego he spoke to 160 families; however,only 10 families agreed to accept their freedom, which was not enough to forma pueblo. So Figueroa appointed Santiago Argüello as the comisionado, or com-missioner, in charge of Indian properties at San Diego. Eventually, enough ex-neophyte families accepted their changed status and established the Indianpueblo of San Dieguito, near the mission. Others near Mission San Luis Reymoved to an already existing native pueblo at Las Flores. Another Indianpueblo grew up in San Pascual, near present-day Escondido. Each of thesenew pueblos was instructed to select its own alcalde, or mayor. Thus, theKumeyaay Indians, not the Spanish-speaking descendants of the founders ofthe presidio, elected the first self-government in the San Diego district. Thosenatives who agreed to live in these pueblos were informally allowed to use thelands they needed for dwellings and agriculture. The remaining ex-missionlands were declared abandoned and thus open to petition for ownership by theCalifornios.
Many mission Indians did not embrace the idea of living as free farmers.Most left the mission lands and returned to their former lives, thus rejectingfurther supervision and control by Mexican authorities. Moreover, many hadmaintained contact with relatives and extended families outside the missionlands, and they wanted to go home. Others, whose villages had disappearedbecause of disease or war, were now homeless, lacking the protection of themission padres. Traditional lands that had been the homeland of native peopleswere now controlled by rancheros. As a result, thousands of homeless Chris-tianized Indians sought to eke out an existence by hiring themselves out to theSpanish-speaking population as vaqueros, domestic servants, mistresses, andindispensable laborers within the Mexican pueblos and presidios.
By 1834, six missions in California had been secularized and the rest wouldsoon follow. The wealthiest and most populous, Mission San Luis Rey, was
A New Political Order 73
administered by Pío Pico. At Mission San Diego there were more than 5000neophytes, and most of them departed after the priests left. An estimated2000 moved closer to the newly constructed town of San Diego (as yet notofficially a pueblo), where they found occasional work as servants and laborers.For the remainder of the Mexican period, the Christianized ex-neophyte nativepopulation greatly outnumbered the Mexican mestizo population within theSan Diego district. For many Mexican settlers, Indian allegiances were suspect,and frequent raids and rumors of impending attacks always raised suspicionsof alliances between the local Indians and the indios bárbaros.
During the decade that followed, the Californios petitioned the Mexicangovernment, eager to claim hundreds of ranchos formed out of lands that hadbeen declared “abandoned” by mission administrators. Many of these sameadministrators ended up owning the very lands they supervised. Who benefitedfrom this era of rancho creation? Rancho grantees were those who, because ofpolitical influence or because of long service to the mission or presidio, were ina position to claim the land and the cattle on it. To be successful, individualshad to do more than claim the lands. They also had to have the interest andability to manage a cattle ranch. Eventually, more than 700 private land grantswere approved by the Mexican government. A portion of the grants went toforeigners—mostly to naturalized American citizens.
Governor Figueroa died before seeing the final result of the Mexican govern-ment’s secularization laws. These included: (1) the dispossession of the mission-ized Indians of the lands they had depended upon for food and shelter, (2) thecreation of a new floating class of homeless, exploitable Indian laborers, and(3) the birth of a new aristocracy of landed families who increasingly assertedtheir rights over those of the Mexican governors and the Indians alike.
Rebellion, Revolution, and Home Rule
Governor Manuel Victoria was succeeded by a series of temporary governorswho inspired contempt and rebellion on the part of the Californio families,many of whom were related to each other and who competed for politicalcontrol. José Castro, from northern California, served briefly as a temporarygovernor, followed by Nicolás Gutiérrez. Gutiérrez was quickly replaced in1835 by Mariano Chico, from Guadalajara, a representative of the newly emer-gent centralist faction in Mexico City. The centralists believed in reducing theautonomy of the state government, removing local controls, and substitutingthat of military authorities from Mexico City. The centralists threatened thenew autonomy of the Californio rancheros. The subsequent Californio revoltsagainst the Mexican governors occurred at about the same time as rebellions inthe Mexican states of Queretaro, Zacatecas, Yucatán, New Mexico, and Texas.All were sparked by reactions against the centralist ascendancy in Mexico City,which was led by General José Antonio Lopez y Santa Anna. The central gov-ernment’s military forces suffered a disastrous defeat in Texas in 1836, leaving
74 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
them less able to enforce their will on the far-flung northern territories.Accordingly, the Californio rebels escaped punishment at the hands of GeneralSanta Anna.
In 1836, Juan Bautista Alvarado led a norteño rebellion against governorChico, calling for California’s independence from Mexico until the federal sys-tem was restored. In reaction to the prospect of the dominance of Monterey,the sureños in San Diego and Los Angeles joined forces to offer an alternativeto Alvarado’s rebellion. The last effort by the sureños to salvage their regionalpride and political influence began in the spring of 1837, when an anti-Alvarado group from San Diego gathered about 40 men and persuaded theayuntamiento to endorse “El Plan de San Diego.” This document, written byJuan Bandini, formally recognized the official Mexican government andrejected Alvarado’s rebellion. The sureños proposed that they organize a loyal-ist government to rule the territory, now reorganized as a department, until theMexican government approved a legitimate governor.
The leaders of “El Plan de San Diego” were Bandini, Santiago E. Argüello,and Pío Pico. Together, they traveled north to get the Los Angeles ayuntamiento’sendorsement of El Plan. By June 1837, the sureños had assembled an armyof about 150 men and were prepared to meet Alvarado on the field of battle todecide who would rule California. The expected struggle did not take place, how-ever. Before any fighting occurred, news from Mexico arrived confirming theestablishment of a new centralist government and everyone, including Alvarado,accepted it. In July 1837, Alvarado took an oath to support the constitution,and the provincial diputación selected him as governor until a new Mexicanappointee arrived.
The civil war between the north and the south continued when thereplacement governor, Carlos Carrillo, arrived. Carrillo sided with thesureño faction, named Los Angeles the new capital of the department, andmoved the customs house to San Diego. Shortly thereafter, Alvarado refusedto recognize Carrillo until he was officially ordered to relinquish the gover-norship. Meanwhile, Alvarado sent representatives to Mexico City to pleadhis case as the legitimate governor, and he prepared to challenge Carrillowith force of arms.
In the spring of 1838, the sureños and norteños assembled for battle nearMission San Buenaventura. About half of the soldiers on the sureño side werefrom San Diego. They exchanged shots and one person was killed before thesoutherners were outmaneuvered and retreated to Los Angeles. Remnants ofthe army, led by Carrillo, continued fleeing to San Diego, where they preparedfor a last stand. Before further bloodshed, the two governors met in April 1838near Mission San Luis Rey. They signed a “treaty” that called on Mexico Cityto determine who was the legitimate governor. A formal notification arrived inAugust and, to the bitter disappointment of the sureños, the central govern-ment named Alvarado as the legitimate provisional governor. Carrillo left forMexico.
A New Political Order 75
Alvarado was a native-born northern Californio who, as governor of theterritory, led his compatriots in democratic revolutions and protests againstMexico City’s high-handed leaders. He championed legislative initiative, publicschools, government improvements, and many other projects to improve theeconomy and political health of the department. He presided over the mostmomentous economic change in the history of California, the breakup of themission lands and the distribution of these lands to the native Californians,foreigners, and Indians.
Alvarado was related by marriage to another powerful California figure,General Mariano Vallejo. Together, they lived through the American takeoverof their territory, and both authored multivolume histories that remain unpub-lished and untranslated in the Bancroft library. Under Alvarado’s regime, in1827 the diputación at Monterey voted to change the name of California to“Moctezuma” in honor of the Aztecs, a move that was overturned by thenational government. As a young man, Alvarado and his friends secretly pur-chased books that were on the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Bookslist, and for that they were threatened with excommunication. Alvarado,along with many other prominent Californios, had a mistress and several chil-dren to whom he gave his name. In his maturity, Alvarado became an alcoholicwhose periodic binges were embarrassing, causing him to miss his ownwedding and his inauguration as governor, and to panic when the Americansmistakenly invaded Monterey in 1842.
Despite these weaknesses, Alvarado was a capable leader and politicianwho enjoyed the respect of many native Californians. He participated in mostof the crucial turning points of the territory’s history—the revolts against Nico-lás Gutiérrez and then against Micheltorena made Alvarado the longest-termedgovernor of Mexican California.
Micheltorena and the Catesby Jones Affair
In 1842 Mexico again attempted to impose another non-Californio governor,General Manuel Micheltorena. He arrived with 300 troops termed cholos(meaning low-class mestizos and Indios) by the status-conscious Californios,who accused them of petty thievery and disorder. It is true that many of thetroops were unpaid ex-convicts who were encouraged to forage for their suste-nance. An additional cause for the disaffection of the norteños was their desireto regain local political power.
During Micheltorena’s first year as governor, an American naval officer,Commodore Thomas ap Catesby Jones, occupied the port of Monterey on themistaken notion that war had broken out between Mexico and the UnitedStates. This mistake gave Mexico a preview of the warlike intentions of theUnited States and made any negotiation over the peaceful acquisition of Cali-fornia by the United States impossible. Jones was the commander of the Pacificsquadron, and he had secret orders to occupy Monterey in the event that
76 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
Mexico decided to cede California to Britain. While in the Peruvian port of Callao, he received false information that the United States and Mexico were at war and that the British naval commander in the Pacific was sailing toward California with plans to occupy it. Jones’s two ships, the United States and the Cyane, raced toward California and, on October 18, 1842, entered the harbor at Monterey. The following day, Jones demanded the surrender of the town to his troops. Alvarado, the military commander, received the message and reluc-tantly surrendered, fearing bombardment of the town by the Americans. Jones’s men lowered the Mexican flag that flew in front of the governor’s house. Later that day, one of Jones’s men was reading through the government archives and discovered recent newspapers indicating that there was no war between the two countries. In the meantime, the local population had fled the town.
Governor Micheltorena was visiting Los Angeles when he heard the news of the mistaken capture of the capital. Commodore Jones decided to sail to San Pedro to meet with the governor and offer his formal apologies. The governor held a formal dinner in Los Angeles in honor of his guests, and apologies flowed with the wine. That night, however, reports of strange ships sighted off the coast led Governor Micheltorena to fear a full-scale American invasion; daylight brought assurances that it had been a false alarm. After appropriate formalities and typical Californio hospitality, the Americans returned to their ships and sailed away.
A New Political Order 77
Thom
as ap
Cates
by Jo
nes,
by Au
guste
Edou
art, N
ation
al Po
rtrait
Gall
ery,
Smith
sonia
n Ins
titutio
n, gif
t of R
ober
t L. M
cNeil
Jr. is
lic
ense
d und
er CC
Profile portrait of Commodore Thomas ap Catesby Jones, who mistakenly believed that the U.S. and Mexico were at war, entered the harbor at Monterey, and demanded that the town surrender to his troops.
A few years later, in 1845, Alvarado and José Castro led a rebellion inMonterey against Micheltorena that resulted in another “battle” at CahuengaPass. Though only a mule and a horse were killed, the governor was forcedto depart for Mexico. As a compromise between the regional factions, PíoPico assumed the title of governor and Los Angeles became the capital. JoséCastro became the military comandante in charge of the northern district,including the customs house in Monterey.
The last Mexican governor was a Californio. Pío de Jesús Pico was born inSan Gabriel Mission of mixed African and mestizo ancestry. He grew up in SanDiego and moved to Los Angeles in the 1830s, where he became important inlocal politics. During his short tenure as governor, he completed the seculariza-tion of the missions and confirmed a flurry of land grants to his friends as hesaw the approaching threat of the Anglo Americans. As he said in a speech:“They are cultivating farms, establishing vineyards, erecting mills, sawingup lumber, building workshops, and doing a thousand other things whichseem natural to them, but which Californians neglect or despise.” He washelpless to prevent the American takeover of his beloved land during theU.S.-Mexican War. On the eve of that conflict, the Californios continued tobe divided into northern and southern factions, and this weakened their abilityto respond to a foreign invasion.
The Rise of the Ranchos
A review of the political history of Mexican California shows that Californiosincreasingly asserted their self-confidence in their ability to control their ownsociety. This was based on the creation of a native California landholding classwhose prosperity grew with each season as the cattle and livestock multipliedbeyond count. The Mexican government encouraged private landholding, andthe land was free for the taking, providing the claimant met the necessary con-ditions. The newly independent Mexico liberalized the Spanish trade restric-tions, opening California to trade with Americans, the British, and Russians.Thus the prosperity of the ranchos during this era was a product of politicaldecisions made in Mexico. An unintended result, however, was the creationof a new spirit of independence and rebellion.
Under Mexican laws, the usual way an individual obtained a rancho grantwas to file a written petition with the governor of the territory requesting adefined piece of land, described in very general terms and accompanied witha crude map, or diseño. If the governor approved, he would order the localofficials to investigate the lands to determine whether they were actually vacantand that there were no conflicting interests. The results of the investigation,called the informe, were then returned to the governor and, if he approved, aformal grant was made. All of the paperwork attached to the grant was called
78 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
the expediente; however, the grant was not considered final until the territorialassembly approved it. The final act of possession then took place with a formalceremony involving the local officials.
Mexican officials approved more than 700 private land grants followingthese procedures. One of the largest, Rancho San Onofre y Margarita, was89,742 acres, granted to Andrés and Pío Pico in 1841. Many of the grantswere more modest in size. For example, in 1843, the government grantedRancho La Cañada de los Coches (Glen of the Hogs), which amounted to only23.39 acres, to Apolinaria Lorenzana, “La Beata.” In 1845 Guajome Rancho(Home of the Frog), consisting of 2,219.41 acres, was granted to Andrés andJosé Manuel, two Luiseño Indians. Women as well as Indians were eligible toreceive land grants. Historian Gloria Ricci Lothrop found that 55 ranchos—or13 percent of the total of 700 grants—were given to women, many of whomwere the sole managers of their estates.
The land itself was not worth much without livestock, but the cattle thatroamed virtually wild on the grasslands were usually inherited from the mis-sions as part of the grant. Disputes over the ownership of these herds becamematters for the local juez de campos (judge of the plains), or for the alcalde.As elsewhere in the Mexican Southwest, brands were registered and periodicrodeos were required to sort out the herds. In the Los Angeles district, forexample, rancheros were required by law to have rodeos in January andApril, and the general public was required to assist in the roundup. Duringthese rodeos, the vaqueros sorted out vast herds of cattle that had inter-mingled on the open range, branding the newborn calves and castrating theyoung bulls. They were paid with food and the fiesta that followed each dayof labor.
The Californio men prided themselves on their horsemanship and hadmany opportunities to display this talent during these events. It was consideredmanly to be able to lasso and kill a cow, using a horsehair lariat and long lance,without dismounting from one’s horse. Horseracing was a passion, as was thesport of correr el gallo, which involved plucking a buried chicken from theground while galloping at full speed. Many of the vaqueros were Indians whohad learned these skills at the missions. The Californios distinguished them-selves from these common laborers by their elaborate dress, fine mounts, and,for the very rich, ornate saddle and livery.
As was true throughout all of northern Mexico, cattle raising created aunique culture, with its own vocabulary and independent spirit. The vaquerostaught the American immigrants who entered the Mexican frontier the basictechniques of stock raising in a semi-arid environment. Law, brands, and cus-toms regarding the open range are of Spanish-Mexican origin, and much of themystique of the American cowboy arises from these Mexican roots.
In Mexican California, stock raising was more a way of life than an indus-try, which it later became under the Americans. The meat of the cattle was oflittle value, since it had to be eaten immediately, unless preserved as jerky.
The Rise of the Ranchos 79
Instead, the hide and the fat of the animal—the tallow—provided value to thedaily life of the settlers and later to the Yankee clipper ships that came toCalifornia. If an occasional cow was killed mysteriously, it was of no conse-quence as long as the “California dollar” (the hide) was left behind. Hencethe poor had a ready source of food. The Indians who lived on the ranchosfarmed small plots and helped raise sheep, goats, pigs, horses, mules, and cattle.They were paid in kind, with foodstuffs and the right to build an adobe orjacale (brush) hut on rancho land.
It is probably wrong to characterize the Californio ranchos as similar tothe haciendas in mainland Mexico, because they were more informal in theirorganization. The Indian vaqueros and farmers were not bound by the rulesof peonage that prevailed in central Mexico. The Indians who worked on theranchos were not paid in money but with food, clothing, and shelter. A senseof paternalism prevailed, with the rancheros as the patrons and the Indiansas servants and workmen. The Californios sought to create a lifestyle andmystique surrounding their class. While the Mexican government had abol-ished the system of official ethnic distinctions, known as the casta system,the Californios maintained pretensions about their racial purity as gente derazón and insisted on deference from the natives. They justified their owner-ship of the Indian lands by arguing that the Indians had abandonedthem and that the Californios had thus inherited the Indians’ sovereigntyover the land.
The most prominent of the 700 families who became landholders in Mexi-can California emerged as the political leaders in this period, as described ear-lier. In the far north, Mariano Vallejo, owner of Rancho Petaluma, was thepowerful comandante of the region, placed there to defend the north from Brit-ish and Russian encroachments. In Monterey, Juan Bautista de Alvarado andhis family periodically controlled local politics. The Santa Barbara district wasled by Pablo de la Guerra; Los Angeles by the Pico brothers, Andrés and Pío;and San Diego by Juan Bandini and José Antonio Carrillo. There were othernotables who contributed to the Californio legend, and some of them wereAnglo Americans who slowly began to discover the richness of the soil andmarried the Californio daughters.
The expansion of the ranchos, particularly the growing number of cattleand horses, put a severe strain on the native population. The grazing animalsconsumed vast amounts of grasses, nuts, and roots, which had been staplesin the diet of many Indian communities. In order to eat, many began toslaughter the free-ranging cattle and to raid settlements. This, in turn, pro-voked reprisals from the rancheros. Although the end of the mission systemfreed thousands of Indians from required labor, many were forced to hirethemselves out to the rancheros as vaqueros (cowboys) and farmers. Manyworked without wages but at least were able to gain food and shelter fortheir families. The natives became the mainstay of the Mexican labor forcein these years.
80 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
Environmental Changes
Environmental historians such as William Preston have noted that the intro-duction of livestock by the Spanish and Mexicans began to change the ecosys-tem of the state. The proliferation of cattle and horses led to periodicovergrazing as well as to the creation of well-worn trails on hills and in thevalleys. On Santa Catalina Island, goats introduced by the Spanish multipliedso greatly that they drove more than 48 animal and plant species to extinction.Adding to the pressures on the grasslands, native wild animals began to prolif-erate, mainly because the Indians who had previously hunted them were noweither living on wild cattle or living in the missions or pueblos. Periodic large-scale slaughters of cattle and even horses by the Mexican rancheros led to anexplosion in the grizzly bear population, which fed off the carcasses and refuse.Other changes during the Spanish and Mexican eras were wrought by foreignhunting. Otters, fur seals, sea lions, beavers, and minks were increasinglyslaughtered by Russian, British, and American hunters. The great demand fortheir pelts in Europe led to their near decimation. Finally, the introduction ofEuropean food crops led to environmental changes. Roughly 10,000 acres ofland were under cultivation by 1834, watered by irrigation systems that drewfrom dammed rivers and creeks. Along with corn, wheat, oats, and other grainscame the introduction of European weeds that quickly spread and competed
Pío Pico, his wife, and nieces, probably in the 1850s. Pico was the last Mexicangovernor and one of the largest rancho owners in California. What evidence is therethat Mexican Californios had different attitudes toward race than did most Americansof this era?
Portr
ait of
Gov
erno
r Pio
Pico w
ith hi
s wife
and n
ieces
, Univ
ersit
y of S
outhe
rn Ca
liforn
ia Lib
rarie
s and
Califo
rnia
Histo
rical
Socie
ty, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
restr
iction
s
The Rise of the Ranchos 81
with native plants. California’s declining Indian population, caused by theintroduction of European diseases, led to an increase in wild game and theproliferation of European plants and livestock. This changed the ecosystem,forcing Indians as well as native species to adapt to a new environment.
Social Relations in Mexican California
Political independence from Spain did not radically change the cultural andsocial patterns of Spanish California. Patriarchy continued to hold sway insocial relations and the family continued to be the primary social and politicalunit. Indians were still at the bottom of the hierarchy. Major changes in the27 years of Mexican administration included the creation of a landed classthat had pretensions of aristocracy and the opening up of California toincreased trade with foreigners. Both factors would undermine the olderSpanish colonial conventions and ideals.
The Growth of Town Governments
Town governments grew in the Mexican period as former soldiers and theirfamilies settled near the presidios where they had once served. Spain hadgiven the civilian population living in Monterey a pueblo government andlands in 1794. Monterey’s municipal government was occasionally oversha-dowed by the territorial government, as in the period from 1839 to 1840,when the centralist governor abolished the local town council. The populationsurrounding the presidio of Monterey was more numerous, including sevenmissions and the Spanish villa of Branciforte (Santa Cruz), with a total ofabout 1600 gente de razón by 1840. By the time of the U.S.-Mexican War,about 550 people lived in the town.
San Diego’s civilian settlement was located just downhill from the site ofthe first presidio. By 1834, the town finally had a sufficient population—400people—to qualify for pueblo status, with the right to elect local officials andto obtain a grant of land from the government. This lasted until 1838, when thedeclining population and political competition with Monterey resulted in theloss of their local government. In 1845, Governor Pío Pico confirmed SanDiego’s ownership of 48,000 acres of former mission lands, including water rights.It was the largest such concession ever given to a Mexican town in California.
San Francisco also was established as a pueblo government in 1834 afterachieving a sufficient number in population, probably about 200 individualsbetween the peninsula and Contra Costa. The settlement of Yerba Buena, thenucleus of modern-day San Francisco, grew as town lots were sold by thepueblo government out of its four square leagues of public lands, which had
82 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
been granted by the Mexican governor. From the beginning, the settlers of thisnew town were multiethnic and multinational, including Americans, English-men, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Mexicans, and native Californios. By 1840, YerbaBuena had 50 residents; 16 of them were foreigners.
In 1835, the military garrison at San Francisco was transferred north andthus Sonoma, another Mexican-era pueblo, was founded. In the town itselfthere were probably not more than 200 people, a mixture of Hispanicized mis-sion Indians and former soldiers and their families. Nearby was the Petalumahacienda of Mariano Vallejo, the comandante whose energetic policies of paci-fication of the northern Indians through alliances made it possible for morethan 80 ranchos to be established.
Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo was born in Monterey on July 4, 1807, andbecame a professional soldier during the Mexican regime, rising in rank andauthority to become comandante-general of California by 1838. Vallejo was incharge of the colonization of the frontera norte, the region north of San PabloBay and the Sacramento River. Vallejo was skilled at forming lasting allianceswith the local Indians, and more than 50 of the presidio soldiers in Sonomawere native California Indians. He was instrumental in helping to organizethe town governments of San Francisco and Sonoma. Much of the time hepaid for the expenses of the Mexican military out of his own pocket. Heopposed the Russian settlement at Fort Ross as well as the growth of Sutter’sFort in Sacramento. Vallejo also opposed Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado,who he thought was incompetent and lacking initiative. Partly because of hispublic dissatisfaction, Micheltorena was sent to replace Alvarado. In 1844, Val-lejo disbanded the military forces in Sonoma because he could no longer affordto pay them. Thereafter, he supported annexation by the United States evenafter being imprisoned by the Bear Flag rebels in 1846.
Californianas: Mexican Californian Women
Indian and Mexican women were largely responsible for the growth of adomestic Hispano-Indian culture and society in California. Under Mexicangovernment, the established patriarchal forms of life continued. The govern-ment and men considered women’s reproductive capacities most importantfor the success of the colony. Accordingly, women were expected to bearlarge families. Teresa de la Guerra, for example, had 25 children; FranciscaBenicia Vallejo had 16 children; and Angustias de la Guerra Ord had 11 chil-dren. Unfortunately, infant mortality was quite high, as was death from child-birth. Mexican culture accorded a woman status through her production ofchildren and women were thus valued within the family for their role aschildbearers.
In addition to childbearing, women played a key role in the Californioeconomy. They worked in the domestic production of clothes, soap, candles,and other household items. The wealthier Californianas supervised scores of
Social Relations in Mexican California 83
domestic servants and worked alongside them. Californianas, moreover, weretrained to ride horses from an early age. Some of the stereotypes about Mexi-can patriarchal society have to be modified when considering the female ran-cheras of California. On small ranchos, women and men worked side by side inthe many labors associated with farming and ranching. Fermina Espinosa, forexample, was the owner of Santa Rita rancho. Because her husband was not soinclined, she ran the ranch—riding, roping, and branding—in addition to bear-ing many children. On Rancho Sal-Si-Puedes, the four daughters of VicenteÁvila dressed like men and rode about the rancho doing the work of livestockraising—in addition to weaving blankets, churning butter, and making cheese.
Historian Rosaura Sanchez has studied many examples of female indepen-dence and agency in Mexican California and has warned against overgeneraliz-ing. Women were still subject to male authority. Arranged marriages were thenorm, especially among the wealthier classes. Single women were not free tochoose their own suitors, and elaborate rituals regulated courtship. The firstcommunications of love may have found their way around the watchful eyesof the parents, but their approval was necessary for meetings and marriage.Women were generally considered male possessions to be protected and con-trolled. Although women did have property rights and the right to divorce andfile lawsuits against their husbands, these rights were not commonly exercised.
One story that illustrates the many complexities of women’s status in MexicanCalifornia is that of Josefa Carrillo, daughter of Joaquin Carrillo of San Diego. In1829, she eloped with Henry Delano Fitch, an American merchant sea captain,thus becoming one of the first Californianas to marry a foreigner. While theaccount of this affair has been told a number of times by California historians,the narration she gave in 1875 at the age of 65 gives her version of events.
When Captain Henry D. Fitch made a call on the port of San Diego in1826, he was introduced to Josefa and fell in love. Within a year, he requestedher hand in marriage and her parents approved. Several years passed beforeCaptain Fitch agreed to become a Catholic and a Mexican citizen so the twocould be married. The marriage was scheduled for April 15, 1829, the day afterhis baptism. Halfway through the marriage ceremony, a message arrived fromGovernor Echeandía ordering the rites to cease, because the marriage was inviolation of a law prohibiting non-Catholics from marrying Catholics.
Henry and Josefa decided to elope, sailing south and eventually marrying ina Catholic ceremony in Valparaiso, Chile. A year later, Captain Fitch’s shipreturned to the San Diego harbor, and Josefa learned that her father consideredthe family dishonored by the elopement and had “promised to kill her on sight.”
Nevertheless, courageously, and determined to be either reconciled orkilled, Josefa went to beg her father’s forgiveness. Entering his study, shethrew herself on her knees and “in a humble tone begged for pardon, remind-ing him that if she had disobeyed him it had been only to cast off a hatedtyranny [Governor Echeandía] who overturned the laws and customs.” Herfather responded, saying, “I pardon you daughter, you are not to blame if our
84 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
governors are despots.” Josefa and her husband eventually went to Monterey,where Captain Fitch faced charges of forcible abduction, and he was sent toMission San Gabriel for three months. As a penalty for his crime, he wasgiven a penance of donating a 50-pound bell to the church at the Los Angelespueblo, and the couple was commanded to hear high mass with lighted candlesfor three días festivos, or special days.
This love story involved family honor, governmental intervention, andpaternal power. Josefa threw herself on her father’s mercy and cleverly politi-cized her actions so he could accept her return with honor. She succeeded inmanipulating the patriarchal system. The most important part of Josefa’s 1875narration, rendered in the most detail with the greatest passion, was not theinterrupted marriage, the elopement, or the trial, but rather her confrontationwith her father. Josefa may have been subject to male authority, but she knewhow to manipulate it to her advantage.
Mexican–Indian Relations
With the secularization of the missions, thousands of native Californians triedto return to the lives they had once known, fleeing inland and into the foothillsto join with remnants of their peoples or with other native groups. They soon
California vaqueros rounding up cattle. Widely praised for their skills as horsemen, the Californios rarely dismounted.
Ranc
h Sce
ne in
Mar
in Co
unty,
Edwa
rd Vi
scher
, Univ
ersit
y of S
outhe
rn Ca
liforn
ia Lib
rarie
s and
Califo
rnia
Histo
rical
Socie
ty, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
restr
iction
s
Social Relations in Mexican California 85
found that things had changed, even for tribes far from the missions. Numer-ous diseases had decimated their numbers, and the ecology of traditional gath-ering grounds had been forever changed by the grazing of Mexican livestockand the introduction of European plants. The cattle and even horses weretempting targets for hungry natives who had grown used to mission food. Con-sequently, native groups periodically raided outlying ranchos, and militaryretaliation inevitably followed.
Aside from the mission revolts (see Chapter 2), the most notable periods ofMexican–Indian violence took place in the 1830s in southern California, fol-lowing secularization. One memorable incident was an Indian attack in 1837on Rancho Jamul, located east of San Diego, and owned by Doña EustaquiaLópez, who lived at the rancho with her two unmarried daughters and youngson. A band of Kumeyaay assisted by some servants attacked the rancho, kill-ing the foreman, his son, and several others. The Indians carried off bothdaughters, Tomasa and Ramona, aged 15 and 12. They were going to kill themother and her little boy but, because of their pleadings, the Indians sparedthem. Instead, they stripped them naked and left, taking with them thelivestock and other valuables and burning the ranch houses. Several expeditionswent out from San Diego to try to recover the girls. Ransoms were offeredbut refused, and rumors later flourished that the girls had marriedIndian chiefs.
Later that year, in 1837, other bands of Kumeyaay planned to attack thepueblo of San Diego with the assistance of local servants. The plot was foiledwhen a loyal Indian told her mistress of the plan. Immediately, the militaryofficer in charge, Alférez Macedonio Gonzalez, rounded up the named con-spirators, all of whom worked as house servants for the local pueblo families,and forced them to confess. The following day, he took them to a nearby cem-etery and executed five of them by a firing squad. In the years that followed,fear of Indian servants and the possibility of revolt from within colored thenightmares of many Californios.
A large and uncounted number of former neophytes lived in quasi-peonage. In Los Angeles, Father Duran noted that 200–300 Indians lived asvirtual slaves, paying off debts that had been advanced to them for food,goods, or liquor. Every Mexican settlement had its floating population ofnatives who survived on the margins, working as occasional laborers or prosti-tutes, and sometimes even selling their children in order to eat. The lucky onesworked on the ranchos as servants, farmers, or vaqueros. They too were debtslaves and had to endure the racial pretensions of their masters. These Indianswere bound to the land by their indebtedness just as many Mexican peons onthe haciendas in Mexico during a later era. By custom, the natives had toremain at the rear of the church during mass, and they were buried in plotsseparate from the Californios. The Los Angeles ayuntamiento passed laws toensure that the local Indians did not live too close to the pueblo or pollutethe water of the local irrigation ditches.
86 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
At the same time, almost every Californio family could point to a servantwho had been raised with their own children and who was considered a mem-ber of the family or could, if they chose, remember how cousins and nieceswere related to the local Indian tribes by blood. As long as the HispanicizedIndians accepted a Californio paternalism and knew their place, theywere accepted within the patriarchal rancho system. There were real friend-ships and occasional bonds of marriage and compadrazgo (godparentage)between some Californios and the Hispanicized Indians. General MarianoVallejo’s Indian ally, Chief Solano, lived with Vallejo’s family in his old age,and the two were compadres, sharing their mutual misfortunes well into theAmerican era.
Immigrants and Foreigners
Alta California’s population grew slowly, but not nearly enough to challengethe native Indians’ demographic dominance. In 1820, at the beginning of theMexican period, there were perhaps as many as 3000 of Hispano-Indian stock,excluding the mission Indians. By 1848, at the end of the Mexican era, therewere probably about 7000 who considered themselves Californios. At the sametime, although the native population was declining due to deaths from diseases,they numbered probably more than 100,000 in 1846, most of them notHispanicized.
As David Weber pointed out in his study of this era, the Mexican govern-ment was losing its ability to defend its northern territories because of the lackof northward migration. Political instability in Mexico City made for changingpolicies regarding the frontier. Mexicans could not be induced to leave familyand town for the uncertainties of life on the frontier. Many were economicallyunable to afford such a journey, and many others were peons who were notfree to move even if they so desired. Moreover, the Spanish administrativementality had endured, making it difficult for individuals to strike off on theirown without governmental approval. Additionally, California was isolated fromMexico by the forbidding Sonora and Mojave Deserts, lands inhabited byIndians who had proven their dislike of Spanish and Mexican interlopers.
The Mexican government made one major effort to send new colonists toCalifornia, but it ended in disaster and discouraged further attempts. The Mex-ican government regarded the Russian colony at Fort Ross as a threat to itspolitical control of Alta California. Beginning in 1812, the Russian governmenthad established several small agricultural settlements some 90 miles north ofSan Francisco. Fort Ross (Rus or Russia) was the hub intending to supplygrowing seal and otter stations that the Russian-American Company hadfounded along the coast as far north as Alaska. To counter this threat, in1833, the government authorized José María Padrés and José María Híjar torecruit 204 Mexican settlers to go to California. The plan was for these new-comers to take possession of vacant mission lands. This, of course, antagonized
Social Relations in Mexican California 87
the Californios, who wanted those lands for themselves. The Californios werein luck, however, because en route, a change in the central Mexican govern-ment revoked the Padrés-Híjar commission. The expedition continued to Cali-fornia nevertheless and upon arrival, Governor Figueroa, a native Californio,refused to let them have the lands they had been allocated and ordered themto return to Mexico. Most of the colonists ignored this order and settledthroughout California, in the pueblos and on some lands in the Sonoma Valleygiven to them by General Vallejo. Members of the Padrés-Híjar expeditionbrought much-needed skills to California and were responsible for manyimprovements in local life, especially in the pueblos.
The Mexican government did not encourage foreign immigration to AltaCalifornia. After a decade of encouraging American immigration into Texas in1836, the foreigners revolted against the national government. This seemed tobe ample proof that this was an unwise policy. Nevertheless, foreigners didmake their way to this remote territory, many for commercial purposes. Bythe 1830s, the ranchos were developing a thriving trade in hides and tallowwith Yankee clipper ships, and hundreds of thousands of hides found theirway east to make shoes for the Anglo Americans and the English. Some ofthe sailors on the American and English ships chose to stay behind. AlfredRobinson, for example, stayed behind and married into the de la Guerra familyin Santa Barbara. His book Life in California (1846) described the native Cali-fornios in a sympathetic light. This was not the case for Richard Henry Dana,who also came on a clipper ship and later wrote his immensely popularaccount, Two Years Before the Mast (1840), in which he deprecated the Califor-nios as an “idle, thriftless people” who were “proud, and extravagant, and verymuch given to gaming.” Dana did, however, praise the lush environment andurged others to come to develop it. He wrote: “In the hands of an enterprisingpeople, what a country this might be!” Dana’s views had wide circulation in theEast and helped shape sentiments of Manifest Destiny.
The Americans were slow to find their way overland to California and thefirst ones who came entered illegally. In 1826, the fur trapper Jedediah Smithcame overland from Salt Lake into southern California. He was subsequentlyjailed in San Diego, Mission San José, and Monterey before being expelled forlacking a passport. Smith was the first American to cross the Sierra NevadaMountains and open a trail to Salt Lake. He was also the first Americanto open the coastal trade route from California to Fort Vancouver on theColumbia River. Among his greatest exploits, Smith blazed a trail across thedeserts of the American West—the first American to enter California bycrossing the Mojave Desert and the first to traverse the vast Great BasinDesert to return east.
In 1828, Sylvester and James Ohio Pattie, father and son, also fur trappers,arrived in San Diego after an exhausting overland trek from the ColoradoRiver. Governor Echeandía believed them to be spies for Spain and had themimprisoned. The father, Sylvester, died in prison but James, who had brought
88 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
with him a supply of smallpox vaccine, was allowed to leave the San Diego jailto inoculate the local population. Eventually, he traveled up the California coastand vaccinated 22,000 people. He returned home to New Orleans via Mexico in1830. Later trappers such as Ewing Young and Joseph R. Walker found newways of entering California from the east, developing trails that later immi-grants found useful.
By 1830, fewer than 100 foreigners were living in California, most ofBritish or American nationality. Under the Mexican Colonization Laws of1824 and 1828, territorial governors were allowed to grant lands to non-citizens. The regulations governing the procedures were sporadically—and notvery effectively—enforced. Despite the availability of free lands, few foreignerstook advantage of these laws in California. Most of the best lands were tied upin the missions until the secularization of the mid-1830s. Thereafter, theCalifornios used their family influence to gain most of the desirable properties.
In spite of their small numbers, the foreigners’ influence was felt to adegree that was out of proportion to their numbers. Many had settled in Cali-fornia because of their recognition of the rich opportunities for hunting, trap-ping, trading, and land acquisition. Others simply sought adventure or hadfallen in love with a beautiful Californiana. Most became partially Mexicanized,learning to respect the culture and the language and marrying the daughters ofimportant Californio landholders. As sons-in-law of large extended families,they had a stake in California’s future. One prominent example is WilliamE. P. Hartnell, an Englishman who came to California as a merchant in 1823,married into the powerful de la Guerra family in Santa Barbara, became a nat-uralized Mexican citizen, and received a large rancho land grant. In the 1830s,he won appointments to a number of official posts as a customs officer, ateacher, and a translator. In the American era, he served as the officialSpanish-language translator for the California constitutional convention.
Other foreigners participated in rebellions. In 1836, Isaac Graham, anAmerican settler, gathered a company of American riflemen to help JuanBautista Alvarado in his successful revolt against the government. Later, in1840, Graham and a few British settlers were arrested by Governor Alvaradoon charges of treason but were later sent to Mexico, where they were released.John A. Sutter was a Swiss immigrant who became important in the CaliforniaGold Rush. He came to California after having traveled to Santa Fe, Oregon,and Hawai‘i. In 1840, he received an 11-square-league (48,000 acres) grant ofland from the Mexican governor, and he set about building a fort at the junc-tion of the Sacramento and American Rivers. He employed local Indians aswell as Hawaiian Kanakas and purchased the movable property of Fort Rossfrom the Russians, including more than 40 cannon, to build his fort. Sutter’sFort became a mecca for the foreign community in California, particularly theAmericans, who began to enter California in larger numbers. Sutter begandeveloping local industries such as fur trading, wheat farming, and weaving,providing employment to anyone who wanted to work.
Social Relations in Mexican California 89
In 1837, a merchant named John Marsh immigrated to California fromIndependence, Missouri, after he had become bankrupt. Marsh claimed to bea medical doctor, having an A.B. degree from Harvard. This was sufficient,however, for him to get a license from the Los Angeles ayuntamiento. Marshtraveled north to San Francisco, and eventually purchased four square leaguesof land in what is now Contra Costa County, where he settled down to becomea ranchero. Marsh was active in writing letters back home urging more Amer-icans to come to California, suggesting that they could easily “play the Texasgame” and take over the Mexican province. As a result of these publicityefforts, Marsh’s friends in Missouri formed the Western Emigration Society in1841 and set about encouraging settlers to go to California. One of those whobegan organizing a wagon train of immigrants was 22-year-old schoolteacherJohn Bidwell.
Bidwell encouraged some 68 Midwesterners to join the first overlandwagon train of Americans to California. They set out from Sapling Grove, Kan-sas, on May 18, 1841. The elected captain of the group was John Bartleson, andthe expedition became known as the Bidwell-Bartleson party. They were guidedby a Jesuit priest, Father DeSmet, who was going to Oregon, and by an experi-enced mountain trapper who knew the route. In Idaho, about half the groupchose to continue on to Oregon instead of to California. One member of theexpedition mortally wounded himself with a gun and four others turned back.They had to abandon their wagons in the Sierra mountains and were reducedto eating mules and coyotes until they reached the California coast. After sixmonths, 32 men, a woman named Nancy Kelsey, and her baby staggered ontoDr. Marsh’s rancho. The Americans in the Bidwell-Bartleson party were illegalimmigrants, lacking passports, but Mariano Vallejo, the comandante of theregion, was convinced that they did not need this formality and he allowedthem to stay. Roughly five years later, some of these same Americans repaidthis kindness with insult when they supported Vallejo’s imprisonment andbacked an American military conquest of California.
The Bidwell-Bartleson expedition opened the door for other overlandimmigrant wagon trains. The same year, a group of 134 Americans leftSanta Fe, New Mexico, under the direction of John Rowland and WilliamWorkman. They followed a route called the “Old Spanish Trail” from NewMexico to southern California, a route that had been partially used by theSpanish and Mexican traders and was well known by the 1830s. After reachingLos Angeles, some of the Americans decided to become permanent residents.Workman, Rowland, and several other members of the expedition became ran-cheros in the Los Angeles region, and they, too, later supported the Americanacquisition of California.
Bidwell’s written account of the 1841 overland trip to California found itsway into the papers in the Midwest. Other accounts of California also enjoyedwide circulation, encouraging more immigration. California, however, had tocompete with Oregon as a destination, and, until the publication of Bidwell’s
90 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
journal in 1842, California was losing the publicity campaign. This was due tothe negative views of Thomas J. Farnham, an American who had briefly visitedCalifornia in 1840 and whose published letters criticized the Mexican govern-ment’s efforts to control immigration. Nevertheless, in 1843, several moreAmerican wagon trains found their way west to California. Joseph B. Chilesled 59 people into Sacramento via the northern route, and Lansford W.Hastings set out with 53 more from Missouri, although most of them decidedto go to Oregon instead. In 1844, Andrew and Benjamin Kelsey brought 36settlers overland following the by-then well-known trail, and Elisha Stevensand a large family of Murphys entered California with more than 50 settlers.The latter expedition was notable in that, for the first time, wagons were able tocross the Sierras. The next year, more than 250 Anglo American settlers madethe crossing or entered the San Joaquin Valley via Oregon.
The most famous of the overland expeditions to California before theU.S.-Mexican war was the Donner party. In early 1846, 87 men, women, andchildren left Springfield, Illinois, for California, following the established route.Instead of taking the trail that would have led them north of the Great SaltLake, they chose a shortcut. This route slowed them down, however, becausethey had to clear a trail for their wagons, and they lost some oxen in the pro-cess. Because of this delay, they arrived at the California mountains late in thefall and that year the snows came early. Soon, the Donner party found them-selves caught in the mountains without supplies for the winter. At a lake nearthe summit (later named Donner Lake), they camped in 10 feet of snow, with-out adequate firewood or food. Faced with sure death, a small group of 15 setout to try to reach Sutter’s Fort to get help. Only seven reached the San JoaquinValley after having killed and eaten their two Indian guides and several othercompanions. When the rescue parties finally reached the stranded pioneers,they found more evidence of cannibalism. Only 45 of the original 87 had sur-vived the ordeal. The Donner expedition became a macabre reminder of theperils of crossing the Sierras in the winter.
The same year as the Donner disaster, another group of immigrantsentered California by sea. These were 200 Mormon settlers led by SamBrannan. They had been sent by Joseph Smith to colonize the western outpostsof Desert, the proposed Mormon national state, which was expected to stretchfrom the Great Salt Lake to southern California. Earlier settlers had been sentto San Bernardino, near the Mexican settlement of San Salvador, to establish acolony. The Mormon settlers who came in 1846 increased the presence ofEnglish-speaking residents, laying the foundation for an eventual Americanconquest.
Among the foreigners, one of the most influential was Thomas O. Larkin,who came to California in 1832 and established himself as a leading merchantin Monterey. Unlike other Americans who settled before the 1840s, Larkin didnot marry into a Californio family and become a ranchero. He married anAmerican woman and remained a U.S. citizen while learning Spanish and
Social Relations in Mexican California 91
slowly amassing a fortune as a merchant. Later, he was appointed the U.S. con-sul general and acted as a confidential agent for President James K. Polk, reporting on British interest in California. He also secretly worked to convince influential Californios to secede from the Mexican Republic and join the United States.
It is estimated that by 1846, on the eve of the U.S.-Mexican War and the American acquisition of California, there were about 1300 foreign-born settlers in California. About three-fourths of them were Americans, and European nationalities were represented as well. Except for those who had become Mexi-can citizens in order to receive land grants, most were immigrants who had entered without due authorization from the Mexican government. Local offi-cials were only too glad to have new skilled workers, and they ignored the letter of the law. They did not fully realize that many of the new immigrants had no intention of assimilating into the Californio society. They did not learn Span-ish, rejected the Catholic faith, and brought their own families with them instead of intermarrying with the Mexican population. This contrasted with the scores of Mexicanized Americans who had settled prior to the overland migrations of the 1830s, men like Don Abel Stearns in Los Angeles, Henry
Cros
sing t
he Pl
ains,
by H
.W. H
anse
n, Un
iversi
ty of
South
ern C
alifor
nia Li
brar
ies an
d Cali
fornia
Hist
orica
l So
ciety,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn re
strict
ions
92 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
As this image illustrates, the overland journey to California was fraught with peril. In the left foreground a party comes across a ruined wagon, a dead ox or horse, and its equally unfortunate owner.
Delano Fitch in San Diego, John B. R. Cooper in Monterey, and Alephs B.Thompson in Santa Barbara. These men had married into Californio families,become Mexican citizens, and accepted Mexican society. But these individualswere also of lukewarm loyalty to the Mexican Republic, and most sided withthe Americans during the war that resulted in the conquest of California by theUnited States.
California and the World
Alta California took its first steps toward becoming a participant in the world’seconomy during the Mexican era, from 1821 through 1848. Trading ships fromthe United States, England, and France regularly called at California ports. Thehide and tallow trade with the eastern United States and Britain increased.Beginning in 1813 and slowly increasing every year, ships plied the Californiacoast laden with merchandise to trade for California hides and tallow. Most ofthe ships probably avoided paying port duties in Monterey, which amounted toa percentage of the cargo. Southern California led in the production of goodsfor export and San Diego, because of its port and climate, became the largesttrading area in California. Once on board, the tallow was traded in Mexico andPeru and the hides found their way to New England’s shoe and boot factories.The British attempted to compete with the Americans, establishing a tradingstore in Yerba Buena (San Francisco) run by the Hudson’s Bay Company. Butthis outpost could not begin to challenge the Yankees, whose clipper ships reg-ularly pulled into port. Visits by Russian, British, and American whaling shipsalso added to the Californio economy. These ships visited the California portsin search of food supplies, for which they traded manufactured goods.
Compared with other Mexican frontier regions, such as New Mexico andTexas, California had greater contact with other nations because of the relativeease of ocean communication and trade. Within a generation, the Californioshad established themselves as a province of private landholders—hacendadosand rancheros—where 500 landowning families dominated the Mexican soci-ety. In New Mexico, by contrast, very few private land grants were given duringthe Mexican era. Most people continued to live on Spanish land grants wheretitle to the land was vested in the community, not in the individual. Alta Cali-fornia’s Indian population was a ready source of cheap labor for the develop-ment of the thriving cattle industry, whereas the New Mexicans and Texans didnot have this benefit. For the most part, the Californios did not have to endurethe perils of hostile Indian attacks, which were more common in both Texasand New Mexico. Politically, the Californios enjoyed the same kind of regionaldemocracy as their frontier cousins through the ayuntamiento and alcalde sys-tems; they also had similar internal rivalries and factions based on family andregion. Texas had separated from Mexico after the Anglo American immigrant
California and the World 93
revolution in 1836, and thereafter the English-speaking Americans controlledthe former Mexican province. New Mexico and California, while leading suc-cessful challenges to Mexican centralism, escaped the violence and racism ofthe Texas rebellion. They remained part of the Mexican Republic and in con-trol of their own society.
Summary
In 1846, Mexican California was a pastoral society that was rapidly changingbecause of the changes set in motion by the secularization of the mission landsand the opening of the province to foreign trade and settlement. Few couldhave foreseen that within a few years, even more profound changes were tocatapult California into an entirely different era. On the eve of the Americanconquest, differing cultural traditions and visions competed for control ofCalifornia’s future.
The oldest customs were those of the native peoples, who had been deci-mated by disease and challenged in their customary territories. Those wholived away from the coastal regions and avoided contact with the Spanish andMexican colonists continued to live as they had for thousands of years. Evenwhile their physical environment changed, through the introduction of newplants and animals, they continued in their spiritual beliefs about the correctways to live. Others adapted to Mexican Catholic society by mixing their tradi-tional ways with those of the newcomers. They became acculturated to anddependent on their conquerors.
The Mexican, Spanish-speaking mestizos in California inherited a culturethat emphasized family honor, community and regional pride, and ethnic-racial hierarchy. For them, the land was less for profit than for possessionand dominance, a mark of the prestige of being an hidalgo, or nobleman. Theyounger Mexican Californians grew up nourished on ideas of popular democ-racy, free trade, and rationalism, inheriting an ideology of the American andFrench Revolutions as it was translated through Mexico. Progressive Mexicansbelieved that they could benefit from political and marital alliances with theAnglo Americans and had a positive view of the Americans’ contribution toCalifornia.
The English-speaking settlers in California were divided over their views ofthe future. Mexicanized Americans, like Don Abel Stearns, thought that Mex-icans and Americans could and should coexist in harmony for their mutualprofit, and that the Californios were willing students in the development ofthe region. The newer immigrants, those who had come overland by wagontrain in the 1840s, considered the Mexicans to be a lazy, thriftless people withfew redeeming graces. The Californios who owned the ranchos were obstaclesto progress, they thought, and the Californios’ Catholic faith was an anathema
94 CHAPTER 3 Mexican Californios: Conflict and Culture, 1821–1846
to these Protestant families. Many of them had absorbed a sense of ManifestDestiny, a belief in the inevitable expansion of the United States across NorthAmerica, often linked to a faith in the superiority and inevitable triumph of theAnglo American race over native peoples and Mexicans. The future, the Amer-icans thought, belonged to them.
Suggested Readings
❚ Chávez-García, Miroslava, Negotiating Conquest: Gender and Power in Cali-fornia, 1770s to 1880s (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2004). An in-depth examination of racial and gender relations in Mexican California.
❚ Haas, Lisbeth, Conquests and Historical Identities in California, 1769–1936(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990). A schol-arly yet readable analysis of the changes in ethnic identities among Indiansand Californios in southern California.
❚ Langum, David J., Law and Community on the Mexican Frontier: Anglo-American Expatriates and the Clash of Legal Traditions, 1821–1846 (Londonand Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987). The most thoroughanalysis of the Mexican legal system.
❚ Monroy, Douglas, Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Cul-ture in Frontier California (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Califor-nia Press, 1990). A new attempt to synthesize the new social history withCalifornia’s early history.
❚ Osio, Antonio María, The History of Alta California: A Memoir of MexicanCalifornia (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996). One of the firstsurvey histories of California written by a native Californio, and finally pub-lished after more than 100 years.
❚ Pico, Pío, Don Pío Pico’s Historical Narrative, Arthur P. Botello, trans.(Glendale, CA: Arthur Clark Co., 1973). An eyewitness account of manyof the major events of Mexican California, written by the last Mexicangovernor.
❚ Rosenus, Alan, General M. G. Vallejo and the Advent of the Americans(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995). An importantstudy of one of the key Mexican political figures of this era.
❚ Weber, David J., The Mexican Frontier, 1821–1846: The American South-west Under Mexico (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982).One of the best surveys to place California’s Mexican period in the contextof Mexican history.
Suggested Readings 95
CHAP
TER 4
War, Conquest, andGold: The AmericanEra Begins,1845–1855
Main Topics
❚ The War Between the United States and Mexico
❚ The Gold Rush
❚ California Transformed
❚ Summary
In the 1870s, Hubert Howe Bancroft, a publisher in SanFrancisco, set out to write a multivolume history ofCalifornia and dispatched assistants to interview the
Mexican residents of the state, who had important memoriesof the region’s history. Thomas Savage, one of Bancroft’shelpers, interviewed Doña Felipa Osuna de Marron. At the time,she had been a widow for 25 years. She had lived in Californiaas a Spanish and as a Mexican subject and vividly rememberedthe American conquest of her native town, San Diego.
In 1846, at the beginning of the war, she was married toJuan María de Marron, a rancher who had been appointed theadministrator of Mission San Luis Rey properties. Felipa wasat the former mission in the summer of 1846 when GeneralJohn C. Frémont and the American troops arrived, hoping tocapture Californio political leaders. The Americans questionedher about where her husband was and who else was at the mis-sion. Don Matias Moreno, the secretary to the California gov-ernment, was with Doña Felipa when the Americans appeared.
96
Even though she “greatly feared the Americans who werenot disciplined soldiers,” Felipa had the courage to quicklydisguise him as a sick cousin, fooling the Americans, whothen left. Once they had departed, Don Matias, who had rec-ognized his good friend Don Santiago Argüello who had beenriding with the Americans, sent a messenger to catch up withArgüello to tell him to return, so that he could join him. SoDon Matias changed sides because his friend had done so.
After this incident at the mission, Felipa went with her hus-band to their rancho in the backcountry; later, her husband senther alone to San Diego for safety. She recounted that in SanDiego, Don Miguel de Pedrorena, Don Pedro C. Carrillo, andArgüello, along with others, were allied with the Americans.The Californios who remained opposed to the Americans askedher husband to join them and he did so. Hoping to be reunitedwith his family, he joined Felipa and their children in the puebloof San Diego, which was then occupied by the U.S. Army. Soon
CHAPTER 4War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era
Begins, 1845–1855
1842 Francisco Lopez discovers gold in southern California
MAY 11, 1846 United States declares war on Mexico
JUNE 10, 1846 The Bear Flag Rebellion
JULY 2, 1846 American forces arrive in Monterey
AUGUST 13, 1846 Commodore Stockton occupies Los Angeles
SEPTEMBER 22, 1846 Successful rebellion against American occupation forces inLos Angeles
DECEMBER 8, 1846 Battle of San Pascual; Mexican victory over General Kearny
JANUARY 13, 1847 Surrender of Mexican forces at Cahuenga Pass
JANUARY 24, 1848 John Marshall discovers gold in Coloma
FEBRUARY 2, 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ends U.S.-Mexican War
JULY 4, 1849 Outbreak of anti-foreign violence in mining camps
SEPTEMBER 1, 1849 State Constitutional Convention meets at Colton Hall, Monterey
1850 Mariposa War begins; Humboldt Indians killed
APRIL 1850 California legislature passes the Foreign Miner’s Tax law
SEPTEMBER 9, 1850 California admitted as a state to the Union
1851 Joaquín Murrieta is reported killed by the California Rangers
1852 Antonio Garra leads rebellion and is executed in San Diego
97
they secured a safe conduct pass to leave town and they fledback to their rancho. There they found the Californios “furious”with her husband, accusing him of working as a courier for theAmericans. They threatened to shoot him, but instead confis-cated the family’s horses and took the family as prisoners toanother rancho. Almost every day, the Californio partisans des-cended on the rancho to take what they needed, driving DoñaFelipa and her family to the verge of starvation. As she recalled,“most of what we had was taken from us, including the cattlethat had been given to us by the mission fathers.”
When the war ended, the Californios continued to accuseFelipa and her husband of being pro-American, though theyhad never fought with the Americans. Their own countrymenfinally forced the Osunas to ask for protection from theAmerican commander of San Diego. Felipa and her husbandjourneyed from the rancho to town, and when they reachedthe outskirts her husband raised a white flag. They enteredthe pueblo, leaving their few remaining livestock outside.Felipa reported that some Americans in San Diego wereangry at the return of these Mexicans, whom they regardedas enemies, but the Americans did not punish them.
These episodes, recalled by Felipa Osuna in an interviewto Thomas Savage in 1878, reveal some of the schismsamong the Californios over the American conquest. As evi-denced in her testimony, the conquest of California was morethan a military one, extending to a struggle between friendsand families. The real conquest—the transformation of theeconomy and society—began a few months after the end ofthe war with the discovery of gold. Within a year, thousandsof immigrants from the United States, Latin America, Europe,and Asia overwhelmed the native peoples and the Californios.Virtually overnight, they created a new society—one that wasentirely alien to Felipa Osuna and her family.
Questions to Consider
❚ What was the role that Californios played in the warbetween the United States and Mexico?
❚ How are we to evaluate the Gold Rush as a social, politi-cal, and moral event, given its mixed effect on the tradi-tional cultures of California?
❚ What has been the legacy of the Gold Rush on people ofvarious ethnic and racial backgrounds?
❚ What is the larger meaning for California’s history of theeconomic and social changes brought about by theU.S.-Mexican War and the Gold Rush?
98 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
The War Between the United States and Mexico
On the eve of the war between the United States and Mexico, the northernstates and the provinces of the Mexican Republic were increasingly being influ-enced by American commercial interests. The opening of the Santa Fe Trail inthe 1820s and the increase in Yankee hide and tallow ships in Californiacreated new economic ties with the Mexican upper classes. In 1836, theAnglo Americans in Texas had waged a war of independence from Mexicoand declared themselves a sovereign state, the Lone Star Republic. The Texanslonged to join the United States but were prevented from doing so until 1845because of opposition from northerners, who feared adding another slave state.In the interim, the Texans carried on a thriving trade between their ranches incentral Texas and Louisiana. In 1842, they unsuccessfully tried to conquer NewMexico to add its lands to their new republic. Finally, in 1845 the United Statesadmitted Texas to the Union as a slave state, with the Texans asserting thattheir southern boundary was the Rio Grande. Mexico, on the other hand,pointed out that the historic boundary between Texas and the province ofCoahuila had always been the Nueces River. The friction between these twoclaims provided the spark that eventually led to an armed conflict betweenU.S. and Mexican troops in 1846.
There had been other rebellions in Mexico’s northern provinces. In 1837,the lower classes in New Mexico led a rebellion against the Mexican govern-ment’s centralizing administration, seeking more autonomy for their villagegovernments. The Mexican upper classes soon crushed this rebellion. But theytoo had their grievances with the Mexican government, primarily its strict traderegulations. The merchants and other wealthy people of northern New Mexicogrew to depend on the manufactured goods brought to them over the Santa FeTrail. The value of goods brought overland from St. Louis increased every year,and Hispano trading families in Santa Fe grew rich. Meanwhile, the upperclasses knew from past experience that the unstable Mexican governmentwould not be able to preserve their interests.
The Californios were also dissatisfied with the Mexican government(see Chapter 3) and had deposed several Mexican governors, replacing themwith their own native-born hijos de país. The rebellion of 1836, which placedJuan Bautista Alvarado in power, increased the self-confidence of Californiolandholders that they could control their own affairs. They were growingwealthy from the hide and tallow trade, much of it illicitly conducted withAmerican, British, and French ships, and some of them talked openly aboutseparating from Mexico and joining the United States.
Though the upper classes in the Mexican north were growing more andmore economically dependent on the Americans, and some of them werecontemplating political separation, the vast majority of the more than 100,000Mexican citizens who lived on the frontier, including Hispanicized Indians,
The War Between the United States and Mexico 99
were opposed to being forcibly annexed by the United States. They valued theirindependence and cherished their culture. When the war came, most realizedwhat was being lost, and they fought back.
Manifest Destiny
In May 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico. Though the causesof this conflict were many, perhaps the most important was the spirit of expan-sionism called Manifest Destiny. Thousands of Anglo Americans believedit was God’s will that they move west and north across the entire NorthAmerican continent, occupying the lands of the Mexicans and Indians andcasting them aside in the process. As John O’Sullivan, editor of the DemocraticReview and popularizer of the term “Manifest Destiny” wrote in 1845, “theAnglo-Americans alone will cover the immense space contained between thepolar regions and the tropics.” For most, however, Manifest Destiny had aneconomic dimension, justifying a more efficient use of natural resources bythe industrious Anglo-Saxons. Mixed in with this sentiment of justifiableeconomic conquest were attitudes of the racial superiority of the Anglo Ameri-can people. Walt Whitman, the poet, expressed this view in 1846 when hewrote, “What has miserable inefficient Mexico—with her superstition, herburlesque upon freedom, her actual tyranny by the few over the many, whathas she to do with the peopling of the new world? With a noble race? Be itours to achieve that mission.” Or, as a writer for the New York Evening Postput it in 1845, “The Mexicans are Aboriginal Indians, and they must share thedestiny of their race.”
Beginning with Andrew Jackson’s presidency in the 1830s, successiveAmerican administrations had offered to purchase California from Mexico inorder to give the United States a window on the Pacific and to fulfill thenation’s destiny. Mexico had repeatedly refused these offers. In 1845, PresidentJames K. Polk sent John Slidell to make yet another offer to purchase Californiaand to settle a dispute over the boundary between Texas and Mexico. TheMexican government refused. President Polk offered as justification for hisdeclaration of war on Mexico the fact that the Mexican government rejectedSlidell’s offer of $40 million for the purchase of California. There were other,more immediate, causes as well. Texas had been annexed as a state in 1845, butthe Mexican government did not accept the Rio Grande as the southernboundary of Texas. In the spring of 1846, Mexican troops attacked ZacharyTaylor’s troops on what they believed was their own country’s soil. PresidentPolk claimed these skirmishes were proof of a Mexican invasion of the UnitedStates. On May 13, 1846, he asked Congress for a declaration of war. In his warmessage, he recalled the failed attempts at negotiating grievances between thetwo countries and blamed Mexico for starting the war. “As war exists,” heargued, “and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act ofMexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and
100 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests ofour country.” Though the declaration of war passed by a large vote in theCongress, there were opponents. Some southerners, including John C. Calhoun,feared that a war with Mexico would result in renewed conflict over slavery inthe territories and would admit to the Union a new class of non-whitecitizens—a dangerous precedent for the slaveholding south. Some northernersopposed the war because they viewed it as a conspiracy of slave owners tryingto acquire new lands to expand their “peculiar institution.” Some of them,including Henry David Thoreau and Abraham Lincoln, also opposed the waron moral grounds, since, in their view, the United States was clearly the aggres-sor nation.
An important factor in the agitation for war was the desire of manyAmerican expansionists to annex California. The value of California harborsfor the China trade and the threat of possible British or French occupation ofthis area combined to heighten interest in acquiring not only California, but allof the territory between California and Texas—the present-day states of NewMexico and Arizona and parts of Nevada, Utah, and Colorado—as well. In1844, presidential candidate Polk had listed the acquisition of California asone of the objectives of his presidential administration.
The Californios had been aware for some time of the expansionist designsof the Americanos. The mistaken capture of Monterey by Commodore Thomasap Catesby Jones in 1842 sounded a clear warning of the expansionist objec-tives of the United States. The U.S. consul in Monterey, Thomas Larkin, hadbeen sending letters to Washington discussing the possibility of annexationwith the cooperation of progressive Californios and American émigrés whoshared the belief that their political and economic independence would bestbe guaranteed by the United States. In 1845, President Polk commissionedLarkin as a secret agent to convince the Californio leadership to break awayfrom Mexico and join the United States. Larkin noted that both MarianoVallejo and General José Castro were predisposed toward independence fromMexico and union with the United States. But, in the spring of 1846, Polk’sstrategy of acquiring California through peaceful intrigue disintegrated, a casu-alty of agitation for war and the violent actions of Americans in California.
Frémont and the Bear Flaggers
John Charles Frémont, whose father was a French émigré and whose motherwas the daughter of a prominent Virginian family, grew up with a burningdesire to be famous. He married Jessie Benton, daughter of Thomas HartBenton, a powerful U.S. senator. Frémont, like his father-in-law, sought toadvance his career by promoting western expansion. In 1842, 1843, and againin 1845, Frémont led expeditions across the Rockies into California andOregon, earning for himself the name “Pathfinder.” In the winter of 1845–46,Frémont, by then commissioned as a lieutenant in the Army Corps of
The War Between the United States and Mexico 101
Topographical Engineers, entered California with a group of 62 men and ahowitzer cannon. They camped near Monterey. Ostensibly, he was on a map-ping expedition, but even today the real purpose of his mission is unclear. His-torians have debated whether Frémont was on a secret presidential mission toaccomplish the conquest of California. No hard evidence, however, has everbeen found to prove that he was part of a plot to separate California from Mex-ico. Perhaps his actions in California during the early months of 1846 were hisown initiatives and not directed by secret orders. In any case, his subsequentactions did assist the American military conquest of California.
When Frémont arrived in California in the spring of 1846, he told GeneralCastro, the military commander of the north, that he was on a scientific expe-dition. Castro, however, suspected otherwise and ordered Frémont and his mento leave the province. For three days Frémont hesitated. He had his men fortifytheir positions atop Gavilan Hill near Monterey and defiantly raised the Amer-ican flag. But after several days of consulting with Oliver Larkin, the U.S. con-sul in Monterey, and seeing the Mexicans prepare for an attack, Frémont wiselydecided to remove his troops from the area and to heed Castro’s orders. Heand his men slowly withdrew from California, marching toward Oregon.Upon their reaching Klamath Lake, Lieutenant Archibald Gillespie arrivedfrom Washington, D.C., bringing letters from Senator Thomas Hart Benton.Some historians suspect that Gillespie may have also brought oral instructionsfrom President Polk himself, namely, to assist in the impending conquestof California by arms. We will never know what was said, but soon afterGillespie’s arrival Frémont ordered his men to march back to California. InMay, he camped near present-day Marysville, a short march from Sutter’sFort. In the days that followed, small groups of Americans came to Frémont’scamp and told him of rumors that General Castro was preparing an army toexpel all Americans from California.
On June 8, acting on rumors of a possible Californio military actionagainst the American settlers at Sutter’s Fort, Frémont sent a message to Wil-liam Ide, one of their leaders, suggesting that they come to his camp for pro-tection. On June 10, some 12 or 14 Americans led by Ezekiel Merritt launcheda revolt against the Mexican government, capturing approximately 170 horsesthat were being driven from Sacramento to Santa Clara for use by GeneralCastro’s troops. They now had a choice—either be horse thieves or revolution-aries. They chose the latter. They released the Mexicans who were leading thehorses, telling them to tell Castro that the Americans were in possession ofSonoma and New Helvetia (Sutter’s Fort), and then they returned to Frémont’scamp with the horses. Ide remembered that Frémont had encouraged the horseraid and presented to the American settlers a “plan of conquest,” which hewould support but not participate in directly. The horse thieves then setout for Sonoma, the residence of General Mariano Vallejo, one of the mostpowerful Californios and a man who had already voiced his support forAmerican annexation.
102 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
In the early morning hours of June 14, 1846, 33 rough and dirty men des-cended on Vallejo’s home and forced their way into his parlor, demanding thesurrender of his command of the Mexican military forces in the region. JacobP. Leese, Vallejo’s brother-in-law, acted as an interpreter. The mob slowlylearned that Vallejo was actually an ally, but they wanted a surrender neverthe-less. Negotiations dragged on and Vallejo, with typical Californio hospitality,broke out the aguardiente (brandy). The mob proceeded to get drunk, andafter a while someone put together a homemade flag, a grizzly bear with ared star on a white field. William Ide declared their intention to break awayfrom Mexican despotism and establish a republic, along the lines of Texas in1836. With their flag, the proclamation of independence, and a surrender doc-ument, the Bear Flaggers marched to Frémont’s camp with their prisoners—Vallejo, his brother Salvador, Leese, and Victor Prudon, a French resident ofSonoma. Then, with Frémont’s men as an escort, they proceeded to Sutter’sFort, where Frémont assumed responsibility for the prisoners. In the few daysafter the capture of Sonoma, the Bear Flaggers had also killed three Californiosin a skirmish near San Rafael, and the Mexican army had executed two Amer-icans near the Russian River. Frémont, by his words and then through hisactions, joined the rebellion. Within a few weeks, his unofficial actions gainedthe approval of the U.S. government, as news reached California of the decla-ration of war with Mexico. The Bear Flaggers were then incorporated into theU.S. Army.
Occupation and Resistance
Congress declared war against Mexico on May 13, 1846, but news of the wartraveled slowly. Commodore John D. Sloat, in charge of the U.S. Navy’s PacificSquadron, had orders to occupy the California harbors in the event of war.Upon hearing of the war declaration, he ordered his ships to sail into MontereyBay, on July 2. He did not immediately capture the town, however, remember-ing the earlier embarrassment of Commodore Jones. He waited five days, untillearning of the Bear Flag Rebellion. Fearing a British move to seize California,he raised the American flag over the customhouse and announced to the star-tled populace that “henceforward California will be a portion of the UnitedStates.” Sloat reassured the Californios that they would benefit from beingpart of the United States, and he called on General Castro and Governor PíoPico to surrender. On July 23, because of ill health, Sloat turned over his com-mand to Commodore Robert F. Stockton, a politically ambitious naval officer.Stockton immediately commissioned Frémont and Gillespie as officers in thenewly formed California Battalion, composed of Frémont’s company of engi-neers plus a contingent of former Bear Flaggers.
The bulk of the fighting in the conquest of California took place in thesouth. In the summer of 1846, General Castro and Governor Pico joined forcesin Los Angeles to await the American advance, but they soon concluded that
The War Between the United States and Mexico 103
they were hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. Both leaders departed forMexico to seek reinforcements. Meanwhile, Frémont and Gillespie sailed forSan Diego and on July 29, after some brief resistance, occupied the town.Californios still controlled the surrounding countryside and continued toharass the occupiers.
Commodore Stockton marched south from Monterey, and following askirmish his troops occupied Los Angeles, on August 13, 1846. After issuinganother proclamation stating that California was now officially part of theUnited States and promising to respect Mexican political institutions andlaws, Stockton and Frémont returned north and left the occupation of LosAngeles in the hands of Gillespie and about 50 soldiers.
What followed was a wave of Mexican Californio resistance against theAmerican invaders. In Los Angeles, the American troops entered privatehomes and took household goods. Gillespie enforced a strict curfew and for-bade Californios to meet in groups. Resentment grew until finally an uprisingtook place on September 22, 1846, led by José María Flores and Serbulo Varela.Several hundred Californios surrounded the American fortified position andCalifornio leaders issued El Plan de Los Angeles, calling on all Mexicans tofight against the Americans who were threatening to reduce them to “a condi-tion worse than that of slaves.” Gillespie, with only 50 men in his command,saw that his situation was hopeless, and on September 29 he signed the Articlesof Capitulation. The Americans were then allowed to leave the Los Angelesdistrict and march to San Pedro. Soon after that, the new Californio governor,José María Flores, declared California in a state of siege, secured loans to payfor a war, and began to recruit more troops.
For the next four months Los Angeles remained in Californio hands, andtheir military forces also managed to reoccupy San Diego, Santa Barbara, SantaInés, and San Luis Obispo. From Los Angeles, Flores sent Francisco Rico, Ser-bulo Varela, and 50 men to recapture San Diego; this was done without firing ashot in October 1846. They held the town for three weeks until October 24,1846, when the Americans recaptured the town after a brief battle. Accordingto one eyewitness, the Americans hauled down the Mexican flag, but before itcould touch the ground, María Antonia Machado, wife of a local ranchero,rushed into the plaza to save it from being trampled. She clutched it to herbosom and cut the halyards to prevent the American flag from being raised.
In their military forays against the American troops, the Californios hadthe advantage of knowing the terrain and of being superior horsemen. TheAmericans had superior weapons and formal military training, but the Califor-nios used guerrilla tactics and effectively won several victories. The Californiolancers won battles at Chico Rancho (September 26 and 27, 1846), DominguezRancho (October 8), Natividad (November 29), and finally at San Pascual(December 8).
The Battle of San Pascual was the bloodiest battle fought in California andwas both a victory for the Californio forces and evidence of their determination
104 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
to resist the American conquest. Early in December, Andrés Pico and a force of72 Californios lay in wait for the Americans, who were rumored to beapproaching from the east. A large body of American troops under GeneralStephen W. Kearny had, in fact, entered California after marching overlandfrom New Mexico. Kearny’s men numbered 179, including several DelawareIndian scouts led by Kit Carson and a few African American servants of theofficers and mule drivers.
Early in the morning of December 6, 1846, the American force attacked theCalifornio camp in the Indian village of San Pascual. During the charge, theAmericans became strung out in a long file, with those on stronger mules andhorses far outdistancing those on tired mounts. The few gunshots exchangedwere in this first charge, as the Californio troops met the early arrivals some dis-tance from their camp. The Californios raced away, allowing themselves to bechased for about three-fourths of a mile. They then turned and charged theAmericans with their lances. It had been raining occasionally for several days,and the Americans’ gunpowder was damp and unreliable, forcing them to fightwith their sabers. The Californios were armed with long lances and were expertat using them to slaughter cattle. In the hand-to-hand combat, the Californioshad the advantage of superior mounts, weapons, and battle preparation.
Only about half of the American force was actually involved in the battle.The others were in reserve, guarding the supplies and baggage. The Ameri-cans were unfamiliar with their newly issued carbines and had trouble load-ing these guns in the dark and cold. The two groups fought most of thebattle—about half an hour—in the dim light and fog. During the battle, theCalifornios captured one of the American cannons. Finally, the Americans
After orchestrating the Bear Flag capture of Sonoma, John C. Fremont led attacks against Californios in San Diego and along the coast from Monterey to San Luis Obispo.
“John
Char
les Fr
emon
t (18
13-1
890)
” by P
olitic
al Gr
avey
ard i
s lice
nsed
by CC
BY 2.
The War Between the United States and Mexico 105
brought up another howitzer, firing at the Californios and causing themto retreat.
Nineteen American soldiers were dead on the field of battle. Two more diedlater from their wounds. Kearny himself suffered three lance wounds andtemporarily relieved himself of command. The Californios had 11 wounded,and one of their group, Pablo Véjar, was taken prisoner. Some of the Americandeaths may have been from friendly fire in the dim light and confusion. Onlyone American was killed by a bullet.
General Kearny later wrote that the battle of December 6 had been a“victory” and that the Californios had “fled from the field.” One U.S. soldier,however, wrote that the Americans had been saved from decimation by theCalifornios’ capture of the American howitzer—an act that made the Califor-nios “consider themselves victorious, which saved the balance of thecommand.” Later, at the court-martial of General Frémont, Kearny admittedthat a rescue party from San Diego had saved them from disaster. Generallythe Navy officers, headed by Stockton, considered the Battle of San Pascual adefeat for the U.S. Army. Of course, the Californios considered this engage-ment a victory, and news of it spread throughout the district.
A month later, on January 29, 1847, another overland army arrived in SanDiego. This was the Mormon Battalion, commissioned by the U.S. Army tosurvey a wagon road between Santa Fe and San Diego. The 350 soldiers trav-eled more than 1000 miles on foot but arrived too late to participate in the finalbattles of the war in California. Their numbers augmented a small contingentof Mormons who had settled in southern California near San Bernardino.
California Indians and the War
During the Mexican War, some California Indian groups increased their raidson the Californio ranchos, taking advantage of the weakened defense of theMexican settlements. The Californios thought the Americans were behind theincreased Indian depredations, but the majority of the attacks were probablythe work of opportunists who took advantage of wartime chaos. In the earlymonths of the war, though, California Indians did join the Americans. WhenCommodore Stockton organized his march in San Diego to recapture LosAngeles from the Californio insurgents, more than 100 Indians formed hisrear guard to protect the U.S. Army from possible attack. Frémont recruited asmall number of local Indians to join his men as he marched from Monterey toSan Luis Obispo. And Edward Kern, the American commander at Sutter’s Fort,recruited 200 California and Oregon Indians to help secure the north and toprepare for the reconquest of southern California.
A major tragedy involving the natives and the Californios during the warwas the Pauma massacre in southern California. A few days after the Battle ofSan Pascual, 11 Californio men and youths took refuge in an adobe house onRancho Pauma, owned by José Antonio Serrano. While they were there, they
106 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
were tricked into allowing themselves to be captured by Luiseño Indians led byManuelito Cota. The Indians took the men as prisoners to Warner’s Ranch.There they consulted with a Mexican named Yguera and William Marshall, anAmerican who had married the daughter of a local Indian chieftain. After a shortcaptivity, the captives were tortured to death by thrusts of red-hot spears. Laterrumors strongly implicated Marshall in the murders; he hated one of the prison-ers, José María Alvarado, who had successfully courted Doña Lugarda Osuna,once the object of Marshall’s affections. Marshall may have suggested that theIndians would be rewarded by the Americans for disposing of the Californios.
Not all Indians supported uprisings against the Mexicans. Within days of thecapture of the Californios, a force of natives from San Pascual who were loyal tothe Mexican cause set out to rescue the captives, but they arrived too late. Afterlearning of the massacre, a punitive force of 22 Californios immediately set outwith a force of friendly Cahuilla Indians. They ambushed a Luiseño force, killedmore than 100, and took 20 captives, who were later killed by the Cahuillas. Themassacre of the Californios at Rancho Pauma illustrated both the persistence ofnative animosities toward the Mexicans and the possible manipulation of Indianhatreds by the Americans. News of this massacre, along withmemories of previousuprisings and knowledge that the Indians vastly outnumbered the Californios andMexicans, may have worked to demoralize the Californio resistance movement.
Peace
Despite the Californios’ valiant though somewhat hopeless resistance againstthe American invaders, the American forces had recaptured all of southernCalifornia by the winter of 1847. Following the defeat of the last Californioarmy near Los Angeles, Andrés Pico signed a surrender agreement atCahuenga Pass on January 13, 1847. Elsewhere in the Southwest, however,resistance continued. In New Mexico, the Taos Indians, in alliance with someof the Hispano families, rebelled against the American occupiers, killed theAmerican military governor, Charles Bent, and recaptured some of the townsin northern New Mexico. On January 24, 1847, a Hispano-Indian army of 1500met the Americans at La Cañada near Santa Fe, New Mexico, and weredefeated. The Americans marched on the town of Mora and destroyed it,then marched south to surround Taos Pueblo, where the remnants of the resis-tance had entrenched themselves. In the days that followed, more than 150defenders were killed and their leaders were captured. Fifteen were tried andconvicted of conspiracy, murder, and treason in a display of mock justice.This marked the end of armed resistance in the Southwest.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
In Mexico, the fight against the American invaders killed tens of thousands ofsoldiers and civilians in massive clashes of armies, at first in the north, nearMonterrey, Mexico, and then in the Valley of Mexico. By January 1847, the
The War Between the United States and Mexico 107
U.S. Army, commanded by General Winfield Scott, occupied Mexico City andwaited to hear the results of peace negotiations. Pressed by European creditors,lacking money to pay their own troops, wracked by internal rebellion, and fac-ing the occupation of their principal cities, the Mexican government had littlechoice but to sign a treaty of peace, giving in to the Americans’ territorialdemands in exchange for the removal of troops from their homeland. TheTreaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the war, was signed in a town nearMexico City, across the street from the shrine to the patron saint of Mexico,Our Lady of Guadalupe, on February 2, 1848. Among the provisions in thetreaty were those specifying the new boundary between the two nations asstarting “one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the Portof San Diego” and running east to the Colorado River, then east following theGila River and an as yet undefined latitude line to the Rio Grande. TheMexican provinces of California and New Mexico now lay within the UnitedStates. Articles VIII and IX of the treaty gave assurances regarding the propertyand citizenship rights of the Mexicans in the newly conquered territories.Article VIII specifically promised to protect the rights of absentee Mexicanlandholders and to give U.S. citizenship to all Mexicans who wanted it. ArticleIX promised that Congress would give citizenship “at the proper time” and thatthe Mexicans “in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the freeenjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise oftheir religion without restriction.” Finally, the treaty transferred more than500,000 square miles of Mexican territory to the United States.
The final ratified version of the treaty omitted Article X, which had con-tained stronger language protecting land rights, namely, that “all grants of land
General Andrés Pico, brother of PíoPico, commanded the Mexican troopsat San Pascual. He later signed theTreaty of Cahuenga in 1847 ending thehostilities in California. After the war,he became a successful politician serv-ing the California state Senate in 1859.What does this 1855 portrait revealabout Andrés Pico’s Mexican identity?
Photo
graph
ic po
rtrait
of An
dres
Pico
, Univ
ersit
y of S
outhe
rn Ca
liforn
ia Lib
rarie
s and
the C
alifor
nia
Histo
rical
Socie
ty, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
restr
iction
s
108 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
made by the Mexican government or by the competent authorities, in territo-ries previously appertaining to Mexico ... shall be respected as valid, to thesame extent if said territories had remained within the limits of Mexico.” Thedeletion of this article proved fatal to the future of the Mexican landholders inCalifornia. In lieu of the deleted article, the final treaty included the Protocol ofQueretaro promising to respect land grant titles, but the United States SupremeCourt ultimately invalidated it.
The U.S.-MexicanWar awakened new nationalist impulses withinMexico andeventually produced a reform movement led by Benito Juárez in the 1850s. In theUnited States, the Mexican cession provoked a new and heated debate over slaveryin the newly acquired territories. This played a major role in the outbreak of theU.S. Civil War in 1861—the bloodiest conflict in American history.
Within the conquered territories, there were competing visions regardingthe future of the territory. The California tribes outnumbered the whitesdespite the influx of hundreds of American soldiers. Most natives remainedunaffected by the war, particularly those living on their traditional homelandsaway from the settled coastal regions. A few had joined the Americans asscouts and guides during the conflict. Even fewer capitalized on the war to set-tle old grievances against the Mexicans. Native peoples who had become His-panicized and who worked on the ranchos and in the pueblos now foundthemselves with more aggressive masters, the Americans. Indian laborers werestill the backbone of the agricultural and ranching industries, and the newAmerican masters inherited a dependence on this labor force.
The Divided Mind of the Californios
On the eve of the American era, the Spanish-speaking Mexicans in Californiawere divided in their attitudes about their status as Americans. Some, likeMariano Vallejo or Juan Bandini, were optimistic about their future under anAmerican regime that they thought would bring political stability and increasedcommercial opportunities for all. It was impossible for them to envision howmuch their traditional way of life would change. For now, they saw whatseemed to be a new opportunity for their enrichment. Others, like Pío Pico,who had been allowed to return to California, or Felipa Osuna de Marron inSan Diego, viewed the American occupiers with great suspicion. They felt surethat the conquest meant more than just the transfer of political sovereignty, forthey were aware of the differences between the two cultures and knew that theycould not coexist easily. Finally, there were the young men who had foughtagainst the Americans in various battles or who almost immediately felt theoutrages of racism as the Americans took over their houses and lands. SerbuloVarela, leader of the recapture of Los Angeles in 1847, along with SalomonPico, Juan Flores, and scores of other ex-soldiers, became outlaws rather thansubmit to the Americans. In subsequent decades, their violent actions inresponse to the American occupation became the source of legend.
The War Between the United States and Mexico 109
It soon became apparent to the Californios that the new American mastersbelieved in their own racial and cultural superiority and that they regarded themestizo landless classes as little better than Indians. The conflicts between thesetwo groups became evident as thousands of new immigrants began floodingnorthern California, attracted by the discovery of gold near Sacramento.
The Gold Rush
In 1842, Francisco Lopez discovered gold in San Francisquito canyon in south-ern California. For several years, hundreds of gold miners trekked north fromSonora to work the mines there. They scoured the riverbanks in a 20-square-mile area. Mining the deposits depended on water, which diminished in quantityas the number of miners increased. By 1843, about 2000 ounces of gold had beentaken out of the canyon. While gold continued to be mined in subsequent years,eventually it played out. This first California Gold Rush paled in comparison tothe impact of the discovery of gold on January 24, 1848.
Gold! The Discovery of 1848
James W. Marshall, an employee of John Sutter, was building a sawmill on theAmerican River at a place called Coloma. Sutter had employed about 50 formermembers of the Mormon Battalion, who had drifted north from San Diego,along with a group of Indian laborers. While they were cutting a ditch to pro-vide water for the mill, Marshall noticed a few gold-colored flecks. He collectedthem over a four-day period, then hurried to Sutter’s Fort to consult with Sut-ter. Together, they read an encyclopedia entry on gold and performed primitivetests to confirm whether or not it was the precious metal. Sutter concluded thatit was, in fact, gold but he was very anxious that the discovery not disrupt hisplans for construction and farming. At the same time, he set about gaininglegitimate title to as much land near the discovery as possible. Although Suttersought to keep his discovery a secret, word leaked out when he sent CharlesBennett to Monterey to secure title to the land and its mineral rights. Bennetttraveled as far as Benicia, where he bragged about the discovery of gold at alocal store. Then, in San Francisco, he confided with acquaintances who hadexperience in gold mining. Meanwhile, Samuel Brannan, a former Mormonleader who owned a store near Sutter’s Fort, found out that local workerswere paying for supplies with small quantities of gold dust. The Mormonworkers gave him a tithe in gold and when Brannan returned to San Franciscohe publicized the news, running through the streets with a bottle of golddust in one hand and waving his hat shouting, “Gold! Gold! Gold from theAmerican River.” Nevertheless, the importance of this discovery was not imme-diately appreciated. As late as May 1848, San Francisco newspapers were blasé
110 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
about the possibility of a gold field somewhere on the American River. By June, however, the fever caught hold.
Hundreds of Californios and American settlers quit their ranchos and jobs and raced to the new diggings. San Francisco, San José, and Monterey became ghost towns overnight. Stores selling pans, picks, shovels, and other mining implements did a tremendous business, and prices rose accordingly. Luzena Stanley Wilson, who came with her husband and family to the Gold Rush country, remembered selling her freshly made biscuits for five dollars each. Sol-diers, prisoners, politicians, ministers—young and old—all abandoned their families and occupations to set out for the diggings.
As fate would have it, the Mexican government had ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo a few months before the confirmation of a gold strike in California. News of the discovery reached northern Mexico in the summer of 1848, and hundreds of Sonoran miners immediately headed for Alta California. They had experience in gold mining, unlike the Anglo Americans and foreign-ers. In the fall of 1848, roughly 6000 miners, many of them Sonorans, entered California and set up mining camps along the American River. The first
Thing
s as T
hey A
re, H
enry
Serre
ll & S.
Lee P
erkin
s Lith
& Pu
b, 18
49, L
ibrar
y of C
ongre
ss, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
re
strict
ions
The Gold Rush 111
A grim view of conditions in the California goldfields and a critique of the Polk administration that led the U.S. into war with Mexico.
American miners to arrive knew nothing about gold mining and learned theirmining techniques from the Mexicans. At first, life in the diggings wasgenerally orderly and peaceable. Alonzo Delano, one of the so-called 48ers,remembered that at that time “property was safer in California than in theolder states.” Bancroft, the publisher and historian from San Francisco, could
PACIFIC OCEAN
San FranciscoStockton
SonomaSacramento
MarysvilleAuburn
Monterey
MariposaJamestown
Whiskey FlatAngels Camp
Columbia
PlacervilleColoma
Poker Flat
Sawyers Bar
Happy Camp
Trinidad
Downieville
Nevada CityGrass Valley
Sonora
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
MEXICO
OREGONIDAHO
0 100 Mi.
0 100 Km.50
50
Map 4.1 Principal Mining Towns During the Gold Rush
112 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
only find two cases of robbery in all of the mining camps in 1848. But thissoon changed.
The Argonauts
News of the gold strike in California rapidly spread, first to Hawai‘i, Oregon,and Utah, and then to South America, Australia, China, the eastern seaboard ofthe United States, and Europe. By December 1848, President Polk publiclydelivered a speech to Congress confirming the gold discovery and interpretingit as a confirmation of God’s favor for the war against Mexico. During 1849,about 100,000 immigrants from all over the world, but especially from the east-ern United States, flooded northern California, forever changing the destiny ofthe state. Overnight, it seemed, San Francisco was transformed into an interna-tional city, a transfer point for miners and mining supplies. The pastoral life ofthe Californios in the north declined while the rancheros of the south enjoyed abrief flare of prosperity, as their cattle increased in value with the demand forfood from the mining camps and the growing population of the north.
By 1850, fully one-quarter of California’s population was foreign-born;many were Latin American or Mexican. The Gold Rush was an internationalaffair, attracting people from around the world. Chinese immigrants came,mostly after 1849. They were young men from southeastern China—from bigcities like Hong Kong and Canton as well as from the countryside. In order topay for their trip to the “Gold Mountain,” as they called California, these menindentured themselves to Chinese companies that, in turn, sold their labor toChinese mining operations. Laboring long hours, with very low pay, theChinese miners were virtual slaves until their debt was repaid, which oftentook years. By 1852, more than 25,000 Chinese were living in northernCalifornia, in the mining camps and in San Francisco.
Two-thirds of the new population attracted to California during the GoldRush came from the eastern United States and were a multiethnic group ofScottish, French, Irish, German, and British descent. They called themselvesthe Argonauts, after the mythical Greek adventurers who traveled to the edgeof the known world in search of a fabled golden fleece. In 1849 and subsequentyears, they came to California by boat and wagon, on horseback, and even onfoot, enduring grueling and dangerous passages.
This mass migration to California is one of the most documented popula-tion movements in world history, with hundreds of letters, diaries, and remi-niscences penned along the way and after arrival at the mines. Those whochose to travel by boat had to pick between two routes. One was by shipfrom New York to Panama, and then by smaller ship up the fever-infestedChagres River, and then by mule over the mountains to the Pacific port ofPanama. There they transferred to another ship bound for San Francisco.This voyage could last from two to three months depending on connections.The longest delays were usually on the Pacific side of the Panamanian isthmus,
The Gold Rush 113
where, in the early years, there were rarely enough ships to carry the numberswho thronged the port seeking passage.
The other route to California by sea involved going around Cape Horn, thestormy southern tip of South America. The demand for travel “around thehorn” stimulated a boom in the construction of clipper ships. Built for speed,these remarkable vessels were long and thin and carried huge amounts of sailon three tall masts. Accommodations were small and narrow, with ceilings solow that many had to bend over when moving about. One of the most notableclippers was the Flying Cloud, which on its first voyage took only 89 days tosail from New York to San Francisco. Those choosing one of the sea routes hadto contend with shipwrecks, shipboard diseases of all kinds, and, if theyselected the Panama route, death by yellow fever or malaria.
The overland route was the cheapest way to get to California, costingbetween $100 and $200. Nevertheless, it was still relatively expensive. (Forcomparison purposes, the daily wage of a New York City laborer in 1850 wasless than one dollar.) Anthony Powers of Green Spring, Wisconsin, borrowed$125 to finance an overland journey to the gold fields. Another group fromMonroe, Michigan, collected $2500 to pay for 10 people to make the journey.Though it was the most time-consuming route, it was the one that most of theAmerican migrants chose.
The California immigrants of the 1840s had already blazed several trails, andothers had been in use by the Spanish and Mexicans for centuries. The southernroute—the Santa Fe Trail—ran from the Missouri River through what is nowKansas, to New Mexico, and then followed the Spanish trail from New Mexicoto southern California. This route had the advantage of avoiding the snows ofthe Sierras. A more direct way was the northern route, the choice of mostbecause it was better known to English speakers due to guidebooks that hadbeen published. An estimated 25,000 immigrants followed the northern route,leaving towns along the Missouri River as soon as the spring grasses were longenough to provide food for their oxen and horses. They followed the Platte Riverwest into what is now southern Wyoming, crossed the Rocky Mountainsthrough a series of passes, and came down in the Great Basin near Salt Lake.From there, they went west to the Humboldt River Valley, across the desert tothe Sierras, and, once over those forbidding peaks, to Sacramento. The entirejourney from Missouri to California lasted from four to five months, dependingon the route selected and the luck they encountered.
The dangers faced by the 49ers going to California on the overland trailincluded death by cholera and mountain fever and by starvation and dehydra-tion. Very few died from Indian attacks, which were rare. For the most part,the native peoples were content to watch in bemusement as wagon after wagonof “white eyes” drove themselves westward with fanatic zeal, abandoning manyof their prized possessions in the process, in order to lighten their load. MilusGay, an overland Argonaut, described one scene: “Such destruction of propertyas I saw across the Desert I have never seen. I should think I passed the
114 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
carcasses of 1200 head of cattle and horses and a great many wagons—harnesses—cooking utensils—tools—water casks.... We also saw many men onthe point of starvation begging for bread.” The phrase “seeing the elephant” described the excitement of new adventure but also referred to the delusional state that many experienced on the trail.
Once in California the 49ers, as they called themselves, began trying to strike it rich. They labored to separate sand from gold along riverbeds by sloshing gravel in a pan filled with water, knowing that the heavier gold dust settled to the bottom. The miners soon developed more elaborate systems, but all of the techniques still involved washing sand or dirt with water and permitting the heavier gold to settle out. Wooden cradles rocked gravel and water back and forth to separate the gold. Sluices ran a stream of water over a long wooden trough partially filled with gravel. Using such methods, miners took out more than $200 million worth of gold between 1848 and 1852. To put this into per-spective, this amount of gold was roughly equal to the total value of all gold and silver money in circulation in the entire nation at the beginning of the Gold Rush, and is equivalent to almost $2 billion dollars today.
By mid-1850, the most easily available gold was gone. The miners contin-ued to use pans and long toms (sluices), but they found less and less gold to
Gold
Mine
rs in
El Do
rado
, Cali
fornia
betw
een 1
848 a
nd 18
53, L
ibrar
y of C
ongre
ss, pu
blic d
omain
, no
know
n res
tricti
ons
The Gold Rush 115
As illustrated by this image, even placer mining had negative environmental impacts including water diversion, soil erosion, and the siltation of streambeds.
reward their labor. Some fortune seekers began to return home or to follow thelure of quick riches to new gold strikes elsewhere. Others turned to more elab-orate methods of mining. By one estimate, a typical gold seeker averaged20 dollars of gold in a day in 1848 but only two dollars’ worth by 1853. Asminers moved farther and farther from streams, and as streams diminished inlate summer, miners found they had to expend greater efforts diverting waterto their claims. By 1855, miners or water companies had built more than 4000miles of artificial waterways, mostly wooden channels called flumes.
One technique to get more gold was to use water diverted from rivers andstreams for hydraulic mining. Reasoning that the gold dust in the riverbeds hadwashed there from the mountains, gold seekers began to look for gold in thefoothills. Rather than digging through tons of soil and gravel over the prehis-toric streambeds, gold seekers began to use water under pressure to blast itaway. They developed huge water cannons that could blast away fully growntrees and giant boulders and reduce an entire hillside to bedrock. After bom-bardment by water cannons, sand and gravel were suspended in water and runthrough sluices, permitting the gold to settle to the bottom and the tailings(small rocks of no value) to flow into nearby rivers. This hydraulic methodwas far more expensive than placer mining, but by 1870, 22 percent of allgold produced in California was obtained by hydraulic mining.
As thousands and then tens of thousands of gold seekers converged on theGold Country, they found a region far removed from traditional structures oflaw or political authority. The military governor was far away, and Mexicanpolitical authority had never extended into the foothills of the Sierras. Goldseekers formed their own political authority, first by developing rough guide-lines regarding claims. A gold seeker could pre-empt a likely spot by “staking aclaim,” but the consensus was that the claim was valid only if the area it cov-ered could be worked by a single person and only if someone was actuallyworking it. Most mining camps elected someone to arbitrate their differences;this person was often called by the Mexican term, alcalde.
Such people functioned as unofficial justices of the peace, trying wrong-doers and prescribing punishment for crimes. Few such magistrates had muchtraining in the law, if any, and many gained reputations for eccentric decisionsor for blatant discrimination against foreigners, Californios, or Indians. Ifsomeone were accused of a serious crime, most mining camps carried out asemblance of a jury trial, though usually with little reference to establishedlegal principles. Without sheriffs or jails, sentences for theft were usually eitherbanishment (often with a shaved head), flogging, branding, or mutilation (suchas cutting off the thief ’s ears). Murder and horse theft were usually punishedby hanging. One of the first such hangings came in January 1849, in a campthereafter known as Hangtown (later renamed Placerville). Though some pun-ishments resulted from a process much like a jury trial, others were simply alynching in which a mob, sometimes drunken, acted as judge, jury, and execu-tioner in one.
116 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
Though such rough-and-ready justice may have seemed appropriate in theabsence of legally constituted political authority, some mining camps continuedin such fashion even when a properly authorized judge or sheriff was present.In 1851, in the town of Sonora, for example, a mob overpowered the sheriffand lynched a self-confessed thief. Soon after, the miners formed a vigilancecommittee. Unlike a lynch mob, which was by definition spontaneous andpoorly organized, a vigilance committee was organized, claimed to representleading citizens of the community, and justified its existence by claiming thatthe officials responsible for punishing wrongdoers were either corrupt orincompetent or both. Members of such a committee were called vigilantes.Led by their committee of vigilance, Sonorans banished an American thiefand a French counterfeiter, and flogged and banished four Mexicans (two forcounterfeiting, one for horse theft, and one for stealing a pistol) and one Aus-tralian (for theft of a mule). Committees of vigilance sprouted in a number ofother mining camps in the early and mid-1850s. Lynch mobs also continued totake justice into their own hands. In 1855, for example, in Columbia, a mobtook an accused murderer out of the hands of the sheriff and hanged him.Such actions were not limited to mining communities—both Stockton andSacramento experienced lynchings in 1850.
The new society that was emerging spread outwards from the gold fields ofthe north, which encompassed an inland area in the San Joaquin Valley,bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east, and joined by the riversthat drained into the San Francisco Bay. Hundreds of settlements sprang upovernight with names that reflected their cultural tenor: Hangtown, Placerville,Spanish Diggings, Sonora, and El Dorado (see map on page 112). The town ofSacramento grew up to provide food and supplies to the mining district. Simi-larly, the port city of Stockton, almost 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean butlocated on the navigable San Joaquin River, grew to feed the new population.San Francisco, of course, owed its sudden urbanization to the Gold Rushmigrants and economy. Overnight its population went from a few hundredsouls to more than 40,000 in the last months of 1848. Within a short time itwould become the cultural and economic capital of the state.
Camp Life
The rough-and-tumble life in the mining camps that sprang up along the banksof the rivers in northern and central California challenged the morals and stan-dards of living that many miners brought with them from the east. Boredomand homesickness typified the early months in the camps, as the miners beganto miss the creature and family comforts of home. Edmund Booth of Iowawrote in 1850 that “Cal. is a world upside down—nothing like home comfortsand home joys.” He was referring to the fact that in the gold fields the normalrelations between genders, races, and classes were all mixed up: Indians, Afri-cans, and Mexicans shared tents, food, and amusements with Australians,
The Gold Rush 117
Frenchmen, and Yankees. Men did the cooking and washing, and the bound-aries between respectable women and prostitutes seemed irrelevant. Men whohad never cooked or done domestic work before found themselves planningtheir menus around trips to the distant store. They worried about infestationsof lice and fleas and feared diseases such as scurvy and dysentery. New YorkerHoward Gardiner recalled that he and his fellow miners “lived more like pigsthan human beings.” Those few miners who were fortunate to have a womanin their dwelling bragged to the others about their food and comfort.
To relieve the monotony of camp life, the miners created leisure activities thatthey might have avoided back home. Sometimes it seemed that everyone was eagerto, in the words of Charles Davis, “join the ranks of Satan and spend their Sabbathswith little or no restraint.” Leisure activities associated with sex, liquor, gambling,and other amusements filled the gaps in miners’ lives. In these activities—in thefandango hall, the bordello, and the saloon—the mixture of races and classes pre-vailed. Gold Rush diaries describe the moral anguish miners felt, mostly after thefact, of drunken sprees and of sexual adventures with Indians and prostitutes. Inthe southern mines where the Latin Americans and Frenchmen worked, the min-ing camps had a more normal balance of the sexes and morals. Yankees from thenorthern mines frequently went south for a visit just to see women dancing. OtherSunday amusements included bull and bear fighting, where the two animals werechained together and prodded to fight to the death. Most mining campshad arenas built to accommodate the crowds who assembled for the blood sport.Occasionally, bullfighting took place when a brave individual ventured into thering. In Sonora Camp, Enos Christian recalled seeing a female matador whoturned out to be a man dressed as a woman for the amusement of the crowd.
A few sought out the comforts of religion, although churches were few andfar between. In the southern mines, rude Catholic churches sprang up in whicha diversity of nationalities and classes gathered. For the Protestant miners, theoccasional preacher and denominational church provided the chance to sharethe Christian gospel and, perhaps, view a member of the opposite sex.
Historian Susan Lee Johnson called the Gold Rush the “most demographi-cally male event in human history.” By 1850, California men outnumberedwomen by more than 10 to one. Two years later, the ratio fell to seven to oneand by 1860 it was two to one. It was not until the turn of the century that abalance between the sexes was achieved. The first women to live and work inthe mining camps were California Indians who worked as prostitutes or heldother jobs in the saloons and temporary brothels that sprang up. They werefollowed by Sonoran Mexicans such as Rosa Feliz, companion of the legendaryJoaquín Murrieta, or Latin Americans such as Chilean Rosario Améstica, aprostitute who sailed north with a shipload of men. Some women were refor-mers. Elizabeth Gunn, who was married to the editor of the Sonora Herald,wrote home about the evils of the fandango and prostitution, and soon herhusband’s paper published criticisms along those lines. Lorena Hays wroteand published under the pen name Lenita, to criticize the immorality of the
118 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
mining camps, even while identifying with the Mexican and Chilean miners.Wives and prostitutes thus were uneasy companions in the mining camps. Sin-gle entrepreneurial women also found their niche. Gold dust acted as a lure towomen such as Rose Cartier, a Frenchwoman who owned a saloon in the min-ing camp of Sonora, where she employed other women who had emigratedfrom France and Europe.
Married women who traveled to the gold towns and settlements with theirhusbands endured many hardships and sufferings. Mrs. John Berry arrived inthe camps in 1849 with her husband and lived in a wagon and then a tentthrough the cold, wet winter. She wrote: “The rains set in in early November,and continued with little interruption until the latter part of March....Sometimes on a morning I would come out of the wagon (that is & hasbeen our bedroom ever since we left the States) & find my utensils lying inall directions, fire out & it pouring down. . . .” Women tried to set up house-keeping among the dirt, fleas, dust, cold, and wet. Louisa Clappe came toCalifornia with her husband in 1850 and then traveled to the mines with himand wrote a series of 23 letters to her sister, which she signed “Dame Shirley.”These “Shirley Letters” were published serially in 1854 and again in 1933 andare perhaps the most vivid and detailed firsthand description of women’s dailylife in the diggings. She wrote of the log cabin that they called home and of thefew other women who lived nearby. Her detailed observations of the people shemet and the mining camps are a classic in Gold Rush literature. Through it all,Louisa remained indefatigable and optimistic. Sometime in 1852 she wrote,“My heart is heavy at the thought of departing forever from this place. I likethis wild and barbarous life; I leave it with regret.”
A characteristic of the gold camps noted by Dame Shirley was the tolera-tion of prostitutes, which she termed “compassionated creatures.” Most of themen of the Gold Rush were white men and most of the prostitutes were Mex-ican, Chinese, Chilean, or Indian. Historian Al Hurtado found that morethan three-fourths of the prostitutes in Sacramento were women of colorand more than half of them were Chinese. The southern mines, especially,had a multiracial, multinational female population including AfricanAmericans and Indians.
One of the most infamous tragedies of the Gold Rush era was the hanging in1851 of Josefa, the only woman ever lynched in California. Josefa, also known asJuanita (her last name is not known), lived in Downieville with her boyfriend, José,a Mexican gambler. During the night of a Fourth of July celebration, a minernamed Fred Cannon drunkenly fell into the couple’s humble shack and brokethe door. The following day, when José and Juanita demanded payment for thedamage, an argument ensued and Cannon called Josefa a prostitute. Soon after,in a rage, she killed him with a bowie knife. That afternoon, a mob assembleddemanding that she be hanged and voting to execute her at four o’clock. Beforeshe died, Josefa calmly arranged the noose around her neck so that it would nottangle her hair and coolly told the assembled rabble that she would do it all overagain. She had defended her honor. Cannon had called her a prostitute.
The Gold Rush 119
Women worked for high wages doing domestic chores for the miners,including cooking, sewing, and laundry. Other women owned and operatedstores, restaurants, saloons, and gambling and boarding houses. Some unmar-ried women lived with miners in an attempt to avoid the violence and insecu-rity that was a constant fact of female life. But respectable women did not stayunmarried for very long. And those who came to the mines as married womenwere under great temptation to find new husbands among the wealthy, or toseek less abusive, more attentive mates.
Because of the scarcity of women, divorce statutes drafted by the Californialegislature were more liberal than elsewhere. Divorce became more commonfor women than for men and, beginning in the 1880s, California led all otherstates in the proportion of divorced to married couples.
Nativism and Racism
One of the negative legacies of the Gold Rush was the wave of anti-foreign senti-ment that emerged, directed especially toward non-European immigrants. TheLatin Americans, especially the Peruvians, Chileans, and Mexicans, along withthe French and Chinese, became favorite targets of political agitation and vio-lence in California. Most Mexican and Latin American miners established them-selves in the southern mines, including the California counties south of theSacramento River. Most of the anti-Mexican violence occurred here. Mexican,Californio, and Latin American miners helped teach the newly arrived Americanshow to extract the metal from streambeds and ore deposits. But the gratitudethey received for these lessons was short-lived. Resentments about the pre-sence of these foreigners soon erupted into violence, especially in 1849, whenthe Americans arrived in larger numbers. Americans were angry that many ofthe best claims had been staked out already by the “Sonorans,” as they called allMexican miners. The fact that many of the mining towns, like Sonora, Hornitos,and Stockton, had become multilingual in business dealings grated on theEnglish-speaking Americans, who regarded this development as unpatriotic. OnJuly 4, 1849, acts of violence broke out against the foreigners, beginning withattacks on Chilean merchants and neighborhoods in San Francisco and thenspreading to the mining camps. In the camps near Stockton, Yankee minersousted the Chileans by creating an impromptu code of laws forbidding foreignersfrom mining. Intimidation and violence followed, and the Anglos confiscated theChileans’ property and sold it at public auction. In November 1849, a vigilantegroup attacked Mexican miners along the Calaveras River, ousted them fromtheir claims, and “fined” each miner an ounce of gold. A few days later, 16Chileans were rounded up and accused of murder. They were given a summarytrial, and then three were lynched. Similar acts of violence occurred throughoutthe diggings during the first few years of the Gold Rush.
Many native-born Mexican Americans, who were now citizens of theUnited States under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, fell victimto these anti-foreign prejudices and laws. One estimate places about 1300
120 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
Californios (formerly Mexican citizens, now U.S. citizens) in the gold regionsin 1848, with a similar number returning in 1849. In 1849, the military gover-nor of California, General Persifor Smith, responded to nativist fears that for-eigners were taking all of the gold out of the mining regions. He announced his“trespass” orders, prohibiting non-citizens from mining gold on public prop-erty. He appealed to Americans to help him enforce his policy. Using thisorder as a pretext and with some protection from the military, Anglo Americanminers robbed and harassed foreigners. After one riot, French immigrantminers were driven from the gold camps. Irish and Australians became targetsof vigilante violence in San Francisco and elsewhere in the diggings. Chineseminers attracted more and more attention by nativists and many were drivenout of the gold camps by late 1851.
In April 1850, the California legislature responded to the pressure from the49ers and passed the Foreign Miner’s Tax, which required all non-U.S. citizensto pay a tax for the privilege of mining gold. The cost was $20 per month—anamount so high as to be prohibitive to all but the most successful. The lawapplied to all non-citizens, but tax collectors enforced it most consistently forminers whose language or race made them distinctive—Chinese and LatinAmericans especially, but also the French and Germans. The tax was repealedthe next year, due partly to complaints by gold country merchants that it wasdestroying their businesses. In 1852, the legislature passed a new ForeignMiner’s Tax of four dollars per month, later changed to three dollars. Anotheramendment, in 1855, exempted from the tax all those who declared their inten-tion to become citizens. This meant that the tax was limited almost entirely toChinese miners, because they alone could not qualify for an exemption—California’s constitution limited citizenship to whites only. Until a law in 1870voided the tax, it provided a major source of state revenue. Of the $5 millioncollected over 20 years through this tax, Chinese miners paid an estimated$4.9 million. Leaders of the Chinese community voiced their opposition tothese discriminatory laws and others that were proposed, but as non-citizensthey had little political influence in Sacramento. Nevertheless, members of theChinese community protested by writing letters to the governor and to SanFrancisco’s newspapers. They also hired a lobbyist, a Presbyterian ministernamed A.W. Loomis, to fight against discriminatory laws, in particular the onerestricting their testimony in court. By hiring lawyers and collectively fundingcourt challenges, the Chinese won court victories challenging the ForeignMiner’s Tax and other prejudicial laws.
The Legendary Life of Joaquín Murrieta
One of California’s first folk legends was Joaquín Murrieta, a person whose lifeis a subject of controversy, speculation, and myth. According to the story, Mur-rieta was a Sonoran miner in Murphy’s Camp whose brother was lynched andwhose wife was raped and murdered. What followed was Joaquín’s war ofrevenge against the Americanos. For a year, Joaquín and a band of Mexicanos
The Gold Rush 121
and Californios terrorized the state. As a result, the state of California createdthe California Rangers, a special mounted police force, modeled on the TexasRangers. The state government placed a price of $1000 on Murrieta’s head.
In 1851, after several months of searching the foothills for Murrieta,Captain Harry Love and the Rangers surprised a group of Mexican vaquerosin Cantua Canyon. The Rangers killed several Mexicans, and Captain Loveclaimed that one of them was Joaquín. To prove his claim, he chopped offMurrieta’s head and brought it back for identification. Even though Love gath-ered a number of testimonials certifying that the head was indeed Joaquín’s,some doubted that Murrieta had been killed. To this day, many believe thatJoaquín escaped and returned to his home in Sonora, Mexico.
Thus, Joaquín Murrieta became one of California’s first legendary figures.The first fictional interpretation of his life, based on some historical fact, wasThe Life and Adventures of the Celebrated Bandit Joaquín Murrieta, by JohnRollins Ridge, published in 1854. Ridge was a Cherokee Indian whose nativename was Yellow Bird. In Ridge’s hands, Joaquín became a vicarious avenger,a Robin Hood of the Sierra. Joaquín’s adventures soon reappeared in othernovels and histories and rapidly became an international legend. As late asthe 1960s, Joaquín Murrieta’s story was an inspiration for resistance againstAmerican cultural and economic control. In revolutionary Cuba and Commu-nist Russia, Murrieta appeared in textbooks and in life-size statues as an exam-ple of the revolt of the Third World against imperialism. The world-famousChilean poet Pablo Neruda composed an epic poem in which Murrieta was aChilean who stood for the struggle of all Latin American people to be free ofNorth American hegemony. At the same time, however, Anglo American nove-lists, history buffs, and some academics treated Murrieta as an overly romanti-cized, bloodthirsty, bandit-murderer, or as a fictitious character whose life ismore properly a topic of literary study. This contradictory and ambiguous leg-acy springs from Gold Rush California.
California Transformed
The military conquest of California took less than six months but the social,economic, and cultural conquest was propelled by the Gold Rush and the sub-sequent economic development of the state. The cultural and social conquest ofCalifornia’s oldest inhabitants continued over several decades as the newcomersasserted their dominance over the people and the land.
Conquest of the Californios
The Californio landholders also paid a price for the development ofCalifornia during the Gold Rush. In 1846, roughly 10,000 Mexicans, includ-ing Hispanicized Indians, lived in California. Within a few years, they were
122 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of newcomers, most of whom had littlelove for dark-skinned peoples with their strange language and culture. TheCalifornios swiftly lost control of the courts and the government and soontheir land.
Within a generation, the Mexican Californians lost political influence andbecame an impoverished minority, victimized by racist attitudes and laws. In1855, for example, the state legislature passed laws to control the Mexican pop-ulation. A Sunday Law imposed fines ranging from $50 to $500 for engaging in“barbarous or noisy amusements,” which were listed as bullfights, cockfights,horseraces, and other traditional Californio amusements. At the same time,they passed what was widely called “The Greaser Law” to fine and jail unem-ployed Mexicans who were considered vagrants.
Conquest of the Indians
The modernization of California’s economy came at a cost, largely borne bythe native and Mexican peoples, whose way of life was seen by the new immi-grants as standing in the way of progress. The California Indians, who hadbeen subject to the Spanish and Mexican attempts to change them, now fellvictim to the new immigrants, most of whom thought of Indians as laborers,obstacles to settlement, or dangerous savages. During the early years of theGold Rush, retaliatory massacres occurred when Indians occasionally killedwhites—even though such killings may have been provoked by outragesagainst Indians. At Clear Lake in northern California in 1849, for example,135 Indians were killed in retaliation for the killing of two white men whohad enslaved local Pomo Indians. Indian massacres took place sometimesjust because the Indians were living in the vicinity. In 1850, more than 60Humboldt Indians—men, women, and children—were killed as they slept intheir village because they occupied property thought to be rich with gold. Thestate legislature appropriated millions in funds to pay for militia operationsagainst Indians.
When the Indians fought back, their resistance was termed “war” by theAmerican settlers. In 1851, the so-called Mariposa War resulted when theIndians of this northern California band fought to preserve their land and suc-ceeded in defeating the local militia until reinforcements arrived from outsidethe region. During that conflict, American settlers first entered Yosemite Valleywhen they pursued the Indians into their stronghold. That same year, a rebel-lion broke out in southern California. This uprising was the result of an alli-ance between several Indian bands, perhaps protesting the American taxationof their lands and resenting the treatment of the Cupeño Indians by Juan JoséWarner. Their leader was Antonio Garra, an ex-neophyte Indian who soughtan alliance with disaffected Californios. The Californios did not support hisrebellion, however, and the state militia captured Garra with the help of rivalIndian bands. He and six of his associates were tried and executed.
California Transformed 123
Economic Transformation
Without a doubt, the Gold Rush was one of the great turning points in Cali-fornia’s history, redefining the demographic, economic, and social future of thestate. The lure of precious metal drew hundreds of thousands of immigrants toCalifornia and assured the rapid domination of the English-speaking peoples.By 1850, the population of California exceeded 150,000, allowing the territoryto apply for admission as a state. California gold helped finance the north inthe U.S. Civil War, stimulated the construction of the first transcontinentalrailroad, and encouraged the rapid agricultural and commercial developmentof the state. It is estimated that in the 25 years following the discovery atColoma, miners extracted more than one billion dollars’ worth of gold fromthe mines—the equivalent of more than $100 billion at the end of the 20thcentury.
The mining industry stimulated demand for food and materials, which inturn stimulated home industry and the creation of new cities and towns. Sacra-mento and Stockton owed their creation to the Gold Rush, and San Franciscobecame a major international metropolis. The newcomers and their exuberancecreated a boom mentality within the state. The expectation of quick riches,opulent displays of wealth, a fluid and open society, and colorful and eccentricindividuals all became early hallmarks of California’s American era. Californiabecame the western leader in banking, agriculture, stock raising, industrialdevelopment, and trade—a lead that has lengthened over the decades.
The Golden State
During the hectic first two years of the Gold Rush, the military governedCalifornia, but the American residents protested this situation and held massmeetings to demand that a civil government be organized. Bowing to publicpressure, military governor General Bennett Riley issued a proclamation callingfor the election of delegates from 10 districts. These delegates were to assemblein Monterey on September 1, 1849, to work on constructing a state governmentfor California. They were elected by popular vote on August 1, 1849. The resultwas a group as diverse as the territory. Of the 48 men who assembled in ColtonHall that fall, eight of them were native Californios, six were foreign-bornEuropean immigrants, and 13 had been living in California less than a year.Deliberations were in English, with translators available for the Spanish-speaking delegates. Votes on many of the issues split along north-south lines.The southern delegates wanted territorial status or, if that were not possible, tosplit California in two. They lost on both counts. The delegates were unani-mous in wanting to exclude slavery from California and also to exclude freeAfrican Americans from the state. Many ex-slaves feared the threat of havingto work as indentured servants in the mines. Finally, the provision specificallyexcluding them was deleted in order to get Congress to speedily approve
124 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
statehood. In dealing with this issue, delegates relied on the precedence of free states in the east.
With regard to citizenship rights, native Californios were aware that many Mexican Californios who looked like Indians faced the prospect of racial discrimination. Ultimately, they argued for the protection of their peo-ple even though it meant endorsing the racist views of their Anglo colleagues toward Indians and persons of African descent. Mexico had granted citizen-ship to “civilized” Indians and to blacks, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo clearly stated that former Mexican citizens were to be given the opportunity to become citizens of the United States. Following the biases of the time, the framers of the state constitution sought wording that would exclude African Americans and Indians while including Mexicans. Eventu-ally, the first section of the state constitution limited the suffrage to “every white, male citizen of Mexico who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States.” The convention agreed that Indians and African Ameri-cans might at some future date be given the franchise but that, because voting was not an absolute right of citizenship, they could be excluded. The consti-tution left open the question of Indian citizenship, stating that “nothing herein contained, shall be construed to prevent the Legislature, by a two-thirds concurrent vote, from admitting to the right of suffrage, Indians or the descendants of Indians. . . .”
“Cali
fornia
Bear
Flag
” by W
ayne
Hsie
h is l
icens
ed un
der C
C BY-N
C-SA
2.0
California Transformed 125
This Bear Flag was designed by William Todd, one of the original Bear Flaggers and part of the group of Americans who took over Sonoma on June 14, 1846. The star was in imitation of the Texas lone star. The original was destroyed in the San Francisco fire of 1906. What is the significance of its similarity with the present-day flag?
Ultimately the Mexican Californios became full-fledged citizens, at least intheory, when the Congress of the United States admitted California as a state in1850. Under the provisions of the treaty, those who did not want to becomeU.S. citizens had a year to declare this intention; they were also free to go toMexico. No one knows how many Mexican Californios returned, but duringthe early 1850s there were several colonization expeditions that went southand settled in Sonora and Baja California.
Of course, the main issue in California was possession of the land, but theproposed constitution was silent in this regard. The former Mexican citizenshad to trust their fate to the courts and their interpretation of the Treaty ofGuadalupe Hidalgo. As Chapter 5 explains, their trust was quickly betrayed,as the U.S. government established complicated and lengthy procedures forverifying legitimate title to the land. Thus, most Californios had to mortgageor sell their lands to pay for litigation costs. Within a generation, most of theCalifornio rancheros joined the impoverished ranks of their former vaqueros.
The Constitutional Convention also debated where to set the eastern bound-ary of the state. Mexican maps had never specified an eastern boundary, andsome argued that California included the present states of Nevada and Utah.The southern delegates argued that this territory would be too difficult to admin-ister and might prevent ratification by Congress. The final agreement establishedthe present eastern boundary, roughly following the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Several sections in the state constitution showed Mexican influence. Oneprovision, for example, required that all laws be published in both Spanish andEnglish, in recognition of the Mexican minority. California also adopted theconcept of community property, wherein married women had joint ownershipof property along with their husband, as they had under Mexican laws. MarianoVallejo, one of the Californio delegates, protested that the state flag and sealshould not show a grizzly bear, a reminder of the Bear Flag Rebellion and hisown personal humiliation, but his objections did not win a sympathetic hearing.
California’s constitution was accepted by the U.S. Congress after a lengthydebate that resulted in the Compromise of 1850. The state government thatwas established by the admission of California on September 9, 1850, promisedto bring some degree of law and order to the politically ambiguous situationcreated by military government, but the lawlessness engendered by the GoldRush continued in many areas.
Summary
The U.S.-Mexican War in 1846 marked the end of the Mexican era of Califor-nia’s history. This conflict produced notable military resistance and while somedied to prevent the American takeover, others welcomed the change of sover-eignty. They had hopes that their economic prosperity and political liberties
126 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
would be secure under the American constitution and guarantees of the Treatyof Guadalupe Hidalgo. These hopes would soon give way to the realities ofmassive immigration of Americans into California during the Gold Rush.
The Gold Rush influenced the fortunes of millions of men and women,from the lowly miners who never struck it rich and who abandoned their fam-ilies back east, to the fabulously wealthy entrepreneurs such as William Ral-ston, George Hearst, and Leland Stanford, who helped shape the economicfuture of the state. The Gold Rush changed the world’s supply of gold so dras-tically that silver quickly became devalued as a currency and the gold standardbecame the norm of industrialized countries into the 20th century. As can besurmised by the history of this period, the Gold Rush inaugurated a large-scaleexploitation of the natural environment in America. As forests were devastated,rivers polluted, and mountains leveled, Americans were slow to realize thatthey were ravaging a non-renewable resource. This realization did not comeuntil the last part of the following century. Contemporary historians believethat the Gold Rush was important primarily because of its consequences forfamilies and social values. The tens of thousands of Anglo Americans wholeft their families in the east created broken homes and, for many, brokenlives when their husbands did not return or came back beaten and impover-ished. In California, the Gold Rush had a mixed effect on morality. For some,it reinforced values of hard work, democracy, and community. For others, itcreated a “get rich quick” mentality of speculation, lawlessness, and isolation.For the Indians, the Mexicans, and the Chinese, the Gold Rush created aninhospitable society that had to be negotiated with great care.
Ultimately, the U.S.-Mexican War and the California Gold Rush werewatershed events, not only in the development of the West but in the historyof the United States more generally. Coming together, they shaped the future ofthe nation and created new directions for California. New economic forces andthe blending of cultures and peoples begun in these years provided thedynamic energies that would have a worldwide influence.
Suggested Readings
❚ Griswold del Castillo, Richard, “ Joaquín Murrieta: Life and Legend,” inWith Badges and Bullets: Lawmen and Outlaws in the Old West, RichardEtulain and Glenda Riley, eds. (Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press, 1999),pp. 106–123. A review of the many conflicting sources of the Murrietastory, along with the legend’s contemporary meanings.
❚ Griswold del Castillo, Richard, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacyof Conflict (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990). The bestsingle-volume study of the political and international importance of thetreaty that ended the war with Mexico.
Suggested Readings 127
❚ Harlow, Neal, California Conquered: War and Peace on the Pacific, 1846–1850(Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1982).The best single source for studying the U.S.-Mexican War in California.
❚ Johnson, Susan Lee, Roaring Camp: The Social World of the California GoldRush (New York: W. W. Norton, 2000). An excellent source for under-standing the lives of women during the Gold Rush.
❚ Robinson, Alfred, Life in California During a Residence of Several Years inThat Territory (New York: Da Capo Press, 1969). A firsthand account ofCalifornio life before the conquest, written by a sympathetic participant.
❚ Rohrbough, Malcolm I., Days of Gold: The California Gold Rush and theAmerican Nation (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of Cali-fornia Press, 1969). A very thorough study of the social and cultural effectof the Gold Rush on the Anglo American migrants.
❚ Sanchez, Rosaura, Telling Identities: The Californio Testimonios (Minneapo-lis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995). An analysis of the oral histories ofthe Californios gathered by Hubert Howe Bancroft in the 19th century.
❚ Starr, Kevin, Americans and the California Dream, 1850–1915 (New Yorkand Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973). A sweeping cultural historyof this important era written by the official state historian.
128 CHAPTER 4 War, Conquest, and Gold: The American Era Begins, 1845–1855
CHAP
TER 5
California and theCrisis of the Union,1850–1870
Main Topics
❚ Crisis and Conflict in the 1850s
❚ Californians and the Crisis of the Union
❚ Economic Growth in a Time of National Crisis
❚ New Social and Cultural Patterns
❚ Summary
In 1857, Charles Stovall arrived in California from Missis-sippi. Archy Lee, a slave who belonged to Stovall’s father,was with him. Upon arriving in Sacramento, Stovall fol-
lowed the Southern practice of hiring out Lee to work forothers, and he took a job himself. California’s state constitu-tion prohibited slavery, however, and by 1857 Californianswho opposed slavery, black and white alike, had become prac-ticed in freeing slaves in their state. When Stovall learned ofthis, he tried to send Lee back to Mississippi, but Lee assertedhis freedom and hid in a hotel run by an African Americanfamily. Stovall then had him arrested as a fugitive slave. Sev-eral white abolitionist lawyers defended Lee. When the judgeordered Lee released, Stovall had him rearrested on a newwarrant, issued by David Terry, a state supreme court justiceknown to support slavery. In an astounding decision, theCalifornia Supreme Court ruled that, because Stovall hadbeen ignorant of the law regarding slavery in California, he
129
should not be penalized by the loss of his father’s slave. Thecourt ordered Lee to return to Mississippi with Stovall.
When the two arrived in San Francisco en route to Missis-sippi, black and white abolitionists were prepared. They hadLee arrested to keep him in the state, and they accused Sto-vall of holding a slave illegally. San Francisco’s small AfricanAmerican community sought funds throughout the state,
CHAPTER 5California and the Crisis of the
Union, 1850–1870
1848 Discovery of gold
1850 California becomes a state
1851 Vigilantes take control in San Francisco
1852–56 Adjudication of claims to land granted by Spain or Mexico
1856 Vigilantes again take control in San Francisco
1859 Senator David Broderick killed in a duel
1861–65 Civil War
1862 Pacific Railroad Act
1869 Joining of Central Pacific and Union Pacific tracks atPromontory Summit, Utah
This woodcut is from the cover of a book about Archy Lee, by Rudolph Lapp, published in 1969. There is, apparently, no photograph of Archy Lee. Why do you think that is?
CC BY
2.0
130
alerting opponents of slavery to the case. Some of the mostprominent Republican lawyers in the state, led by Edward D.Baker, represented Lee in his third court hearing. Theypointed out the absurdities in the supreme court’s ruling andsecured a new ruling that Lee was a free man. Stovall, too,was prepared, however, and a federal marshal arrested Leefor violating the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Lee went totrial a fourth time, now before a federal commissioner whohad come from the South and was presumably pro-slavery.Crowds of whites and blacks argued over the case on thestreets as sidewalk orators harangued the crowds. Lee’s law-yers, led by Baker, argued that the 1850 law applied only toslaves who fled from a slave state into a free state, pointedout that Lee had been brought into California with his owner’spermission, and concluded that no federal law had been vio-lated. The commissioner agreed and set Lee free. Soon after,Lee moved to British Columbia, out of the jurisdiction ofAmerican law. The experience of Archy Lee dramatically indi-cates that California, separated by a continent from the centerof the controversy over slavery, could not escape the politicalcrisis that slavery engendered in the 1850s.
In 1850, however, the delegates who sat in Colton Hallwriting a constitution for the new state of California were sepa-rated by a distance of some 1,500 miles from the nearest state.They probably had no idea that their request for statehoodwould contribute significantly to the emerging national crisis.Yet a crisis had long been approaching and was now hastenedby the annexation of Texas and the territories acquired underthe Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. California’s application forstatehood compounded that crisis. Many sought to stem theconflict but failed, as the sectional crisis over the extension ofslavery into federal territory grew to include the institution ofslavery everywhere and eventually raised fundamental questionsabout the nature of the Union and the meaning of American cit-izenship. The crisis escalated to civil war, and the war broughtthe abolition of slavery, the redefinition of American citizen-ship, and the transformation of the federal Union. Though farremoved geographically from the debates in Congress and thebattlefields of war, California figured significantly in the crisisof the Union, and that crisis brought important changes to Cali-fornia. In 1850, California seemed to be separated by vast dis-tances of unsettled territory from the rest of the United States.Over the next 20 years, California came to be bound much moretightly into the federal Union. At the same time, the state wasrapidly changing from a booming mining frontier to an econom-ically and socially diverse society.
CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870 131
Questions to Consider
❚ How did national political issues affect the new state ofCalifornia?
❚ How did federal policy affect Californios and CaliforniaIndians?
❚ How did sectional issues, especially slavery, affect Cali-fornians in the 1850s?
❚ What changes came to California as a result of the CivilWar?
❚ How did the state’s economy change in the 1850s and1860s?
❚ What role did the federal government play in the devel-opment of improved transportation between Californiaand the eastern United States?
❚ What was the relation between socially defined genderroles and the creation of new social institutions in the1850s and 1860s?
❚ Why did California acquire a reputation for religioustoleration?
❚ How did Californians influence national literarydevelopment?
Crisis and Conflict in the 1850s
The new state was born in the midst of crisis and conflict—a national politicalcrisis over slavery, a local crisis of political legitimacy, and conflicts within thestate over land, labor, race, and ethnicity.
California Statehood and the Compromise of 1850
Some Americans who opposed the extension of slavery saw the annexation ofTexas (1845), the war with Mexico (1846–48), and the acquisition of vast newterritory under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) as part of a slave-holders’ conspiracy to expand slavery. From the Missouri Compromise (1820)onward, new states had entered the Union in pairs—one state that banned slav-ery along with one state that permitted it—so that the numbers of slave statesand free states remained equal. Similarly, from the Missouri Compromiseonward, slavery had been banned from all of the Louisiana Purchase territorynorth of 36°30’ north latitude (the southern boundary of Missouri). Thisseemed to cut off any expansion of slavery because nearly all remaining unor-ganized territory lay north of 36°30’. Opponents of slavery feared that
132 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
annexation of Texas and the acquisition of territories from Mexico might opennew regions to slavery. When Californians requested entry into the Union as afree state, there was no prospect of a slave state being admitted to maintain thebalance between free states and slave states in the Senate. Defenders of slaverytook alarm, and some prepared to fight against California statehood.
Once the constitutional convention (see Chapter 4) completed its work,California voters approved the new constitution and elected state officials.The legislature met and, amidst other business, elected John C. Frémont andWilliam Gwin to the United States Senate (senators were elected by state legis-latures at that time). Frémont and Gwin, along with newly elected members ofthe House of Representatives, hurried to Washington to press for statehoodand to take their congressional seats once that occurred. They found a ragingcontroversy centered in the Senate. Some of the most powerful political leadersof the first half of the century participated in the debate, including Henry Clay,Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun.
In the end, a relative newcomer to Congress, Stephen A. Douglas ofIllinois, cobbled together a complex compromise based on Clay’s proposals.In addition to California statehood, the Compromise of 1850 included separatelaws that created territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah, pledgedfederal authority to return escaped slaves from the North, and abolished theslave trade in the District of Columbia. Most southerners opposed Californiastatehood and abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Mostnortherners voted against the Fugitive Slave Law and territorial status forUtah. All the bills passed, but only because several moderates, led by Douglas,joined sometimes the northerners and sometimes the southerners to create amajority. California became the 31st state, but the Compromise of 1850 failedto ease sectional tensions.
San Francisco’s Crisis of Political Legitimacy:Vigilantism in the 1850s
During the 1850s, California experienced a crisis of its own, a crisis of politicallegitimacy. Political legitimacy in a republic means that a very large majority ofthe population agrees that the properly elected and appointed governmentalofficials should exercise the authority specified for them by law. Paying taxes,obeying laws, participating in elections, and accepting a judge’s decision are allways in which individuals denote their acceptance of the political legitimacy oftheir government. During the 1850s, however, the United States faced a crisisof political legitimacy as abolitionists denied the legitimacy of laws protectingslavery, and defenders of slavery denied that the government had constitutionalauthority to ban or limit slavery. California in the 1850s also faced a crisis ofpolitical legitimacy, as many Californians denied the authority of governmentalofficials and instead took the law into their own hands. This happened in thegold-mining regions when vigilantes acted as judge, jury, and executioner. But
Crisis and Conflict in the 1850s 133
remote mining camps were not the only places where Californians spurned lawenforcement officials and turned to vigilantism. San Francisco, the largestAmerican city west of St. Louis, also experienced vigilante versions of justice.
From the raising of the American flag in July 1846 until the first legislatureafter statehood, San Francisco functioned largely under its Mexican governmen-tal structures. The alcalde (mayor) possessed wide powers, both judicial andadministrative. Nonetheless, many San Franciscans felt that the city’s rapidgrowth had not been accompanied by corresponding growth in the protectionof life and property. In 1849, Sam Brannan and other businessmen formed acitizens’ group to suppress ruffians, known as “Hounds.” The citizens’ group—more than 200 strong—sought out and held some Hounds for trial before a spe-cial tribunal consisting of the alcalde and two special judges. This tribunal con-victed nine men and, because there was no jail, banished them. This proceduredid not circumvent the established authorities—the alcalde was centrallyinvolved—but it was a step toward vigilantism as businessmen took the lead inapprehending those they considered the most flagrant wrongdoers.
The first session of the state legislature created a city government for SanFrancisco, and the city acquired a full range of public officials to enforce thelaw and dispense justice; however, a series of robberies, burglaries, and arsonfires increased San Franciscans’ anxiety over the city’s growing number of Aus-tralians, who were often stereotyped as former convicts. A group of merchantsand ship captains, led by Sam Brannan, formed the Committee of Vigilance.Almost immediately, they were presented with an accused burglar—an Austra-lian, purportedly a former convict. Committee members constituted themselvesas an impromptu court, convicted the accused man, and—despite rescue effortsby public officials—hanged him. Then, claiming support from 500 leading mer-chants and businessmen, the Committee of Vigilance seized more accusedcriminals, turned some of them over to the legally constituted authorities, ban-ished others, whipped one, and hanged three more, all Australians. The vigi-lantes could not imprison their victims because the jail was controlled by thelegally constituted authorities, whom the vigilantes were ignoring or openlyflaunting. The committee functioned from June to September, although itdrew opposition from most lawyers, public officials, and political figures.
The fullest development of vigilantism came in 1856, when Charles Cora, agambler, killed William Richardson, a U.S. marshal. Soon after, James Casey, amember of the board of supervisors, shot and killed a popular newspaper editor,who had revealed that Casey had a criminal record in New York and had alsoannounced in his newspaper that he was always armed. Casey claimed self-defense. The Committee of Vigilance was revived with William T. Coleman, aleading merchant, as its president. After hanging Cora and Casey, the commit-tee constituted itself as the civil authority in the city and established a force ofnearly 6000 well-armed men, drawn mostly from the city’s merchants and busi-nessmen. They hanged two more men and banished about 20. The committeeprovoked a well-organized opposition that included the mayor, the sheriff, head
134 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
of the state militia (William T. Sherman), chief justice of the state (David Terry), and other prominent political figures, most of them Democrats. The governor, 30-year-old J. Neely Johnson, tried to reestablish the power of law, but the vigilantes simply ignored him. They eventually established a political party and yielded power only after elections in which their candidates won convincing victories. This party and its successors (under various names and with shifting patterns of organization) dominated city politics for most of the next 20 years, institutionalizing government by merchants and businessmen.
California’s experience with lynching and vigilantism in the 1850s came at a violent time in the nation’s history. Many male Californians routinely armed themselves when in public. An observer noted that more than half the mem-bers of the first session of the legislature, in 1850, “appeared in the legislative halls with revolvers and bowie knives fastened to their belts.” Chief Justice Terry carried both a gun and a bowie knife. San Francisco experienced 16 mur-ders in 1850 and 15 in 1851, not counting the men hanged by the vigilantes—a murder rate of between 50 and 60 per 100,000 inhabitants. (There is little
James
King
of W
illiam
, 185
6 by C
harle
s Fen
deric
h/Ed
ward
Muy
bridg
e pub
lishe
r, Lib
rary
of Co
ngre
ss, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
restr
iction
s
Crisis and Conflict in the 1850s 135
James King of William, the popular San Francisco newspaper editor who was murdered by James Casey.
comparative data from other American cities for the 1850s: Boston had sevenarrests for murder per 100,000 inhabitants in the late 1850s, and Philadelphiaaveraged four indictments for murder per 100,000 inhabitants in the mid-1850s. San Francisco’s homicide rate was less than six per 100,000 in 2010.)
The violence of the era provides a necessary context for understanding thelynchings and vigilantism. Even so, the question remains: Are the vigilantesbest understood as outraged citizens taking matters into their own hands andcleansing their community, or as an organized effort to overthrow the legallyconstituted authorities? Josiah Royce, an early historian writing in 1886, calledthe events of 1856 “a businessmen’s revolution”—that is, he considered it anillegal action in defiance of the law. Nearly all subsequent historians haveagreed that action outside the law was unnecessary and that the businessmenwho made up the Committee of Vigilance scarcely pursued—much lessexhausted—legal courses of action. They were too preoccupied with businessto bother with politics, and then, when they took action, they took a shortcut.Nonetheless, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most popular accountsof the vigilantes glorified them, treating them as saviors of the city. And, from1856 until at least the 1930s, in times of community crisis, there were usuallysome who invoked the spirit of the vigilantes and urged extralegal action.
Violence and Displacement: California Indians in the 1850s
For most California Indians, the 1850s and 1860s were years of stark tragedy.Of the estimated 150,000 Native Americans in California in 1848, only 31,000remained by 1860, after 12 years of the Gold Rush and a decade of statehood.Even so, the censuses of 1860 and 1870 showed California with the largestIndian population of any state.
Long before the Gold Rush, California Indians had become the major part ofthe work force on the ranchos along the coast between San Francisco and SanDiego and inland from San Francisco Bay. Many of them continued some tradi-tional ways, including gathering acorns for food, dancing, and the sweat lodge.At the same time, they adopted practices from their Mexican employers andpriests. Some (nearly all women) intermarried with Mexicans, many of whomwere themselves mestizos—of mixed Spanish, Indian, or African ancestry. Manyother Native Americans were familiar with European practices, traded with theranchos, and occasionally worked for wages. Sometimes they traded with theCalifornios; other times they raided the Californios, stealing cattle and horses.
John Sutter’s settlement near the present site of Sacramento was builtlargely by Indian laborers. Sutter also maintained a hired Indian army to pro-tect his land and livestock and to wage war on Indian raiders. Other whiteswho entered the Central Valley in the early 1840s emulated Sutter and some-times contracted with him for Indian labor. Thus, on the eve of the Americanconquest, many whites looked to California Indians as an important source ofpaid labor. This expectation was a direct outgrowth of the Spanish and
136 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
Mexican approaches to converting and “civilizing” the Indians and turningthem into laborers on the missions and ranchos. By contrast, in the easternUnited States, the usual practice in new white settlements was to push Indiansfurther west rather than integrate them into new settlements.
In the earliest stages of the Gold Rush, Mexican patterns prevailed, asIndians were hired to work in mining operations. They learned the value ofgold and of their labor and expected to be paid accordingly; however, a floodof Americans who knew the eastern practices but not the Mexican ones soondescended on California, expecting that part of “subduing the wilderness”would include expelling the Indians. Some of the newcomers objected to com-peting with Indian labor, especially when the Indian laborers worked for Cali-fornios. Others, with no real evidence, viewed Indians as dangerous and soughtto have them removed from the mining regions because they were considered athreat to white miners.
At the same time, many Native Americans suffered from severely reducedaccess to traditional food sources. Cattle ate the grass that formerly had pro-duced seeds for food. Large-scale hunting to feed hungry miners decimated thedeer and elk herds. Thus, Indians were increasingly barred from wage labor inthe mines at the same time that they were deprived of many traditional foods.
Violence soon flared. In a continuation of patterns from Mexican California,some Indians raided white settlements and stole food, cattle, and horses. Othersforcibly resisted when white men made advances toward Indian women. Theftsby Indians often brought the burning of the village thought to be responsible. Ifan Indian killed a white, local militias or volunteers often destroyed the nearestvillage and killed its adult males and sometimes women and children. Undisci-plined volunteers often struck out at any Indians they found, whether or not theyhad any connection to a crime. Some local authorities in the 1850s even offeredbounties ranging from fifty cents to five dollars for Indian scalps.
The killing of individual Indians and even the massacre of entire villages wererepeated over and over, sometimes by groups of miners, sometimes by local orstate authorities. More than one historian has suggested that genocide is the onlyappropriate term for the experience of California Indians during the 1850s and1860s. Only rarely did anyone seek to punish white men for beating or killingIndians. On the contrary, state power was more often used against the Indians.In 1851, Governor Peter Burnett announced his view that it was inevitable thatwar be waged against the Indians until they became extinct, and he twice sentstate troops against them. His successor, Governor John McDougal, authorizedthe use of state troops in 1851 in what was called the Mariposa War. In theseinstances, state troops engaged in the brutal killing of Indians and destruction ofIndian villages. When local authorities presented the state with bills for their oftenundisciplined forays against Indians, the state routinely paid them.
Both the state and federal governments attempted to regulate relationsbetween California Indians and whites. The previous practice of federal author-ities, who had exclusive constitutional authority to deal with Indian tribes, had
Crisis and Conflict in the 1850s 137
been to negotiate treaties by which Indians yielded their traditional lands inreturn for other lands, almost always to the west of white settlements. In Cali-fornia, however, it was no longer possible to move Indians west. In Californiain the 1850s, federal authorities negotiated with Indians to surrender title tolarge parts of their lands in return for promises that they could retain smalltracts, or reservations. Federal policymakers envisioned the reservations asplaces where Indian people could live and be protected from the dangers ofthe surrounding white society, taught to farm, and educated. This newapproach owed a good deal to the violence visited upon the California Indiansin the Gold Rush regions.
In 1851, federal commissioners began to negotiate with representatives ofIndian groups. They eventually drafted 18 treaties that set aside 12,000 squaremiles of land in the Central Valley and the northwestern and southern parts ofthe state. When the treaties went to the Senate for approval, however, theywere rejected due to opposition from Californians. New federal agents werethen appointed, and the process started over, even as violence against Indiansmounted. In the mid-1850s, a few small reservations were finally created, someembracing only a few square miles. Some Indians from the Central Valley weremoved north, to live on the new reservations in northern California. Most,however, continued instead to live in the midst of white settlements, workingfor wages on ranches and farms and following some traditional practices. A fewmoved into the mountains, avoiding white settlements as much as possible.
As federal authorities stumbled toward creating reservations, state officialsalso asserted their authority over California’s Indian peoples. In 1850, the firstsession of the state legislature approved the Act for the Government and Pro-tection of the Indians. The law permitted Indians to remain in the “homes andvillages” that they had long occupied. The law also provided for the indentur-ing of Indian children, either with consent of their parents or if they wereorphans. As a result, many Indian children became “bound labor”—obligatedto work without pay in exchange for food, shelter, and necessities—until age 18for boys and 15 for girls. Adult Indians not employed for wages were subject toarrest for vagrancy and could then be hired out by the courts. Burning of grass-lands (see Chapter 1) was made a crime. Penalties were established for anyonewho compelled an Indian to work without wages, but Indians were prohibited(under a different law) from testifying in court against whites, so violationswere difficult to establish. The historian Albert Hurtado concludes that “the1850 Act for the Government and Protection of the Indians protected themvery little and governed them quite a lot.”
The Politics of Land and Culture
When the news of gold first became known, Californios were among the firstto rush to the gold country. Thousands of immigrants from Mexico, especiallySonora, and others from elsewhere in Latin America, especially Chile, soon
138 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
joined them. Whether citizens or immigrants, Spanish-speaking miners foundthemselves derided as “greasers,” harassed, assaulted, and sometimes lynched.Eventually violence and harassment, along with the Foreign Miner’s Tax of1850 (see Chapter 4), drove many Latinos from the gold country. Some of theimmigrants returned to their homes, but others took up permanent residencein the existing pueblos, especially San José, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles.
The Gold Rush, however, was good for some rancheros, who prosperedbecause of the increased demand for cattle to provide food to the massiveinflux of gold seekers. Cattle prices tripled between 1849 and 1851, and50,000 head of cattle from southern California went north for slaughter. LosAngeles, still with a Mexican majority, boomed both from cattle sales andfrom sale and distribution northward of horses and mules brought from north-ern Mexico to be sent to the mining regions.
Nearly all Californio landowners found themselves struggling to retaintheir land. Though the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo guaranteed existinglandownership, those who poured into California from the eastern UnitedStates brought significantly different expectations regarding landownership. Inthe eastern states, land was carefully surveyed, and each plot was preciselylocated. Under the Preemption Act of 1841, settlers could select a parcel ofundeveloped land, build a home on it (often called “squatting”), farm theland, then buy the land from the government for $1.25 per acre. The intentof federal land policies, though not always the reality, was to encourage familyfarms and to discourage land speculators. For would-be squatters, land that wasapparently not lived on or actively farmed was often considered available forsquatting.
In Mexican California, there had never been any formal land surveys. Landgrants were large and vaguely defined, often based on natural markers (streamsor boulders, for example) rather than precise survey lines. For the largest Cali-fornia ranchos, much of the land seemed unused, at least by the standards ofthe eastern United States. Even before the United States acquired California,some Americans had squatted on land in California. After the war, manymore did the same. Some did so in the expectation that the Preemption Actwould be applied in California. Some did so on the assumption that, havingwon the war, they could claim what they desired. Some did it with full knowl-edge that Californios already owned the land.
One of the most important tasks in integrating California into the Ameri-can legal system was to verify and record land titles—the official record oflandownership. Earlier experiences in Louisiana and Florida (both previouslySpanish possessions) suggested that the process invited manipulation, fraud,and litigation. When Frémont and Gwin took their seats in the U.S. Senate in1850, they immediately proposed federal legislation to clarify land titles. Thatlaw, the Gwin Act (1851), created a board of three commissioners, appointedby the president. Those claiming land presented their evidence of ownership tothe commissioners. If others claimed the same land, they too introduced
Crisis and Conflict in the 1850s 139
evidence. If the commissioners accepted the evidence of ownership, the titlewas considered valid. If the commissioners rejected the evidence, the landpassed to federal ownership. A federal agent participated in the hearings tochallenge dubious evidence. Either the person claiming the land or the federalagent could appeal a decision, first to the federal district court and then tothe U.S. Supreme Court. Of several proposals that went before Congress forclarifying land titles, the Gwin Act was probably the most cumbersome,time-consuming, and potentially costly for holders of Spanish and Mexicanland titles.
The commissioners worked from early in 1852 until 1856, hearing morethan 800 claims. Some were unquestionably fraudulent, but more than 600were confirmed. Of those confirmed, nearly all were appealed through thecourts, and the court proceedings dragged on interminably. Success camewith a high price: travel to San Francisco to present arguments and documents,more travel to court hearings, and attorneys’ fees at every step of the way. Onehistorian estimated that the average land-grant holder spent 17 years beforesecuring final title to the land. Another historian estimated that attorneys’fees involved in defending the Mexican land grants constituted 25 to 40 percentof the value of the land.
During the hearings, squatters often moved onto the most attractive lands,especially in northern California. The squatters formed a large and influentialpolitical group and found many public officials receptive to their pleas. Somedesperate rancheros sold their claims for whatever they could receive—but suchsales could not be final until after the final court decision on the title. Unscru-pulous lawyers sometimes saddled their clients with impossible debts, requiringland sales to pay off the mortgages. All in all, most historians who have studiedthe implementation of the Gwin Act have endorsed the judgment of HenryGeorge, a San Francisco journalist who, in 1871, called it a “history of greed,of perjury, of corruption, of spoliation and high-handed robbery.”
If the northern rancheros found themselves flooded with squatters andlawyers, southern rancheros faced devastating tax burdens. South of the Teha-chapi Mountains, Californios remained in the majority. There, they won elec-tions as local officials and members of the state legislature. One Californio,Pablo de la Guerra, was elected president of the state senate in 1861 and wasfirst in line to succeed the governor.
At the constitutional convention, Californio delegates from the south hadraised the possibility of dividing California into a northern section, whichwould become a state, and a southern section, which would become a territory.Though defeated in the convention, the idea of dividing the state persisted. The1850 session of the legislature created a tax system based on land and otherpossessions, including cattle, but not wealth, which included gold. These taxesfell disproportionately on the ranchos of southern California, which providedsoutherners both a reminder that they were dominated politically by the north-ern part of the state and an incentive for separation. Though southern
140 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
Californios’ motivation for dividing the state stemmed largely from their desireto separate themselves from northern domination and regain control over theirtaxes, some, especially white newcomers from the slave-holding South, also sawit as a way to create a new slave state.
Throughout the 1850s, the state legislature received proposals to divide thestate. In 1859, the legislature approved a popular vote in the southern countieson the issue of division. The vote was two to one in favor of division, and theresults were forwarded to the federal government for action, but nothing wasdone in Congress in 1860. The next year found the nation preoccupied withcivil war. This effectively ended the possibility for creating a separate state orterritory in which Californios and other Latinos might be numerically domi-nant. And, within a short time, English-speaking Americans soon outnumberedthose who spoke Spanish in southern California as well as in the north, andpolitical power slowly passed from the hands of the Californios.
The effort to create a separate state or territory in southern Californiamarked one attempt by Spanish-speaking Californians to retain their cultureand political autonomy. Political efforts to secure bilingual schools in LosAngeles (unsuccessful), to insist on implementation of the constitutional provi-sion requiring Spanish translations of official documents (a losing struggle),and to serve on local political bodies represented other examples. Such effortscame largely from members of the old, landowning Californio families. Mostelite Californios, at least in the south, were accorded a level of respect andeven honor by their new, English-speaking neighbors. Some historians havesuggested that, in fact, many of them were co-opted into the emergingEnglish-speaking power structure and that, despite their attempts to secure rec-ognition for their language and culture, they made little serious effort to protectthe large numbers of landless Mexican laborers and farm workers from eco-nomic exploitation.
Californians and the Crisis of the Union
As Californians struggled with issues of land, labor, and ethnicity, national pol-itics moved rapidly toward the ultimate crisis of secession and civil war.Though far removed from Washington, California was never immune fromthe sectional conflict.
Fighting Slavery in California
Throughout the decade of the 1850s, slaveholders brought enslaved AfricanAmericans to live in California—some 300 in 1852, by one estimate. Somemined gold and others worked as domestic servants. The Gold Rush alsoattracted significant numbers of free African Americans, some of whom
Californians and the Crisis of the Union 141
hoped to gain enough gold to purchase freedom for their families. By 1860,more than 4000 African Americans lived in California—the largest black pop-ulation of any western state or territory other than Texas and Indian Territory(now Oklahoma). In California, African Americans encountered southernwhites, most of whom brought their pro-slavery attitudes, and some of whombrought their slaves, as well as northern abolitionists, both white and black,who brought their hatred of slavery.
When slaveholders brought their slaves into California and continued tohold them in slavery, they seldom attracted attention from state or local offi-cials, despite the state constitution’s prohibition of slavery. Some officials hadpro-slavery attitudes. Others seem to have been willing to tolerate slavery. As aresult, enforcing the ban on slavery often fell to individuals outside govern-ment. As the state’s free African American community grew and prospered,its members took the lead in identifying slaves, urging them to claimtheir freedom, and organizing assistance for them. A German immigrantwrote that “the wealthy California Negroes ... exhibit a great deal of energyand intelligence in saving their brothers.” They could usually count on whiteabolitionists for financial assistance, political pressure, and legal representationin the courts.
One such court case arose in the Mormon settlement of San Bernardino, insouthern California. Robert Smith was a Mormon from Mississippi whobrought several slaves first to Utah and then, in 1852, to California. Bridget“Biddy” Mason, one of the slaves, made friends with a free black family inLos Angeles. In 1855, as Smith was preparing to move to Texas, free AfricanAmericans persuaded the Los Angeles county sheriff to take Mason and theother slaves into protective custody. Mason then sought freedom throughthe Los Angeles District Court and succeeded, not just for herself, but for 13others as well.
California’s developing African American community and their white abo-litionist allies could claim some notable victories through court cases such asthose that freed Biddy Mason and Archy Lee (see pp. 129–131). Other timesthey failed, either because they could not mobilize in time or because theycould not persuade a judge. Black Californians had other struggles as well.Though some white Californians strongly opposed slavery and discriminationagainst free African Americans, the California legislature during the 1850spassed laws that discriminated against African Americans in ways similar tomidwestern and mid-Atlantic states. Black Californians were prohibited fromvoting, serving on juries, marrying whites, or testifying in state courts. The pro-hibition against testifying in court was especially troublesome, as it restrictedthe ability of African Americans to defend themselves in court in the event ofchallenges to their property, savings, or even their freedom. In 1852, the statelegislature passed the California Fugitive Slave Law, designed to assist slaveowners in capturing slaves who fled within California, and the law remainedin force until 1855.
142 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
To organize against such discrimination, black Californians drew uponeastern precedents to hold several statewide conventions. Meeting in Sacra-mento in 1855 and 1856 and in San Francisco in 1857, the conventions dem-onstrated black Californians’ continuing connection with events in the East aswell as their determination to secure the repeal of discriminatory legislation inCalifornia. One convention led to the establishment of the state’s firstblack newspaper. All three conventions called upon white Californians to rec-ognize the contributions of African Americans to the state’s economy and itstax rolls and to repeal discriminatory laws. Discouraged by their lack of suc-cess, some 400 black Californians (including Archy Lee) moved to BritishColumbia in 1858.
Sectional Issues and California Politics
The prospect of a new state, with many elective offices, attracted politicallyambitious men. William Gwin, for example, was a slaveholder and a Democratfrom a prosperous and prominent family. He had served one term in theHouse of Representatives from Mississippi. Stymied in his hope for a U.S.Senate seat, he headed to California. Like Gwin, David Broderick came toCalifornia to pursue a political career when he found his political prospectsblocked in New York. Largely self-educated, a Catholic and son of an Irishimmigrant stonecutter, Broderick had entered Democratic Party politics inNew York City and supported the faction that spoke for workers and opposedbig business. Gwin arrived in California in time to win election to the constitu-tional convention, then won election to the U.S. Senate. Broderick came toCalifornia a bit later, jumped into Democratic Party politics, and won electionto the state senate. His ambition, too, was to sit in the U.S. Senate. BothBroderick and Gwin were Democrats, but the conflict between them cameeventually to mirror the nation’s conflict over slavery.
Within the California Democratic Party, Gwin led a faction called theChivalry Democrats, including many from the South or border states. Tall,with a shock of gray hair, Gwin moved easily through the corridors of power.Though a slaveholder, he voted in the constitutional convention to ban slaveryfrom California. In the U.S. Senate, he did not criticize slavery and usuallyvoted with the southern Democrats. As senior senator and close to the admin-istration, Gwin controlled most federal patronage (appointments to federaljobs) in California, and he steered bills through Congress that establishedimportant federal agencies in the Bay Area, including the mint and the custom-house. (The customhouse was one of the most important federal agencies inany port city, providing many federal jobs.) Through organization and patron-age, Gwin and his Chivalry Democrats dominated the Democratic Party inmuch of California.
Broderick built a strong Democratic organization in San Francisco usingtechniques learned in New York City, and he soon dominated the state
Californians and the Crisis of the Union 143
legislature through his influence over the San Francisco members. As a politicalleader, he consistently defended the laborers from whom he had sprung andwhose votes kept him in office. He opposed the Fugitive Slave Law anddefended the rights of free African Americans, becoming an outspoken oppo-nent of slavery.
Just as in California, the sectional conflict over slavery disrupted politicsnationwide during the 1850s. When congressional Democrats, led by StephenDouglas, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, they changed long-standingrules to permit slavery in the new territories. One result was the emergence of anew political party, the Republicans, who opposed any extension of slavery intothe territories. The Whig party fragmented over slavery and soon disappeared.
In the mid-1850s, some voters, at least temporarily, chose another newpolitical party, the American Party, which appealed to American nationalismand opposed immigrants in general and Catholics in particular. The AmericanParty grew out of a secret anti-immigrant society; their opponents called themKnow-Nothings because, when asked about the organization, they were sup-posed to say that they knew nothing about it. In southern California, Califor-nios called them Ignorantes. Divisions within the state Democratic Party ledsome southern, Protestant Democrats to support the Americans in 1855, andthey probably got the votes of many former Whigs as well. They elected thegovernor and many members of the legislature; however, anti-Catholicism didnot figure as prominently in the Know-Nothings’ victory in California as it didin eastern states. They soon died out.
This formally posed photograph ofDavid Broderick was probably takenafter he had become a member of theUnited States Senate. How doesBroderick’s political career inCalifornia reflect larger politicalpatterns in the nation?
Hon.
D.C.
Brod
erick
of Ca
l., Lib
rary
of Co
ngre
ss, pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
restr
iction
s
144 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
The other new political party of the mid-1850s was the Republican Party.Many of the most outspoken Republicans were abolitionists, who sought toeliminate slavery everywhere. In 1856, the new party chose John C. Frémont,California’s first U.S. senator, as its presidential candidate. But Frémont did notdo well in California—he placed third, after both the Democrat and the candi-date of the Know-Nothings. Gwin and Broderick had patched over their differ-ences to support the Democratic candidate, James Buchanan, and to regain aDemocratic majority in the state legislature. The Republicans did little better inCalifornia elections over the next few years.
Gwin and Broderick forged a temporary alliance again in 1857, when Bro-derick used his control over the state legislature to win election to the U.S.Senate. Promising to relinquish federal patronage to Broderick, Gwin securedBroderick’s backing for his own reelection to the Senate. Soon after, however,Gwin and Broderick staked out strongly opposed views over admitting Kansasto the Union as a slave state. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces had pouredinto the new territory of Kansas, and they fought with words and with guns tosecure the majority there. When pro-slavery forces met at the town ofLecompton and drafted a slave-state constitution, the Buchanan administra-tion tried to force it through Congress. Gwin led the pro-Lecompton forcesin the Senate. Broderick joined Stephen Douglas and a few other northernDemocrats who broke with their party and joined the Republicans to defeatthe proposal. The bitter dispute between Gwin and Broderick carried overinto the California state election of 1859. California Democrats divided intotwo camps. The Broderick faction, calling themselves Douglas Democrats,cooperated with the new Republican Party, but the Gwin faction won mostof the state elections.
Shortly after the election, David Terry, a former Texan and former justiceof the state supreme court, and a leading member of the Gwin faction, chal-lenged Broderick to a duel, claiming Broderick had insulted him during thecampaign. Though illegal in California, dueling was still practiced. Broderick’sgun discharged prematurely, permitting Terry to take deadly aim. Broderick’sdeath made him a martyr to the anti-slavery cause, as his supporters widelyquoted his supposed dying words: “They have killed me because I was opposedto slavery and a corrupt administration.”
Within a year, the national Democratic Party divided into northern andsouthern wings, each of which ran its own candidate in the 1860 presidentialelection. Gwin supported John Breckinridge, candidate of the southernDemocrats. California’s voters, however, chose Abraham Lincoln, the Repub-lican candidate, as did most northern states. Lincoln’s election promptedsoutherners to secede from a union that they now rightly understood to bein the hands of the enemies of slavery. Gwin and a few other Democratsurged that the South be permitted to leave in peace, but Lincoln and hisparty considered the Union to be indissoluble. The nation plunged into fouryears of bloody civil war.
Californians and the Crisis of the Union 145
California and Civil War
Far removed from the arena of conflict, Californians nonetheless played a sig-nificant role in the war.
When the Union called for volunteers, Californians formed eight regimentsof infantry, a regiment of cavalry, a battalion of mountaineers, and a battalionof cavalry commanded by Californios and made up of Californios, Mexicans,and other Latinos. These forces were assigned to defend the mail and transpor-tation routes between California and the North. When the Confederate armysent troops into New Mexico Territory, the California Volunteers were sent toblock its advance. The Californians helped to drive the Confederates back intoTexas, then spent the remainder of the war in campaigns against the Navajos,Apaches, and other Indian peoples of the Southwest, gaining a reputation asruthless, even vicious, in their tactics.
Some Californians fought with the Union army in other units. Early in thewar, Edward Baker—Archy Lee’s attorney—had raised a regiment in the Eastthat included a number of Californians and was known initially as the 1stCalifornia. Several hundred Californians volunteered and made their way east,forming the “California Battalion” of the 2nd Massachusetts Cavalry. HenryHalleck, a West Point graduate and prominent San Francisco lawyer, led allUnion armies from mid-1862 to early 1864, but failed to make much progressagainst the Confederate forces. William Tecumseh Sherman, another WestPoint graduate, was more successful. He had passed through California in1847 while serving in the war with Mexico; he returned as a civilian in 1853and opened a bank. He was appointed major general of the California militiain 1856, shortly before the vigilantes hanged Cora and Casey. Opposed tothe vigilantes but unable to use the militia to restore the lawful authorities, heresigned his commission. Sherman left California in 1858. By the end ofthe Civil War, his contributions to Union victory put him second only toUlysses S. Grant.
In all, nearly 16,000 Californians served in the Union army—about one inevery five males between the ages of 15 and 30—but most Californians contrib-uted to the Union in other ways than by bearing arms. Thomas Starr King,pastor of the San Francisco Unitarian Church, undertook grueling speakingcampaigns around the state to promote the Union cause. Spurred in part byKing’s oratory, Californians made their most impressive contribution to theUnion in gold, especially as donations for the Sanitary Commission, a volun-tary organization formed to care for wounded soldiers. Only two percent of theUnion’s population, Californians donated more than a quarter of all fundsraised by the Sanitary Commission. California’s contributions, furthermore,were in gold, which had greater purchasing power than the depreciated green-backs that the Lincoln administration was issuing to help cover the cost of thewar. California gold, sent regularly to New York, also played a significant rolein helping to stabilize Union finances.
146 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
With the Republican victory in the 1860 Republican election, a new groupof political leaders emerged in California. Prominent among them was LelandStanford, a Sacramento merchant who had been the Republicans’ unsuccessfulcandidate for governor in 1859 and who won the governorship in 1861. In the1864 presidential election, Lincoln easily carried California.
Though most Californians were loyal to the Union, there were exceptions.David Terry became an officer in the Confederate army, and other Californiansalso joined the Confederate ranks, some 250 just from Los Angeles County.Though Gwin hoped that the South might be allowed to leave in peace, hedid not take up arms against the Union. He left California in 1861, returningonly well after the end of the war. A few Confederate sympathizers schemed toseparate southern California or to disrupt the shipment of California gold tothe Union, but nothing came of such plans. A few Californians briefly nour-ished hopes that California might secede and join Oregon as a Pacific Republic.A few Confederate sympathizers were arrested when they became too outspo-ken, but were not jailed for long.
Completion of the telegraph early in the war meant that news of battleswas known in California as soon as in New York. Whether they were firmsupporters of the Union, critics of the war, or Confederate sympathizers, Cali-fornians closely followed the major military engagements of the war, eventhough they were separated from them by great distances. In the end, the warexperience seems to have brought many Californians to feel more connected tothe rest of the Union.
Reconstruction and New Understandings of Citizenship
During the war and afterward, events far away in Washington brought impor-tant changes in the legal status of African Americans and, ultimately, AsianAmericans and others. At the end of the Civil War, the victorious Republicanspushed through three amendments to the U.S. Constitution as a way of makingpermanent the momentous changes they had created. The Thirteenth Amend-ment (1865) abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) definedfederal citizenship and the rights of American citizens. The Fifteenth Amend-ment (1870) specified that the right to vote could not be denied based on race.These constitutional changes had implications not only for the defeated South,but also for California.
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments meant, immediately, that Afri-can Americans could no longer be denied voting rights in California. Evenbefore the Fourteenth Amendment, California Republicans in the state legisla-ture had passed legislation that removed the limits on court testimony for Afri-can Americans. There were also some changes in the laws governing educationin the late 1860s, requiring school districts to provide schooling for students ofcolor and permitting, though not requiring, students of color to attend thesame schools as white children. In 1872, given the language of the Fourteenth
Californians and the Crisis of the Union 147
Amendment, the legislature repealed the law that prohibited Asians from testi-fying in court against whites. The Fourteenth Amendment was potentially far-reaching in its provisions and its implications; however, just as was true for thestate constitution’s prohibition of slavery, the amendment was given meaningonly as individuals appealed to the federal courts for protection of “equal pro-tection of the laws.”
Economic Growth in a Time of National Crisis
As the hundreds of gold seekers in early 1848 became tens of thousands in 1849and after, the vast majority hoped to make their fortunes by finding gold. Some,however, sought wealth by selling goods to the miners or by investing in otherventures. Thus, the Gold Rush prompted the rapid development of other aspectsof the new state’s economy, from merchandising to agriculture to lumbering.Civil war in 1861 failed to slow the state’s growth, and the new RepublicanParty quickly took action to subsidize a railroad to tie California to the Union.These developments, like the military and political events of the period, alsohelped to integrate California more closely with the rest of the nation.
The Transformation of Mining
The first miners found their gold by placer mining—panning or using sluices.The easily available gold was soon gone, however. By 1852 or so, it was oftenChinese miners who remained to mine the less productive diggings, reworktailings, and work for wages in the increasingly capital-intensive mining indus-try. By 1860, 35,000 Chinese immigrants had come to California, most fromGuangdong province in southern China, a region that had suffered from warwith Great Britain in the early 1840s, from economic depression and internalstrife in the 1850s, then again from war with Britain and France in the late1850s. By 1860, nearly three-quarters of all Chinese Californians worked inmining, accounting for nearly a third of all those making their living by miningin California. By 1870, more than half of California’s miners were Chinese.
New forms of mining were also coming into use, including hydraulic min-ing (see p. 116) and quartz mining. By 1870, quartz mining produced42 percent of all gold mined in California. Quartz mining involved diggingquartz out of rock, often through the sinking of shafts into the face of a moun-tain, pulverizing the quartz, and then extracting the gold through chemicalreactions. Like hydraulic mining, quartz mining was expensive, involvingdeep-shaft mines and powerful stamping mills to crush the quartz. By1858, California’s stamping mills alone were estimated to be worth more than$3 million. Within another 10 years, some mine shafts had reached more than1000 feet in length, requiring elaborate timbering to stabilize the shafts,
148 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
artificial lighting, cable systems to haul out the ore, and sometimes powerful airpumps to force fresh air to the depths.
Throughout much of the 1850s, California had produced about $50 million ingold each year, even more in 1851 and 1852, with 1852 the high point of more than$80 million (equivalent in purchasing power to more than $2 billion in 2010). Goldproduction declined in the 1860s, to about $24million in 1864 and some $7millionby 1870, but gold continued to be mined for many years afterward. Some goldseekers in the 1880s and 1890s showed great ingenuity. They built dredgingboats that plied the rivers of the Central Valley, scooping up the sand from thebottom and separating out whatever gold it contained. Other gold seekers evendiverted the course of rivers, enabling them to mine the riverbed directly.
By the early 1860s, many miners had abandoned California for the newestmining region—the Washoe region of Nevada, 20 miles east of the Californiaborder. There, in 1859, gold seekers found a silver bonanza. The discovery wascalled the Comstock Lode, after Henry Comstock, who had established an earlyclaim. Just as the news of gold had spurred a great rush of prospectors into theSierra Nevada foothills in 1848 and 1849, so news of silver discoveries broughtthousands into the dry mountains east of Lake Tahoe. But Comstock silver, likegold quartz, required the expensive, up-to-date technology of deep-shaft min-ing and crushing mills.
Deep-shaft mining, hydraulic mining, and crushing mills necessitated cap-ital investment on a massive scale, transforming mining into a big business.Companies sought to raise the necessary capital by selling shares (stock) inthe company. In 1862, the San Francisco Stock Exchange opened to formalizethe process of selling stock, nearly all of it in mining companies, many in theWashoe. Within a year, nearly 3000 mining companies were issuing stock as away to raise capital. Speculation in mining stocks soon came to rival mining asa source of quick wealth—or financial disaster.
Most of the wealth of the Washoe, like that of California mines, flowed as ifthrough a giant funnel to the banks in San Francisco. This made the economicdevelopment of California unlike that in almost any part of the United States tothat time. As Americans had moved west with dreams of economicdevelopment—farming, ranching, lumbering, mining—their enterprises had usu-ally been dependent on capital from more developed areas to the east and acrossthe Atlantic. Many California enterprises were also dependent on eastern and for-eign capital, but the enormous amount of gold and silver meant that California’seconomic development was different from most other frontier experiences—itsoon became, as one historian aptly put it, “a self-financing frontier.”
Economic Diversification
The large numbers of gold seekers in 1849 and later stimulated a wide range ofother economic developments, for they needed shirts and biscuits, tents andtransportation. From the beginning, some made their fortunes by mining the
Economic Growth in a Time of National Crisis 149
miners—trading hardware, dry goods, and food for gold dust. One woman, in1852, claimed to have earned $11,000 by baking pies in a skillet over a campfireand selling them to hungry miners. Levi Strauss earned lasting fame when herealized that trousers made of canvas would hold up better than those worn bymost miners. By 1870, the durability of Levi’s pants—soon dubbed Levis—hadmade their inventor a millionaire.
The miners were hungry for meat, and the ranchers of southern Californiarapidly expanded their cattle herds to meet the huge demand. By 1860, Califor-nia stood third among the states in the number of cattle being raised for meat.Cattle raising expanded too fast, however, and supply soon exceeded demand.During the extremely wet winter of 1861 to 1862, many cattle drowned inflooding in the San Joaquin Valley, and more died during a drought in 1863and 1864. The number of beef cattle fell by half between 1860 and 1870.
Production of other agricultural goods also expanded. During the early1850s, flour had been the largest single import into California. By the late1850s, Californians were producing a surplus of wheat and flour and began toexport it. In 1860, California stood second among the states in winemaking andby 1870 held first place, producing well over half of the nation’s wine. Sheepraising also boomed, and by 1870 California ranked second in the productionof wool.
Much of this early agricultural development was not in the central valleysthat eventually became crucial to California agriculture. Most of the leadingwheat-growing counties in 1860 were around San Francisco Bay, and the lead-ing wool-producing and cattle-raising counties were mostly along the coastbetween Monterey and Los Angeles. Los Angeles was the leading wine-producing county in 1860. By then, however, Agoston Haraszthy, an immi-grant from Hungary, had begun to experiment with viticulture (the growingof grapes for winemaking) in the Sonoma Valley. In 1861, he traveled to Eur-ope and returned with 100,000 grapevine cuttings representing more than 300varietals.
California agriculture was distinctive by the size of its farms and ranches, aholdover in part from the days of the huge ranchos. Throughout the 1850s and1860s, the average farm in California was in excess of 450 acres, more thandouble the national average.
The Gold Rush and the expansion of agriculture stimulated the develop-ment of manufacturing. Californians developed new forms of mining equip-ment, some of which were among the most technologically sophisticated inthe world. By the 1860s, foundries and machine shops in the Bay Area, espe-cially in San Francisco, were producing not only technologically advanced min-ing equipment but also farm machinery, ships, and locomotives. As wheatfarming expanded, so did flour milling. By 1870, flour ranked as the state’smost valuable single product. Mining, agriculture, and the growing cities allneeded construction material, and lumbering soon became an important indus-try. Loggers quickly cut the redwoods along the central coast and began to
150 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
move into the larger stands of trees along the northern coast. By the mid-1850s, Humboldt County was emerging as a major source of lumber.
San Francisco rapidly developed as a commercial center, based on its portand on the federal customhouse and mint. By 1860, the city had become thenation’s sixth largest port and a major center for banking and finance.
Transportation
Throughout the 1850s and early 1860s, California remained remote from theeastern half of the nation, accessible only by difficult and dangerous routes.The major overland routes soon became well-beaten roads. By the late 1850s,the firm of Russell, Majors, and Waddell dominated freighting along the PlatteRiver route to Salt Lake City and the Pacific coast, eventually operating 3,500wagons drawn by 40,000 oxen. When traveled by oxen, however, the overlandroute could occupy most of a summer. When Congress offered to subsidizeany company that could deliver mail between the Mississippi River and SanFrancisco in 25 days or less, Butterfield Overland Mail secured the subsidyand in 1858 ran its first stagecoaches along a southern route, carrying bothmail and up to nine passengers on a bouncing, three-week-long journey. Even-tually, a few other stage routes were added, also with federal subsidies forcarrying mail. Though faster than ox trains, stagecoaches were prohibitivelyexpensive for most. Freighting operations and stagecoaches required regularstations along the route, staffed by company agents, where stagecoaches couldchange their teams and travelers could get a meal. In 1860, Russell, Majors, andWaddell launched the Pony Express, a mail delivery system based on relays ofindividual riders, each of whom was to ride at full speed, with changes ofhorses every 10 miles and changes of riders every 70 miles. The first PonyExpress riders left San Francisco and St. Joseph, Missouri, on April 3, 1860,and the mail arrived at the other end 10 days later. This fast mail servicebecame obsolete 18 months later, when the first transcontinental telegraphline was completed.
The other route to California was by sea, either around Cape Horn, at thetip of South America, or to Panama, over the isthmus, and then up the Pacificcoast. Fast clipper ships could make the journey from New York around CapeHorn to San Francisco in 130 days or less. The trip over the isthmus was faster.By the late 1850s, a rickety railroad was completed over the isthmus, and thetrip to New York via Panama took about the same time as the Butterfield stageand its rail connections to the Atlantic coast.
Nearly everyone agreed that only a direct railroad connection couldimprove transportation between California and the eastern half of the nation.Nearly everyone agreed, too, that the cost of building a rail route was so astro-nomical that only massive federal subsidies could tempt entrepreneurs toundertake the construction. Such agreement, however, ended over the properroute for the rails. Stephen Douglas, senator from Illinois, led a group who
Economic Growth in a Time of National Crisis 151
wanted to connect San Francisco to Chicago. Senator Thomas Hart Benton ofMissouri, father-in-law of John Frémont, thundered his support for a routewest from St. Louis. Southerners pointed to New Orleans as the logical termi-nus for a route through Texas and New Mexico Territory. Gwin tried to satisfyeveryone by proposing a railroad with three eastern branches, for Chicago,St. Louis, and New Orleans, but the costs were prohibitive. The issue remaineddeadlocked throughout the 1850s.
Tying Together the Union With Iron
When Republicans took power in Washington in 1861, they faced secessionand then war. As Lincoln and his party raised troops and amassed supplies,Republicans moved quickly to use the power of the federal government toencourage economic growth and development. Among the development mea-sures they passed was the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862.
As the new, Republican Congress assembled late in 1861, Theodore Judaharrived in Washington with plans for a railroad over the Sierra Nevada. Judah’sexperience and abilities as an engineer had combined with his enthusiasm for atranscontinental line to attract support from several Sacramento merchants, allRepublicans: Leland Stanford, Collis P. Huntington, Mark Hopkins, and CharlesCrocker (whose brother, Edwin, was a prominent abolitionist as well as a leadingRepublican). As merchants, they may have been persuaded less by a vision of arailroad to the east coast than by the prospect of a railroad to the silver-miningregions of Nevada. Regardless of their motives, they joined Judah in mid-1861and put up the initial capital to create the Central Pacific Railroad Company.By then, Stanford was the Republican candidate for governor.
With crucial support from the California congressional delegation, Judahtirelessly lobbied for federal support. Signed into law on July 1, 1862, thePacific Railroad Act incorporated the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)to build and run a railroad from Nebraska Territory to the western boundaryof Nevada, and authorized the Central Pacific Company (CP) to build track tomeet the UP. The companies were to receive federal land for their tracks, sta-tions, and other buildings, and, as a subsidy, every other square mile of land for10 miles (later increased to 20) on each side of the tracks. The remaining landwithin this checkerboard pattern was to be offered for sale by the federal gov-ernment at double its usual price, so that the land grant, in the long run, wouldcost the government almost nothing. Finally, the act provided for a loan of$16,000—later increased substantially—for every mile of track completed.
A symbolic first shovelful of earth was dug early in 1863 by Stanford, nowboth president of the railroad and governor of the state. Initial preparations gotunderway that summer. By the fall, however, Judah had fallen out with hispartners and returned to the East to seek financial support against them, buthe contracted a fever en route and died shortly after reaching New York.Huntington took over as the railroad’s chief lobbyist. Amendments to the
152 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
Map
5.1This
map
show
stherouteof
theCentralPacific
from
Sacram
ento
toProm
ontory
Summit,Utah,
andalso
theouterboun
darie
sof
theland
grantthat
thecompany
received
from
thefederalgovernment.
Land
was
awardedin
acheckerboard
pattern,
10square
miles(later
increasedto
20)foreach
mile
oftrackcompleted.No
teho
wlong
ittook
fortherailroadto
bebuilt
from
Sacram
ento
across
theSierra
Nevadas,
andthen
howquicklyconstruction
proceededacross
Nevada
andUtah.
153
ORE
GO
NW
YOM
ING
IDAH
O
Pro
mo
nto
ryM
ay 1
0, 1
869
NEV
ADA
UTA
H
Cis
coN
ov. 9
, 186
6Tr
uck
eeC
olf
axAp
r. 3,
186
8Se
pt. 1
0, 1
865
Wad
swo
rth
July
22,
186
8N
ewca
stle
Ren
oJa
n. 3
1, 1
865
Du
tch
Fla
tJu
ne 1
9, 1
868
Ro
sevi
lleJu
ly, 1
865
Clip
per
Gap
June
10,
186
5PA
CIFI
CFe
b. 2
9, 1
864
OCE
ANS
acra
men
toOc
t. 26
, 186
3
San
Fra
nci
sco
CALI
FORN
IAS
an J
ose
Og
L de
n UNI
NTR
IFI
O
AC
N P
A CIF
IC
CE
C
CE
CIFI
C
NTRAL
A
P
PA
Area
of l
and
gran
ts to
Dat
es in
dica
te w
hen
trac
k re
ache
d ea
ch c
ity
050
100
Km.
050
100
Mi.
ARIZONA
original act in 1864 substantially increased both the amount of land and theamount of loan funds provided by the federal government.
Even with generous subsidies, the CP faced huge difficulties, beginning withfinding a sufficient labor force. The Civil War had drained males from the workforce, and the lure of Nevada silver took many more. Charles Crocker—incharge of construction—employed a few Chinese laborers as an experiment.The Chinese crews proved to be so capable that Crocker quickly hired more.From then on, the construction crews, including the foremen, were almost allChinese, though supervisory jobs were held by whites. By mid-1866, 6000Chinese laborers were at work on CP construction, and their numbers reachednearly 10,000 before the job was done.
The construction crews faced formidable obstacles as they entered the SierraNevada. The CP was anxious to build as rapidly as possible, because subsidieswere awarded for track actually in place and because the UP was competing forthose subsidies. The sooner the CP crews could reach Nevada and begin to buildacross relatively flat regions, the more of the subsidy would go to the CP. Thewinters of 1866–1867 and 1867–1868 were severe, but Crocker pushed his crewsto work despite the ice and snow. The solid granite of the mountains also slowedprogress; one tunnel took an entire year to build, as construction crews chippedout only eight inches of rock per day. In other places, Chinese laborers werelowered down sheer cliffs in baskets to chip away at the rock or to drill holesfor blasting powder. Such work was highly dangerous, and many died in falls,explosions, avalanches, and accidents.
Not until June 1868 did the tracks reach Nevada. Though the UP startedwell after the CP, its initial construction had been through the flatlands ofNebraska and eastern Wyoming. By June 1868, the UP had built twice as manymiles of tracks as the CP. Desperate to push their tracks to eastern Utah to cap-ture the business to and from Salt Lake City, the CP partners pushed their crewseven harder. In the last year of building through the mountains, the crews com-pleted only 40 miles of track. In 1868, building through Nevada, they completed362 miles. Competition between the CP and UP grew ever more intense, as bothsought to maximize their tracks as a way to maximize their federal subsidies. UPconstruction crews, by then, were largely Irish, and ethnic rivalry also becamefrenzied. In the end, however, Crocker’s Chinese crews set the record of10 miles of track in a single day.
A grand ceremony was organized to dramatize the joining of the Union Pacificand Central Pacific rails at Promontory Summit, Utah, just outside the city ofOgden. On May 10, 1869, two giant locomotives from each line moved forwardto face each other. Ceremonial spikes of precious metal from western territoriesand states were tapped into place, and Stanford used a silver mallet to drive in afinal spike of California gold as telegraph lines carried the blows to the nation.
The driving of the golden spike did not unite California with the rest of thenation by rail, as the UP section of the track had some gaps and the MissouriRiver was still unbridged. Much of the track had been laid so rapidly that it required
154 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
almost immediate repairs. Nonetheless, the nation celebrated with fireworks andflowery speeches from Boston to San Francisco. The Liberty Bell was rung inPhiladelphia. New York City heard a 100-gun salute. The nation, so recentlydivided by a bloody war, seemed determined to celebrate a new symbolic unity.The long trip between California and the Missouri valley had been cut to six days.
New Social and Cultural Patterns
During the 20 years following the discovery of gold, the state was transformedin many ways beyond the economic changes. California acquired new socialinstitutions, especially educational and humanitarian institutions, and devel-oped a reputation as a literary center.
Gender Roles and New Social Institutions
The thousands of gold seekers gave the population of the new state a peculiarcomposition—the state’s population in 1850 was composed overwhelmingly ofyoung men. As seen in Figure 5.1, more than half the population was male andaged between 15 and 30. But the imbalance between men and women persisted
Figure 5.1 Numbers of Men and Women by Age, 1850This figure vividly shows the extreme demographic disproportions by age and sex thatwere created by the Gold Rush. What do these data suggest regarding the nature of lifein the mines?Source: Statistical view of the United States: being a compendium of the seventh census(Washington, 1854).
New Social and Cultural Patterns 155
after many gold seekers returned to their homes in the East or left for othermining regions. Figure 5.2 presents data for 1870, indicating a continuing,though not so extreme, disproportion between men and women aged 20 to50. This ratio between men and women, characteristic of frontier societies, car-ried implications for other social patterns.
Many Americans in the mid-19th century had sharply defined expectationsregarding social roles for men and women. Domesticity was the notion that theproper place for a woman was in the home as wife and mother, and that as wife-mother she was guardian of the family, responsible for its moral, spiritual, andphysical well-being. As moral guardians and protectors of children and families,women also assumed important roles in the church and the school and involuntary organizations devoted to caring for women, children, and the lessfortunate. Beyond this, moreover, many Americans believed that women oughtnot experience much of the world, for fear that business or politics, with theirsometimes lax moral standards, might corrupt women. The best choice, it waswidely argued, was for women to occupy a separate sphere, immune from suchdangers. Though widely advocated in the pulpits and journals of the day, theconcepts of domesticity and separate spheres proved most typical of whitemiddle-class and upper-class women in towns and cities, and often held littlerelevance for farm women, working-class women, and women of color.
Figure 5.2 Numbers of Men and Women by Age, 1870Note how men continued to outnumber women long after the initial stages of the GoldRush had passed. Such demographic disproportions are typical of frontier economiesdependent on the exploitation of raw materials, for example, through mining,lumbering, or ranching. What does this suggest about the California economy?Source: The statistics of the population of the United States compiled from the ninth census(Washington, 1872).
156 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
Many 19th-century Americans also accepted the notion that men naturallytended to be materialistic where women were spiritual and that men tended tobe adventurous or even hedonistic where women were restrained and refined.“Nothing is better calculated to preserve a young man from contamination oflow pleasures and pursuits,” stated one guidebook for young men, than fre-quent contact “with the more refined and virtuous of the other sex.” In Cali-fornia in the 1850s, however, the extreme imbalance between the numbers ofmen and women made such contact unlikely for many young men. Thus, fewAmericans were surprised that, without the restraining presence of women, thelargely male mining camps seemed to be given over to adolescent-like excessesof vice, violence, and greed.
As women arrived in California during the 1850s and 1860s, manybrought with them the middle-class expectations of their day, and they quicklyset about constructing social institutions intended to convey morality,educate the young, and care for the unfortunate. They did not do so by them-selves, of course, for many men also understood the value of such institutions.In 1850, there were only two public schools and seven teachers in the entirestate. By 1870, Californians had created 1,342 public schools, taught by morethan 2,400 teachers, of whom 1,400 were women. The 28 churches of1850 expanded to 643 in 1870. Californians also organized other social insti-tutions—orphanages, benevolent societies, libraries, reform associations—andmany of them relied for their continuation on the voluntary labor of middle-and upper-class women.
Not all women who migrated to California accepted the prevailing socialdefinitions of domesticity and separate spheres. Some came to California toget rich, a few by panning for gold, more by selling meals and lodging tominers, and probably the largest number by prostitution. Others challengedprevailing gender roles in other ways. Ada Clare, a San Francisco journalist,urged women to take advantage of a new gymnasium and to build themselvesup physically, to dispel the prevailing social view of women as frail and sickly.Laura de Force Gordon delivered the state’s first public lecture on woman suf-frage in 1868 and helped to form a state woman suffrage association early in1870. Another early proponent of woman suffrage was Emily Pitts Stevens, aformer schoolteacher who launched the state’s first newspaper committed towomen’s rights in 1869.
The Growth of Religious Toleration
California in the 1850s was rife with ethnic hostility and conflict, but it differedlittle in that regard from other parts of the nation. Discrimination against freeAfrican Americans and mistreatment of American Indians could be foundnearly everywhere to the east. California and the West were unique, however,in the diversity of their ethnic groups. In the eastern part of the country, racialrelations usually involved blacks and whites, or sometimes whites and Indians,
New Social and Cultural Patterns 157
or, rarely, blacks and Indians. Racial and ethnic relations in the West, however,involved not just American Indians and Americans of European and Africandescent, but also Mexican Americans (many of them mestizos) who had becomecitizens under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and immigrants from Asia, Eur-ope, Australia, the islands of the Pacific, and Latin America. (Table 5.1 presentsdata on groups included in census tabulations for 1852, 1860, and 1870.)
The Gold Rush attracted many European immigrants, some of whom camefrom intermediary points including the eastern United States and Australia.The influx included groups subject to discrimination and hostility in the east-ern United States. Irish immigrants, for example, were depicted in some easternnewspapers as whiskey-swilling ignoramuses. Anti-Catholicism was as old asthe Reformation, and anti-Semitism was older. The Know-Nothing movementof the mid-1850s drew support all over the country by criticizing immigrants,especially Catholic immigrants.
Californians, particularly in the gold-mining areas, seem to have developedan unusual toleration of religious differences. One historian carefully surveyed
Table 5.1 RACE, ETHNICITY, OR NATIVITY FOR CALIFORNIA POPULATION,1852, 1860, 1870
Race,ethnicity,or nativity
1852 1860 1870
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Asian not available 34,933 9.2 49,310 8.8
AfricanAmerican(includingmulatto)
1,678 0.7 4,086 1.1 4,272 0.8
AmericanIndian*
31,266 12.3 17,798 4.7 7,241 1.3
Foreign-born 54,803 21.4 146,528 38.6 209,831 37.5
• Ireland not available 33,147 8.7 54,421 9.7
• German states not available 21,646 5.7 29,699 5.3
• Great Britain not available 12,227 3.2 17,685 3.2
All others(mostlywhites bornin the U.S.)
167,375 65.6 176,649 46.5 289,593 51.7
Total 255,122 379,994 560,247
*Described as “civilized” or “domesticated” by the census, meaning those who lived in the midst of thelarger society and followed at least some social and economic patterns of the larger society.
Source: U.S. Census Office, The Seventh Census of the United States: 1850 (Washington, 1853), whichincluded the special census of 1852; U.S. Census Office, Population of the United States in 1860(Washington, 1864).
158 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
all available records and found only two clear instances of anti-Semitic discrim-ination in the mining regions during the 1850s. In 1850, the California consti-tutional convention alternated its daily opening prayer between Protestant andCatholic clergymen. Students in the Catholic school in Los Angeles in 1859included not just Catholics but also Protestants and Jews. A few years before,Protestants in San Francisco had contributed generously to help build a newCatholic church.
Despite the victory of the Know-Nothings in the state elections of 1855, asimilar religious toleration seemed to characterize most of the new state’s poli-tics. When he was active in New York Democratic politics, Broderick hadunderstood that the state’s Democratic leaders were unwilling to permit IrishCatholics to rise too far. In California, Broderick won a seat in the U.S. Senatein 1857. The Irish-born and Catholic John Downey became governor in 1860after being elected lieutenant governor the year before. San Franciscans electedan Irish Catholic mayor in 1867, and two Irish Catholics followed Broderickinto the U.S. Senate from California before 1870. Catholic Californios wereelected to local offices in some parts of northern California as well as in thesouth, and José Estudillo was elected state treasurer, serving from 1875 to1880. Jews were also elected to local offices in the mining regions in the1850s, and Solomon Heydenfeldt, who was Jewish, won election to the statesupreme court in 1851.
One key to understanding this toleration of Catholics and Jews may befound in the Gold Rush, when respect went to those who prospered most. By1870, San Francisco had 27 Irish bankers; at the same time, Philadelphia (muchlarger) had 18 and Boston (also much larger) had only four. Another part ofthe reason is undoubtedly the sheer numbers of Catholics—half the church-goers in the state by one estimate in 1860. Recent historians suggest that thepresence of significant numbers of African Americans, American Indians,Chinese, and mestizos may have led whites—whether Protestant, Catholic, orJewish, Irish, German, British, Californio, or old-stock American—to focus ontheir “whiteness” rather than their religion or national origin. Whatever thereasons, by 1860 California was developing a reputation for religious toleration.That reputation, however, was limited to religion and failed to extend to race.
Chinese immigrants were barred from American citizenship. Congressapproved the first federal law on naturalization in 1790 and, although amendedoccasionally, the law provided that only white immigrants might become natu-ralized citizens. State laws also discriminated against immigrants from China.In a court decision in 1854, the law that barred African Americans and Ameri-can Indians from testifying in court against whites was extended to the Chi-nese. Though local school boards first created racially separate schools forblack students, local officials soon mandated segregated schools for Chinesestudents as well. The state legislature in 1863 directed the state superintendentof instruction to withhold funds from school districts that did not create sepa-rate schools for “Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians.”
New Social and Cultural Patterns 159
Writing the Gold Rush
Among those who came to California in the 1850s and 1860s were youngwriters, some of whom created new patterns in American literature. Life inthe mining districts stimulated the creative imagination of some who minedthe excitement and turbulence there for a wealth of literary plots. Writerspublished articles, poems, essays, and short stories in the new newspapers andliterary journals. By the late 1850s, San Francisco could choose among morethan 10 daily newspapers and a larger number of weekly or monthly publica-tions. Every mining town had at least one local paper, and often two. Amongthe many firsthand accounts of the Gold Rush that appeared in such publica-tions, perhaps the finest were the 23 letters written by Louise Clappe under thepseudonym Dame Shirley and published in the San Francisco Pioneer in 1854and 1855.
Bret Harte arrived in California in 1854 and tramped through the miningcountry before taking a newspaper job in Humboldt County. He scathinglycondemned local ruffians for the brutal slaughter of 60 Indians, mostlywomen and children, then fled when he was apparently threatened with lynch-ing. He made his way to San Francisco and soon became editor of the OverlandMonthly. In its pages, he presented accounts of life in the diggings, drawingboth on his own experience and on other firsthand accounts. Through storiessuch as “The Outcasts of Poker Flat,” Harte contributed significantly to thedevelopment of local color and realism in American fiction. Other Californiajournalists also began to develop similar themes.
The most famous and influential of the Gold Rush authors was Samuel L.Clemens, a Mississippi River steamboat captain who fled from the strife of theCivil War and arrived in Nevada Territory in 1861. There he mined, speculatedin mining stock, camped through the Sierra Nevada, and began to writehumorous essays for the Virginia City newspaper. He began to use the penname Mark Twain and quickly became the most popular humorist in Nevada.In May 1864, he moved to San Francisco, where he developed his humor intosatire. His short story “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County” waspublished in a New York journal in 1865. A San Francisco newspaper, the AltaCalifornia, commissioned him to travel to the Mediterranean and the HolyLand (then part of the Turkish empire). His book on his travels, InnocentsAbroad (1869), established his national reputation and he moved to the East.
Ina Coolbrith arrived in California with her mother and stepfather in 1851and grew up in Los Angeles. Her first poetry was published when she was 11.After her marriage to an abusive husband ended in divorce, she moved to SanFrancisco in the early 1860s. There she soon received national attention for herpoetry and joined Harte in running the Overland Monthly. She seems to havedazzled Harte, Twain, and other emerging literary figures with her poetry, lit-erary advice, conversation, and beauty. When Harte, Twain, and the others leftCalifornia to pursue fame in the East or in Europe—they were all gone by
160 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
1870—Coolbrith remained. She worked as city librarian in Oakland for manyyears, encouraged a new generation of writers, including Jack London, and, in1915 at the age of 74, was named poet laureate of California.
Summary
California’s application for statehood produced the Compromise of 1850, bywhich congressional leaders sought to stave off sectional crisis. Sectional issuesaffected California politics in the 1850s, however, as transplanted southernersstruggled with transplanted northerners to control California’s two Senateseats. In California, as in the eastern states, the growing sectional crisis precipi-tated the emergence of a new political party, the Republicans. At the same timethat national politics was rupturing over the issue of slavery, California experi-enced a crisis of political legitimacy with the rise of vigilantism, reaching itsapogee when vigilantes overthrew the city government of San Francisco.
The federal government was slow to create reservations for CaliforniaIndians, many of whom fell victim to violence. Californios who held Spanishor Mexican land grants found it expensive and time-consuming to prove titleto their land, and many lost their lands. Throughout the 1850s, the full
Ina Coolbrith is shown here as an established, celebrated poet. Coolbrith, in keeping with the moral conventions of her time, tried to conceal her divorce. She also tried to conceal her family background—that her mother had fled to Salt Lake City and that Coolbrith was the niece of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church.
Portr
ait of
Ina C
oolbr
ith, U
niver
sity o
f Sou
thern
Califo
rnia
Libra
ries a
nd th
e Cali
fornia
Hist
orica
l Soc
iety,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn
restr
iction
s
Summary 161
meaning of the state constitution’s ban on slavery had to be determinedthrough court actions, most initiated by abolitionists, black and white.
With the presidential victory of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the nationplunged into civil war. Far from the scene of battle, the war nonethelessaffected California in important ways. Some Californians participated in thewar itself, and others raised funds for the Union cause. Reconstruction, andespecially the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, altered the meaningof citizenship, and California law was amended to remove many of the lawsthat discriminated against African Americans and others.
The economy grew and diversified in the 1850s and 1860s, with growthfueled by the continued development of mining. Throughout the 1850s, Cali-fornia remained remote from the eastern United States because of poor trans-portation. With the victory of the Republicans, however, came federal subsidiesfor construction of a railroad to tie California to the North.
With the continued growth of population, sex ratios in California began tomove toward a more normal distribution. At the same time, partly through theprompting of women, new social institutions began to emerge. Catholics andJews in California experienced less religious discrimination than their counter-parts in the eastern United States. California, and especially San Francisco,acquired a reputation as a literary center.
Suggested Readings
❚ Berglund, Barbara, Making San Francisco American: Cultural Frontiers inthe Urban West, 1846-1906 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007).A deeply researched study of the social and cultural evolution of Califor-nia’s largest city.
❚ Chen, Yong, Chinese San Francisco, 1850–1943: A Trans-Pacific Community(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000). A recent treatment that empha-sizes the continuing contacts between San Francisco’s Chinatown andChina.
❚ Clarke, Dwight L., William Tecumseh Sherman: Gold Rush Banker (SanFrancisco: California Historical Society, 1969). Incorporates long excerptsfrom Sherman’s detailed letters, especially interesting for the vigilantes of 1856.
❚ Dame Shirley, [Clappe, Louise A. K. S.], The Shirley Letters (1854–55; SantaBarbara and Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, Inc., 1970). The letters of“Dame Shirley” provide a wealth of information on life in the gold fields.
❚ Griswold del Castillo, Richard, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 1990). The best single treatment of this cru-cially important document for the history of California and the Southwest.
162 CHAPTER 5 California and the Crisis of the Union, 1850–1870
❚ Hurtado, Albert L., Indian Survival on the California Frontier (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1988). An insightful and comprehensive treatment ofthis important topic.
❚ Lapp, Rudolph M., Blacks in Gold Rush California (New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Press, 1977). A pioneering work in African American history.
❚ Lotchin, Roger W., San Francisco, 1846–1856: From Hamlet to City (1974;Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997). An excellent treat-ment of this crucial decade in the history of the city.
❚ Matthews, Glenna. The Golden State in the Civil War: Thomas Starr King,the Republican Party, and the Birth of Modern California (New York:Cambridge University Press, 2011). A new treatment of the topic, especiallygood on the role of Thomas Starr King.
❚ Quinn, Arthur, The Rivals: William M. Gwin, David Broderick, and theBirth of California (New York: Crown Publishers, 1994). A well-writtenand balanced account of the key political rivalry in California in the 1850s.
❚ Rawls, James J., Orsi, Richard J., and Smith-Baranzini, Marlene, eds., AGolden State: Mining and Economic Development in Gold Rush California(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). One volume of a series, allof which are excellent, developed by the California Historical Society on theoccasion of the state’s sesquicentennial.
❚ Rohrbough, Malcolm J., Days of Gold: The California Gold Rush and theAmerican Nation (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 1997). A highly acclaimed treatment of the Gold Rush itself and itsimpact on California and the nation.
❚ Senkewicz, Robert M., Vigilantes in Gold Rush San Francisco (Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1985). An excellent overview of San Francisco’svigilantism for the decade of the 1850s.
❚ Starr, Kevin, Orsi, Richard J., and Smith-Baranzini, Marlene, eds., Rooted inBarbarous Soil: People, Culture, and Community in Gold Rush California(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). Another of the excellentvolumes published to mark the state’s sesquicentennial.
Suggested Readings 163
CHAP
TER 6
California inthe Gilded Age,1870–1900
Main Topics
❚ The Economic Transformation of California andthe West
❚ New Social Patterns
❚ Politics
❚ Cultural Expression
❚ Summary
Born in China in 1857, the young orphan took the nameMary McGladery when she lived in the orphanage run bythe San Francisco Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society.
There, Mary learned English, other school subjects, how toplay the piano, and how to be a proper middle-class lady. In1875, she married Jeu Dip. Born in China in 1852, he came toSan Francisco in 1869, learned English, lived mostly outsideChinatown, operated a successful business as a drayman andbondsman, and Americanized his name to Joseph Tape.
The Tapes moved to a house outside Chinatown wheretheir first child, Mamie, was born in 1876. Three more childrenfollowed. In 1884, the Tapes tried to enroll Mamie in theschool nearest their home, but the San Francisco school boardhad long denied admission to children of Chinese descent. TheTapes filed a lawsuit to permit Mamie to attend school, and the
164
court ruled in their favor, as did the state supreme court.However, the San Francisco school superintendent persuadedthe legislature to amend state law to permit separate schoolsfor children of Chinese descent. Mamie was again deniedadmission to her neighborhood school. In turning to thecourts, the Tapes were among the significant numbers of Chi-nese Americans who sought judicial redress when local or statelaws violated their legal and constitutional rights, and whohelped thereby to break down racial segregation anddiscrimination.
In a letter published in the newspaper, Mary Tape angrilyaccused the school board of “Race prejudice” and asserted thatMamie “is more of an American than a good many of you.”Mamie and her brother were the first to enroll at the newChinese school. Later they moved near Chinatown, where
CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
1859–1880 Most productive period of Comstock silver mining
1864 Ralston opens the Bank of California
1870 Wheat surpasses gold as California’s most valuable product
1871 Anti-Chinese riots in Los Angeles
1872–1873 Modoc War
1877 Workingmen’s Party of California formed
1878 Constitutional Convention
1879 Publication of Henry George’s Progress and Poverty
1882 Chinese Exclusion Law approved
1884 Publication of Helen Hunt Jackson’s novel Ramona
1884 Southern Pacific Corporation chartered in Kentucky
1884 Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company
1885 Tape v. Hurley
1886 George Hearst becomes U.S. Senator
1886 Yick Wo v. Hopkins
1887 New state law encourages irrigation
1888 First California fruit travels to New York in refrigeratedrailroad cars
1897 Phoebe Apperson Hearst becomes Regent of the University ofCalifornia
1899 Publication of Frank Norris’s novel McTeague
165
Mamie and her siblings learned Cantonese and other Chinesecultural patterns. In 1895, the Tapes moved to Berkeley,where the younger children could attend the regular publicschools, including high school. While still in San Francisco,Mary had become an award-winning and technologically inno-vative amateur photographer. In Berkeley, Joseph’s busi-nesses continued to prosper, and the Tapes invested in realestate and eventually owned two ranches, where Josephenjoyed hunting.
Mary and Joseph Tape provide examples of those whomhistorians of immigration have called “rapid assimilators”—those who quickly learn English and adopt many aspects ofthe majority lifestyle. Joseph’s successful business enterprisespermitted them to live in middle-class, white neighborhoods.Mae Ngai, a historian who has researched the Tape family,describes them as “highly unusual” among the immigrants oftheir time, but as “archetypical members of the first ChineseAmerican middle class.”
Mamie Tape grew up during what historians call the“Gilded Age,” the years roughly from 1870 to 1900. A period
Children, in the wake of the Chinese Exclusion act, were all too rare and thus highly valued in California’s Chinese enclaves. Like Mamie Tape, they confronted discrimination in public education.
Child
ren w
ere t
he pr
ide, jo
y, be
auty,
and c
hief d
eligh
t of th
e qua
rter,
China
town,
San F
ranc
isco,
Arno
ld Ge
nthe,
photo
graph
er,
Libra
ry of
Cong
ress,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn re
strict
ions
166 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
of rapid industrialization and urbanization, large-scale immi-gration, and swift economic development in the West, it wasan age of great fortunes and urban poverty, of powerful newtechnology and rampant child labor. The Gilded Age was, infact, the title of the first novel by one-time Californian MarkTwain, coauthored with his Connecticut neighbor, CharlesDudley Warner. In it, they satirized the materialism and cor-ruption of their day. Although most histories of the GildedAge focus on the industries, entrepreneurs, cities, immigrants,and workers of the East and Midwest, California shared in allthese experiences, although sometimes with unique varia-tions. And Californians were often at the forefront duringthis era of rapid and far-reaching change.
Questions to Consider
❚ Why were railroads and water so important to the eco-nomic development of California during this time?
❚ What made San Francisco the metropolis of the West?❚ How was education transformed during this period?❚ In what ways did gender roles change during theseyears?
❚ How would you compare the experiences of CaliforniaIndians, Latinos, and immigrants during the late 19thcentury?
❚ What was the significance of third parties in Californiapolitics during the 1870s and 1890s?
❚ What were the similarities and differences between theconstitutional conventions of 1850 and 1878?
❚ In what ways did writers and artists draw on Californiaas inspiration for their work?
The Economic Transformation of Californiaand the West
Railroad construction was important to economic development throughout theUnited States after the Civil War. In California and the West, railroads wereeven more crucial because of the great distances and the dearth of navigablewaterways. Mining continued to be a major element in the western economy.At the same time, agriculture emerged as California’s leading industry. And,increasingly, water stood out as indispensable for mining, agriculture, andurban growth.
The Economic Transformation of California and the West 167
Railroad Expansion
For a quarter of a century after Leland Stanford placed the golden spike, theCentral Pacific Railroad and its successor corporation, the Southern Pacific,dominated rail transportation in California and other parts of the West. Evenbefore 1869, the railroad’s “Big Four”—Leland Stanford, Collis Huntington,Mark Hopkins, and Charles Crocker—had begun to buy out potential rivalsand block possible competitors.
San Francisco entrepreneurs organized the Southern Pacific Railroad tobuild a line from San Francisco to San Diego, and in 1866 Congress gave theSouthern Pacific a generous land grant. The Big Four gained control ofthe Southern Pacific (SP) and plotted a route through the Santa Clara andSan Joaquin Valleys—giving them not only a transportation monopoly there
Map 6.1 This map shows the extent of the Southern Pacific’s transportation system asof 1894. The Southern Pacific dominated railroad service in California and nearby areasand connected California to New Orleans, the Pacific Northwest, and the Midwest (viathe connection in Utah with the Union Pacific). Southern Pacific water routes con-nected New York and other major eastern cities to New Orleans, making it possible totravel cross-country entirely on Southern Pacific facilities. Does this map help you tounderstand why the Southern Pacific was sometimes called “the octopus”?
168 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
but also a great deal of potentially valuable agricultural land as part of theirland grant. In 1870, the SP reached Los Angeles, then a country town withfewer than 6000 people.
By the mid-1870s, the Big Four controlled 85 percent of all railroadmileage in California and had ambitious plans for expansion. Eventually, theyoperated a line across Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to New Orleans.Another line ran north, through the Sacramento Valley, then to Portland,Oregon (See Map 6.1). They acquired fleets of ships that carried passengersand freight along the Pacific coast, between California and Japan, and betweenNew Orleans and New York. In 1884, they merged all these operations into theSouthern Pacific Company, a holding company for which Huntington secureda corporate charter in Kentucky after the California legislature balked atapproving such a powerful corporation. By 1884, the Big Four claimed thatthe SP was the largest transportation system in the nation, with more than9000 miles of rails, 16,000 miles of water lines, and a virtual monopoly withinCalifornia and other parts of the West.
The SP was also the largest landowner in California. While other land-grant railroads sold much of their lands, the SP held most of its land, arousingopposition from would-be farmers. On occasion, conflict over land eruptedinto violence. The most famous conflict was the “battle of Mussel Slough,” astruggle between the SP and farmers near Hanford, in what is now KingsCounty. Residents of the area had filed lawsuits over the SP’s land grant, andmany farmers hoped to purchase land from the federal government for$2.50 per acre, rather than from the SP. The SP prevailed in court, however,and enforced prices of $10 to $25 per acre. In 1880, a federal marshal set outto evict a farm family, but a group of armed farmers blocked his way. Sevenmen died in the shootout that followed.
Leland Stanford served as president of the Central Pacific and then the SP.A founder of the Republican Party in California and the state’s first Republicangovernor (1863–1865), Stanford won election to the United States Senate in1885. He and his wife, Jane Lathrop Stanford, had one child, Leland Jr., whodied of typhoid at the age of 16. They created a magnificent memorial to theirson: Stanford University.
Collis P. Huntington was the shrewdest, coldest, and perhaps most ambi-tious of the Big Four. He represented them in the East and soon consideredNew York City his home. Huntington invested in other railroads, and by1884 he could ride in his personal rail car over his own companies’ tracksfrom the Atlantic to the Pacific! He also invested in railroads in Latin Americaand Africa, urban transit in Brooklyn, land in southern California, shipbuildingin Virginia, and a host of other companies. True to his opposition to slavery inthe 1850s, he insisted that his companies pay African Americans the same aswhite workers and that African Americans be hired on an equal basis withwhites. His few charitable contributions included funds for schools for AfricanAmericans.
The Economic Transformation of California and the West 169
No other railroad challenged the SP’s dominance until the 1890s, andthe company acquired a reputation for charging “all the traffic will bear,”that is, charging for freight and passengers at the very highest possible rate.Such behavior was typical of most railroad companies at the time. More thanone entrepreneur reported that, upon his complaining about high freightrates, SP officials asked him to produce his account ledgers so that theycould determine the highest level of freight rates he could pay without goingbankrupt.
Most Californians understood the SP to be the most powerful force instate and local politics. All of the Big Four had taken part in Republican poli-tics in the 1850s, before their investment in the railroad. Stanford served asgovernor and U.S. senator. Huntington was the SP’s lobbyist in Washington,dedicated to preventing political restrictions on the SP and to gaining what-ever advantages could be realized through the political process. In the early1880s, the widow of David Colton, a high-ranking official of the SP, releasedletters that Huntington had written to her husband in the 1870s. In one of themost notorious, Huntington wrote about one California congressman: “He isa wild hog; don’t let him come back to Washington.” Another letter dealtwith the U.S. Congress: “It costs money to fix things . . . with $200,000 I canpass our bill.”
Competition for the SP arrived in 1885 in the form of the Atchison,Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad, known as the Santa Fe, which completed itsline into Los Angeles in 1885. By 1888, passengers could take the Santa Fefrom Chicago to San Diego, and a fare war broke out between the Santa Feand the SP as each tried to undercut the other’s fares. In the meantime, severalSan Francisco merchants formed the Traffic Association to consider alterna-tives to the SP and to encourage the legislature to regulate freight rates. Even-tually, these efforts produced a new railroad company to build a line throughthe San Joaquin Valley to compete with the SP. Construction began in 1895,and by 1898 a line ran between Stockton and Bakersfield. The Santa Fe thenbought the new line, linked it to the Santa Fe in southern California, and, in1900, completed an extension to San Francisco Bay. The SP’s monopoly hadfinally been broken.
Despite complaints about railroad rates and political influence, rail lineswere enormously important to the economic development of the West. With-out the railroad, most goods moved by water—up and down the coast andalong the few navigable rivers of central California. The railroad permittedmining in remote regions and the shipping of heavy, technologically advancedmining equipment. Additionally, the railroad encouraged the development ofspecialized agriculture, especially fruit growing, that required fast trains andrefrigeration equipment to carry produce from California to markets on theother side of the nation. By making travel from the eastern United States toCalifornia both easy and cheap, railroads also contributed significantly to thegrowth of the tourist industry and the state’s population boom.
170 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
Mining and Finance
Mining continued to be centrally important to the state’s economy, not onlywithin California, but also for the activities of California companies in develop-ing mines throughout the West. Many aspects of mining required a high degreeof expertise, technologically advanced equipment, and large amounts of capital.By the 1870s, California, and San Francisco in particular, were providing allthree of these elements for mining throughout the West. In the process, theinitiative in mining shifted from prospectors and mining engineers towardwell-capitalized mining companies and investment bankers.
Nevada’s Comstock Lode (see p. 149) made some Californians wealthy.Between 1859 and 1880, a third of a billion dollars in silver (equivalent toabout 6 billion dollars in 2010) was taken out of the Comstock Lode. Comstockmining required digging deep shafts and installing complex machinery to movemen and equipment thousands of feet into the earth and to keep the tunnelscool and dry. By the mid-1870s, the Comstock mines used some of the mostadvanced mining equipment in the world.
The career of George Hearst illustrates the role of Californians in westernmining. Born in Missouri in 1820, Hearst came overland to California in 1850and acquired extensive mining experience. In 1859, he bought a one-sixthinterest in the Ophir mine in the Comstock. The Ophir proved extraordinarilyprofitable. Hearst invested his profits in mining and in agricultural and timberlands throughout the West and Mexico. A Democrat, he served in the UnitedStates Senate from 1886 until his death in 1891. Though Hearst becamewealthy from his mining investments, his fortune did not place him in thetop ranks of San Francisco’s financial elite. Those positions were held securelyby the Big Four and others who were even more successful than Hearst incoaxing profits from the Comstock.
The first Californians to rake in extraordinary profits from the Comstockwere William Ralston and William Sharon. Ralston had organized the Bank ofCalifornia in 1864 and soon set up agencies in the Comstock region. Sharon,Ralston’s representative there, established control over many mines in theregion, and he also centralized decision making, financed deeper operations,and discovered new ore bodies. He vertically integrated the industry, combin-ing ownership of mines with ownership of a crushing mill, a timber companyfor shoring up the deep tunnels, water for the mills and for cooling the mines,fuel, and, after 1872, a railroad connection between the Comstock and the Cen-tral Pacific. In 1873, he was elected to the United States Senate from Nevada.
Nevada silver earned large profits for Ralston’s Bank of California. Heinvested some of this capital in manufacturing, mostly in San Francisco,including foundries and iron works, a refinery for Hawaiian sugar, and woolenmills to make cloth from the wool of California sheep. Other investmentsincluded shipping, hydraulic gold mining, insurance, irrigation canals, and thePalace Hotel, modeled on the great luxury hotels of Europe. He also loaned
The Economic Transformation of California and the West 171
funds to the Central Pacific. In 1875, however, Ralston faced a financial crisis.Some investments had been hit hard by the nationwide economic depres-sion that began in 1873, and some factories were suffering from competitionwith the products of eastern factories, now shipped to California over therailroad that Ralston had helped to finance. His back to the wall, Ralston soldhis half of the Palace Hotel to Sharon, disposed of other stock as best he could,and resigned from the bank. He died the same day. Sharon took his place ashead of a reorganized Bank of California.
By the time Sharon took over the Bank of California, he and the bank hadalready been displaced as the dominant factors in Nevada silver mining. Theylost out to four partners, James G. Fair and John W. Mackay, both experiencedmine operators, and James C. Flood and William F. O’Brien, San Franciscosaloon keepers turned stockbrokers. These four—all Irish—wrested control ofone large mine from Sharon in 1868, and the mine almost immediately beganto produce large profits. They soon struck the richest vein of silver ore inAmerican history. Like Sharon before them, they vertically organized opera-tions, investing in a reducing mill and in timber and water companies, allof which profited so long as the mines remained productive. Like others ofthe era, they invested their profits widely. Flood took the lead in creatingthe Nevada Bank of San Francisco in 1875 and served as its president. For abrief time, the Nevada Bank claimed the largest capitalization of any bank inthe world.
San Francisco was the financial center of the Nevada silver boom and ofmining throughout the West. The city’s merchants sold supplies to the miners,and most stocks in mining companies were bought and sold at San Francisco’sMining Exchange, scene of quick profits and devastating losses. Initially, someSan Francisco bankers, like Ralston, relied for capital on California merchantswho had prospered during the Gold Rush. San Francisco bankers used theiraccess to capital not just to invest in the Comstock but to centralize economicdecision making there and to introduce more productive technologies. SanFrancisco bankers financed much of the West’s mining operations, and theprofits helped to develop California industries, as well as to build lavish man-sions for the fortunate few. The process not only confirmed San Francisco asthe financial capital of a self-financing frontier, but also reinforced the specula-tive mentality of the Gold Rush.
Agriculture
The 1870 census recorded that wheat had surpassed gold as California’s mostvaluable product. Wheat remained one of California’s most valuable productsfor the next 30 years, a period historians call the Bonanza Wheat Era. Thismassive increase in production occurred largely because of the expandingindustrial work force of Britain, which required the importation of food. Cali-fornia’s weather in the central valleys was conducive to the production of hard,
172 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
dry wheat suitable for the long sea voyage and highly prized by British andIrish milling companies.
The high demand for California wheat and the relatively flat and dryCalifornia terrain led to mass production. Agricultural entrepreneurs carvedout huge wheat farms—the largest extending over 103 square miles—andcame to rely on machines to a greater extent than wheat farmers anywhereelse, particularly on larger and more complex machines. Relatively flat terrainand large fields encouraged California wheat growers to use huge steam-powered tractors and steam-powered combines, which cut the standing wheatand separated the grain from the stalk in one operation. Not for another20 years or so was such equipment widely used elsewhere.
Other agricultural entrepreneurs also operated on a large scale. HenryMiller and Charles Lux were German immigrants, both butchers. They formeda partnership and quickly moved to meatpacking (selling meat wholesale) andto cattle raising. Their company became the largest meat-packing firm in theWest and the largest landowner in the San Joaquin Valley, where the companyundertook massive drainage and irrigation projects to transform the landscapeinto fields and pastures. Eventually, Miller and Lux owned or leased thousandsof square miles of land in three states. By 1900, the firm was the nation’s larg-est vertically integrated cattle-raising and meat-packing company, and the onlyagricultural corporation ranked among the 200 largest industrial corporationsnationwide.
The bonanza wheat farms required a large force of laborers, especially atplanting and harvesting times, as did the mammoth cattle ranches of Millerand Lux. Such operations gave a unique character to California agriculture—the farms and ranches were on a scale virtually unknown elsewhere in thecountry, and they relied on both technologically up-to-date equipment and anarmy of wage laborers, many of whom could only count on seasonal employ-ment. By 1900 or so, the Bonanza Wheat Era had passed, partly because expan-sion of wheat growing elsewhere in the world drove down prices, and theMiller and Lux empire also dissolved after Miller’s death in 1916.
Viticulture—the growing of grapes—had been well established in southernCalifornia by the Spanish missions. In the 1860s and after, grape growing forwine shifted northward, and the valleys around San Francisco Bay—Sonoma,Napa, Livermore, and Santa Clara—became the center of the California wineindustry. There the climate, terrain, and soil produced grapes that could bemade into high-quality wines. By 1900, California was making more than80 percent of the nation’s wine. Grape growers, especially in the San JoaquinValley, discovered another market for their products in the form of raisins, andby 1900 almost half of the California grape harvest was used for raisins.
During the 1880s and 1890s, fruit growers began to expand and diversify,especially around San Francisco Bay and in parts of the San Joaquin Valley.Climate and soil conditions gave California fruit growers a great advantageover other parts of the country, and new techniques in preserving fruit meant
The Economic Transformation of California and the West 173
that dried and canned fruit from California could easily be shipped to the east-ern states and elsewhere in the world. The development of refrigerated railroadcars greatly increased the ability of California growers to sell fresh fruit. Thefirst refrigerated shipment of California fruit arrived in New York in 1888,leading to a major increase in demand. Refrigeration technology was soonapplied to ships, and by 1892 fresh fruit from California was available inGreat Britain. By 1900, Santa Clara County led the state in fruit productionby a wide margin, followed by Fresno, Sonoma, and Solano Counties. In the1870s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture introduced California growers to anavel orange from Brazil that was superior to previous varieties. Orange grow-ing expanded rapidly in southern California once refrigerated railroad carsopened markets in the eastern states. In the 1880s and 1890s, California alsobecame an important producer of vegetables and nuts.
The transition to fruit, nut, and vegetable crops brought important changesin many other aspects of California agriculture. The enormous wheat ranchesand the vast cattle ranches yielded to smaller farms that relied more on humanlabor than on machinery. Raisin, peach, plum, and pear growers averagedbetween 10 and 75 acres per farm, as opposed to the thousands of acres thathad composed some wheat or cattle ranches. In many cases, a single family ranthese small operations, although harvesting usually required additional labor.
The agricultural work force in central California in the 1880s and 1890swas ethnically diverse, including immigrants from Europe and whites whosefamilies had been in the United States for generations. Cattle raising oftenemployed Latinos, including both descendants of Californios and more recentimmigrants from Mexico. Chinese farm workers contributed to the develop-ment of specialty crop agriculture out of proportion to their numbers. By the1890s, there were also increasing numbers of agricultural workers from Japanand India.
Water
Water was key for the success of fruit, nut, and vegetable growing. Miners haddeveloped elaborate water systems almost immediately and continued torequire large amounts. Burgeoning urban areas required more and morewater. Demands for water came up against legal systems that had been devisedfor different conditions. As a result, conflict over water often led to protractedlegal battles and produced, in the end, new legal definitions of water rights andone of the first court orders protecting the environment.
Hydraulic mining had been used since the early 1850s (see p. 116). By1880, some hydraulic mining operations operated around the clock, lit bygiant electrical floodlights and drawing water from large reservoirs constructedby damming rivers. Unfortunately, hydraulic mining was highly destructive notonly to the terrain where the water cannons were directed, but also to the envi-ronment downstream. The water from the blasting drained into rivers, carrying
174 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
with it debris that killed fish and made the water unsuitable for drinking.Mining debris filled river channels and created serious flooding. Those floodsscattered mining debris over a wide area and damaged agricultural land. Urbanresidents far downstream from hydraulic mining had to build elaborate dikesto keep rivers from flooding their cities. The mining debris in the river chan-nels also threatened the use of rivers for shipping.
Finally, in 1884, Federal Circuit Judge Lorenzo Sawyer issued an order inthe case of Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company prohibitingthe dumping of debris in the rivers on the grounds that it was “a publicand private nuisance,” and inevitably damaged the property and livelihood offarmers. It was, perhaps, the first federal court order restricting a business inorder to protect the environment. The SP backed those challenging hydraulicmining because debris caused problems for the railroad too, by fouling its tracksand damaging its land. The Sawyer decision, which ended nearly all hydraulicmining, symbolized the transition from mineral extraction to crop production.
The legal system that Californians adapted from the eastern states was illsuited to the West. Eastern water law emphasized riparian rights, that is, theright of all those whose land bordered a stream to have access to the full flowof water from the stream, less small amounts for drinking. Irrigation removedwater from the stream permanently, violating the riparian rights of thosedownstream from the irrigator. A different practice had emerged in the goldcountry, where the principle of appropriation was used to argue that the firstperson to take water from a stream gained the rights to that water. Both sys-tems received some legal sanction by the California legislature.
This confusing state of affairs came under increasing challenge as moreand more farmers began to use streams for irrigation. Eventually, in 1887, thelegislature approved a law that permitted residents in a particular area to forman irrigation district with legal authority to take water for irrigation regardlessof downstream claims. By then, California led the nation in the amount of irri-gated farmland. By 1889, 14,000 California farmers (a quarter of the total),most of them in the San Joaquin Valley, practiced irrigation on more than amillion acres, about eight percent of all improved farmland in the state.
As irrigation was transforming parts of the Central Valley previouslytoo dry for many crops, wetlands were being drained to make them, too, avail-able for farming. In the middle of the 19th century, the southern end of theSan Joaquin Valley held the largest freshwater lake west of the MississippiRiver. Tulare Lake was broad—covering as much as 790 square miles—butshallow, and ringed by wetlands thick with tules and a wide diversity of wild-life. But as irrigators began to divert the rivers that fed Tulare Lake, the lakedried up. By 1900, the lake bed was being used for agriculture. Throughout theCentral Valley, other wetlands were also drained for use as farmland. Drainingwetlands together with massive irrigation projects produced unprecedentedalterations in the landscape, to the point that the Central Valley now hasdeservedly been called “one of the most transformed landscapes in the world.”
The Economic Transformation of California and the West 175
In the 1870s, some companies that had initially been formed to supply waterfor gold mining began to sell water to cities and for irrigation. To meet thedemand for electricity in the late 1880s and after, entrepreneurs in most Califor-nia cities were building generating plants that burned coal. Some, however, beganto adapt the miners’ waterways and high-pressure technologies to generate elec-tricity more cheaply and with less pollution. By the early 1890s, there were sev-eral hydroelectric generating plants operating in the gold country. Mining townslike Grass Valley were among the first to have lights from hydroelectric power.By 1900, there were 25 hydroelectric generating plants in California, most innorthern California, and that area was well on its way to becoming the regionof the nation with the most intense use of water power to generate electricity.
Rise of Organized Labor
During the Gilded Age, changes in the state’s economy resulted in a more com-plex work force. Figure 6.1 indicates components of the work force, based on the1900 census. The census data understate the number of women who worked inagriculture, so that proportion could be as high as a third. Also, women who ranboarding houses and prostitutes were often undercounted, which would increasethe service sector somewhat. Increasing the agriculture and service sectorswould, of course, proportionately decrease the others. Otherwise, Figure 6.1provides a reasonable approximation of the California work force.
As the scale of operations grew in mining, transportation, and someparts of agriculture and manufacturing, and as reliance on technologically
Figure 6.1 Major Components of the Wage-Earning Work Force, 1900This graph suggests how complex the California economy had become by 1900. It alsopoints to the continuing importance of agriculture and lumbering, as well as to themajor role of manufacturing.Source: Occupations at the twelfth census (Washington, 1904)
Agricultureand Lumbering
24%
Service22%
Manufacturing17%
Commerce14%
Transportationand Communication
7%
Professions6%
Construction5%
Mining and Quarrying4%
All other1%
176 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
sophisticated machinery increased in those areas, fewer people had the neces-sary capital to enter such fields. Instead, those who worked in these fields wereincreasingly likely to be wage-earning employees. Some of them helped toorganize unions. In 1910, Lucile Eaves published one of the first scholarlyhistories of California labor. In it, she wrote that trade union activity appearedso early “that one is tempted to believe that the craftsmen met each otheron the way to California and agreed to unite.” And, indeed, many immigrantsto California brought a concept of trade unionism in their mental baggage.
The first recorded union activity in California came in San Francisco in1849, when carpenters went on strike for higher wages. Local unions werecommon in San Francisco and other cities from the Gold Rush onward, thoughmost were short-lived until the 1880s. The history of early California unions ismuch like that of their counterparts to the east—workers with a particular skillformed local unions to seek better wages or working conditions, and thoseorganizations often fell apart if they lost a strike.
As in other parts of the country in the 1880s, many local unions in Californiaaffiliated with newly formed national trade union organizations and sometimeswith the American Federation of Labor (AFL), organized in 1886. Such tradeunions typically limited their membership to skilled workers in one particularfield, such as carpentry or printing, and many excluded women and people ofcolor. The 1880s also saw the rapid rise of the Knights of Labor, who admittedboth skilled and unskilled workers, including women and African Americans, butthe Knights were short-lived. All California unions excluded Chinese workers. Infact, most California unions in the 1880s presented themselves as defendingwhite workers against competition with Chinese workers, arguing that employersused Chinese workers to drive down wage levels and working conditions. Mosthistorians agree that opposition to Chinese labor gave California unions whathistorian Alexander Saxton called “the indispensable enemy.” This common“enemy” proved useful in efforts to organize white workers.
Unions also thrived in the prosperous 1880s because many employers found itto their financial advantage to give in to employee demands for better wages, ratherthan to face a strike. In 1891, employers formed the Board of Manufacturers andEmployers of California, centered in San Francisco and devoted to opposingunions. A major depression that began in 1893 caused many unions to collapsewhen they lost members due to unemployment or were unable to maintain wagelevels. Only with the revival of prosperity in the late 1890s did trade unions revive.
San Francisco: Metropolis of the West
The Southern Pacific, Hearst, Sharon, Flood and Fair, cattle barons, lumbercompanies, and other entrepreneurs located their corporate headquarters inSan Francisco, which was, by any criterion of that day, a major city. In 1880,San Francisco’s population reached nearly 300,000, ranking it seventh amongthe nation’s cities—the only large city west of St. Louis. James Bryce, an English
The Economic Transformation of California and the West 177
visitor, noted in the 1880s that San Francisco “dwarfs” other western cities and “is a commercial and intellectual centre, and source of influence for the sur-rounding regions, more powerful over them than is any Eastern city over its neighborhood.”
Beyond being a commercial and literary center, San Francisco had about it an air of excitement. Rudyard Kipling, the British author, visited in 1891 and likened the cable cars to a miracle for their ability to climb and descend hills smoothly. The expanding population alone provided opportunities that couldn’t exist elsewhere. For example, aspiring women artists formed a sketch-ing club to encourage and critique each other’s work, amateur photographers (including Mary Tape) formed the California Camera Club, and German immigrants formed German gymnastics societies and singing groups. Seamen the world over knew of the city’s storied Barbary Coast, reputed to contain every conceivable form of pleasure and vice. San Francisco’s Chinatown was the largest in the United States and already attracted curious tourists—Oscar Wilde, in 1881, thought it was “the most artistic town I have ever come across.”
Mar
ket S
t./Ta
bor P
hoto.
, San
Fran
cisco
, Tab
or I.W
. (Isa
iah W
est),
Libr
ary o
f Con
gress,
publi
c dom
ain,
no kn
own r
estri
ction
s
178 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
This photograph of San Francisco, the metropolis of the West, was taken looking southwestward along Market Street. Jack London called the area to the left of Market Street “South of the Slot” (south of the cable-car slot), and described it as home to the city’s working class. The area closest to the Ferry Building on both sides of Market Street included many saloons, cheap eating places, and union offices, all catering to the men who worked on the waterfront. Why might newcomers from small towns and rural areas, arriving in San Francisco through the Ferry Building, feel uncomfortable in such surroundings?
San Francisco was the metropolis of the West because of its economicprowess. It was a center for finance and held the headquarters of corporationsthat dominated much of the Pacific coast and intermountain West. Its dominancealso stemmed from its port: In 1880, 99 percent of all imports to the Pacific coastarrived on its docks, and 83 percent of all Pacific coast exports were loaded there.Western mining, transportation, and agriculture stimulated San Francisco’smanufacturing sector. By 1880, San Francisco’s foundries produced advancedmining equipment, large-scale agricultural implements, locomotives, and ships.San Francisco also became a major center for food processing.
San Francisco’s entrepreneurs extended their reach throughout the Westand into the Pacific. Claus Spreckels, an immigrant from Germany, establisheda sugar refinery in the city in 1863. In the 1870s, he developed a huge sugarplantation on the Hawaiian island of Maui and soon controlled nearly all theHawaiian sugar crop. By the 1890s, Spreckels was one of the three largest sugarproducers in the nation, drawing not only upon Hawai‘i but also on sugar beetfields in several western states. In the late 1890s, Hawaiian-born sugar planterswrested control from Spreckels, then replicated the chain of vertical integrationthat Spreckels had pioneered, investing in a steamship company to carry rawsugar to the new C&H (California and Hawaiian) refinery they built at Crock-ett, northeast of San Francisco.
As the population of California’s cities burgeoned, lumberjacks cut thecoastal redwoods for use in construction. When timberlands near San Fran-cisco Bay were exhausted, lumbering moved to northern California, Oregon,and Washington. Some lumber companies became vertically integrated, owninglumber mills, schooners that carried rough-cut lumber down the coast, andlumberyards and planing mills in the San Francisco Bay area. Born in Scotland,Robert Dollar grew up in lumber camps and worked his way up to sawmillowner. He purchased a ship in 1895 to carry his lumber to San Francisco andthen added more ships. His Dollar Line eventually became a major oceanicshipping company and the predecessor of today’s American President Lines.
Some of California’s Gold Rush fortunes were extended and expanded by asecond generation. By 1900, George Hearst’s former newspaper, the San Fran-cisco Examiner, was one of several papers owned by his son, William RandolphHearst, who created a nationwide publishing empire in the early 20th century.William H. Crocker, son of Charles Crocker of the Big Four, formed CrockerBank in the 1880s and invested widely throughout the West, including electri-cal power companies, hydroelectric generating plants, mining, agriculture, ship-ping, and southern California oil. Claus Spreckels’s son John invested heavily inSan Diego in commercial properties, banks, newspapers, and the Hotel del Cor-onado, the city’s leading tourist attraction. His investments helped San Diegogrow to almost 18,000 people by 1900. Henry Huntington—the nephew andheir of Collis Huntington of the SP—created an extensive streetcar system inthe Los Angeles basin that both fed upon and contributed to the growth ofLos Angeles.
The Economic Transformation of California and the West 179
New Social Patterns
California was becoming ever more urban—by 1900, more than 40 percent ofCalifornians lived in its 10 largest cities. Urban growth was just one of thesocial and cultural changes that were also occurring elsewhere in the UnitedStates, including the emergence of new educational institutions, changes inthe status of women, and large-scale immigration.
Education
During the Gilded Age, great changes occurred in education, including theexpansion of higher education. Religious organizations created California’s ear-liest colleges. Methodists received the state’s first college charter, in 1851, forCalifornia Wesleyan College, later the University of the Pacific. In 1851, JosephAlemany, first Catholic bishop of California, gave the Santa Clara mission toJesuit priests for a college, and Santa Clara College (later Santa Clara Univer-sity) obtained its charter in 1855. Southern California lagged in creating col-leges. Los Angeles Methodists planned the University of Southern Californiain the 1870s, but the university opened in 1880 only because of a gift of landby three donors—one Protestant, one Catholic, and one Jewish. Presbyteriansfounded Occidental College in 1887.
Compared with eastern colleges, more of the early California collegesadmitted women. Even so, as was the case in the East, separate women’s col-leges began to appear, notably Mills College, chartered in 1885 as a private,nondenominational women’s college.
Denominational colleges were older than the nation itself. Publicuniversities—nondenominational, tax-supported—appeared in a few placesafter the American Revolution, but most public universities were createdonly after 1862, when Congress approved the Morrill Act, giving land tostates for use in funding a university. The University of California derivedfrom both traditions. The College of California, founded in 1853 as a privateacademy, drew upon the traditions of Harvard and Yale. In 1867, the trusteesdonated their institution to the state. The legislature added to that gift thestate’s land grant under the Morrill Act and created the University of Cali-fornia. In 1873, the university acquired a medical college in San Francisco.As was occurring elsewhere, the university moved away from its originalclassical curriculum and created majors, including engineering, agriculture,and commerce. The university also increased its emphasis on research andservice to the state.
The need for better-trained teachers led the legislature to create state-funded, two-year schools called “normal schools.” These institutions bore littleresemblance to the colleges of the day. Instead of the classical curriculum orthe new system of majors, they concentrated on training teachers for grades
180 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
one through eight. By 1900, state normal schools operated at Chico, LosAngeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San José, and Santa Barbara.
Leland and Jane Stanford spent years planning a university to memorializetheir son. They envisioned Stanford University as a nondenominational,“practical” university whose graduates would be both broadly educated andprepared for a profession. Women were admitted on a basis of equality withmen. The first president, David Starr Jordan, sought to mold a modern univer-sity, stressing research as well as teaching, providing graduate as well as under-graduate instruction, and permitting students to choose a major.
Throughout the nation at the time, public schooling usually ended after theeighth grade. This sufficed for those who worked in agriculture or industrybut not for college admission. Those who attended college often prepared atprivate academies. During the Gilded Age, urban school districts began tocreate high schools. High schools prepared students for college, and by 1900some high schools also offered vocational courses such as bookkeeping orwoodworking. By 1900, 32 percent of California men and 39 percent ofCalifornia women of high school age were in school.
Changing Gender Roles
Increasing participation by women in education was just one indication ofthe changes in women’s status. Another highly visible change was an increasein women throughout the work force—as wage earners, professionals, andself-employed entrepreneurs. These patterns were most pronounced inurban areas.
Many California women worked outside the home, including in 1880 one-quarter of San Francisco’s females over the age of 10. African American womenand daughters of immigrants were most likely to work for wages. The largestnumber who worked outside their own homes were servants and waitresses;the next largest number worked in clothing making, either as factory workersor self-employed dressmakers or milliners. By 1900, women outnumbered menby four to one among stenographers and typists and by three to one amongteachers. California women were also working in printing (one in eight werewomen), medicine (also one in eight), and business (one in four among book-keepers and accountants). By the late 19th century, changes in retailing—especially the appearance of department stores—also brought new employmentopportunities for women. In 1874, Kate Kennedy, a San Francisco school prin-cipal and political activist, persuaded the legislature to require that women tea-chers be paid the same as male teachers for the same work, but the largemajority of women still earned less than their male counterparts.
Still, the majority of California women did not work outside the home, andthe social values of domesticity and separate spheres prevailed in most places,especially among the urban, white middle class. Women continued to be activein church organizations and benevolent societies. By 1894, the 204 charitable
New Social Patterns 181
organizations in San Francisco dispensed more than $1.3 million, nearly allfrom private sources. Middle- and upper-class women ran most of those chari-ties. They also organized women’s clubs devoted to self-education, socializing,and often charitable or reform activities. Throughout the nation, and inmuch of California, the largest women’s organization of the Gilded Age wasthe Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Founded in 1874, theWCTU advocated the prohibition of alcoholic beverages and condemnedthe abuse of wives and children by drunken husbands.
Phoebe Apperson Hearst stands out among the California women involvedin philanthropy. Born into modest circumstances, her life changed dramaticallywhen she married George Hearst in 1862. Like other wealthy women, she par-ticipated in a wide range of civic and philanthropic activities, especially thosethat focused on women and children. She helped to support an orphanage, aschool for female physicians, the first kindergartens in San Francisco (whichprovided child care for working-class mothers), and a settlement house(which provided social services for the poor). When George died in 1891,Phoebe inherited everything, allowing her to increase her philanthropic endea-vors. She helped organize the Parent Teacher Association and gave generouslyto the Young Women’s Christian Association. Her desire to help young womenget an education led her to contribute generously to the University of Califor-nia, funding buildings, archeological expeditions, an anthropological museum(named in her honor in 1991), and other programs. In 1897, Governor JamesBudd appointed her to the university Board of Regents, and she was reap-pointed until her death in 1919. Thus, Hearst reflected many of the expecta-tions of her day about women’s social roles even as she challenged manyconstraints on women’s involvement in the wider sphere of life, beyond thehome and the family.
Other California women also challenged restrictions on women. Two pio-neer female lawyers, Clara Shortridge Foltz of San José and Laura de ForceGordon from San Francisco, promoted an array of women’s issues, fromadmission to law school to changes in laws governing property ownership.(See p. 191 for their accomplishments during the state’s second constitutionalconvention.) Both, at different times, led the California State Woman SuffrageAssociation. In 1878, California Senator Aaron A. Sargent introduced in theU.S. Congress, for the first time, a proposed constitutional amendment forwoman suffrage. A group of California women steadily promoted the cause ofwoman suffrage, but they could not persuade the state legislature to put thequestion before the voters until 1896. Susan B. Anthony and other nationalsuffrage leaders then hurried to California to organize the most thorough cam-paign up to that time. Ellen Clark Sargent, widow of the senator who firstintroduced the suffrage amendment, led the effort. The cause won supportfrom Jane Lathrop Stanford, the first time that suffrage secured public supportfrom a woman of such high status. Liquor industry leaders became alarmedthat a suffrage victory might lead to a WCTU victory, and they mounted a
182 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
strong anti-suffrage campaign. Outside San Francisco and Alameda County(Oakland) the suffrage amendment won a small majority, but large majoritiesagainst it in those two counties defeated it.
Urban areas also became the sites for a new type of challenge to acceptedgender roles. A few men and somewhat more women changed their dress andbehavior, passing for a member of the other sex either briefly or permanently.Lillie Hitchcock Coit was a wealthy San Franciscan who occasionally woremen’s clothing to attend saloons or nightspots that barred women. ElviraMugarrieta claimed that she wore men’s clothing so she could “travel freely,feel protected and find work,” and spent much of her life passing as a man,serving as a lieutenant in the Spanish-American War and a male nurse duringthe San Francisco earthquake.
Though some people passed for the other gender, homosexual behaviorwas illegal everywhere. Same-sex relationships that involved genital contact vio-lated state laws and social expectations. In the late 19th century, however, bur-geoning cities provided anonymity for gays and lesbians, who gravitatedtoward cities and developed distinctive subcultures. By the 1890s, reports ofregular meeting places for homosexuals—particular clubs, restaurants, steambaths, parks, and streets—came from most large American cities, including SanFrancisco.
California Indians
The legal situation of California Indians continued to evolve in unusual ways.Throughout the West during the 1870s and 1880s, federal policy and the armycombined to locate Indian people on reservations. Efforts to move the nativepeoples of California onto reservations in California had been short-circuitedbefore the Civil War (see p. 138), though a few small reservations were estab-lished and Indian peoples from several tribes were relocated to them. Mostremained outside those reservations, however, living in small villages, calledrancherías, and working for wages on nearby farms and ranches. Some ran-cherías existed because local landowners needed the labor of their residents.Sometimes Indian people pooled their resources and bought small plots ofland for their rancherías. For most California Indians not living on reserva-tions, however, their legal status remained ambiguous.
The last armed conflict between the U.S. Army and Indian peoples withinCalifornia was the so-called Modoc War of 1872–1873. The Modocs had tradi-tionally lived in northern California along the Lost River. In 1864, they wereassigned to a reservation in southern Oregon with the Klamath people, tradi-tional adversaries of the Modocs. A group of Modocs led by Kientpoos (alsospelled Keintpoos or Kintpuash)—often called Captain Jack—returned to theLost River region and asked for a reservation there. Sporadic negotiations pro-duced no agreement. U.S. troops arrived in 1872 and ordered the Modocs toreturn to Oregon. Shooting broke out when one Modoc refused to surrender
New Social Patterns 183
his gun, and the Modocs fled. Several Modocs then killed 17 white settlers.Ordered to negotiate rather than attack, General Edward Canby opened discus-sions. Among the Modocs, one faction persuaded the rest that they couldimprove their bargaining position if they could demonstrate their power bykilling the negotiators.
Rumors were rampant about the planned killings. The negotiators knew ofthe danger but came to the meeting place unarmed on April 11, 1873. Two,including Canby, were killed and another seriously injured. (Canby was thehighest-ranking army officer ever killed by Indians.) The Modocs fled intowhat is now the Lava Beds National Monument. The army ordered the newcommander to capture the Modocs. Though they first eluded the troops, even-tually all were captured. Those who had murdered the peace negotiators weretried and found guilty. Four were hanged, and two sentenced to prison. Mean-while, Oregon settlers killed several Modocs. Arguing that white settlers werelikely to kill the others if they returned to Oregon, federal authorities sent themto Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) and permitted them to return to Oregononly 30 years later.
Changing Patterns of Ethnicity
For the United States, the years between the Civil War and World War I(1865–1917) were a time of large-scale immigration, mostly from Europe. Cali-fornia received large numbers of European immigrants, but also had its ownunique immigration patterns. Streams of immigrants from Europe and Asiasignificantly affected Californians’ understanding of ethnicity.
Table 6.1 summarizes data on immigration, nativity, and race from theU.S. censuses of 1860, 1880, and 1900. The data for 1860 show the influenceof the Gold Rush, when people from around the world descended on Californiato strike it rich. Immigration continued afterward, but there also developed alarge population born in the United States and, especially, in California.
Table 6.1 shows that half the population of California, as of 1900, consistedof first- or second-generation white immigrants, the vast majority from Europe.As of 1900, the largest numbers of California’s immigrants were from Germanyand Ireland, each with 19 percent of white immigrants, followed by Britain andEnglish-speaking Canada, with 15 percent. Italy and Scandinavia (Norway,Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland) each provided 6 percent.
In California, some European ethnic groups showed patterns of settlementand occupation significantly different from those groups elsewhere in the coun-try. In the Midwest, Scandinavians were among those most likely to be farmers.While some Scandinavians farmed in California, many Scandinavians workedas merchant seamen. A survey by the Sailors Union of the Pacific (SUP) foundthat 40 percent of its members were born in Scandinavia. Andrew Furuseth, aNorwegian-born seaman, helped to create the SUP and led it for more than40 years. In the northeastern United States, Italians tended to be urban and
184 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
to work in manufacturing. There were Italians in California who did the same,but there were also many who lived in agricultural areas, especially aroundSan Francisco Bay. Italian farmers around the bay and in the Santa Claraand Sacramento Valleys sent much of their produce to San Francisco, and Ital-ian produce merchants in San Francisco developed long-term relations withItalian farmers. Such contacts helped Amadeo P. Giannini when he made thetransition from produce merchant to banker and created the Bank of Italy in1904. Other Italians moved from selling produce to processing it, includingwinemaking, pasta making, and the canning of fruits and vegetables.
In many places in California, European immigrants settled into communi-ties defined by language and religion. Most Italians and most Irish were Cath-olic, so, for both groups, language, religion, and national origin coincided tohelp create ethnically self-conscious communities. Germans, however, oftenformed separate ethnic communities by religion—Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist,and Jewish—although some German ethnic organizations and newspapers
Table 6.1 NATIVITY AND RACE, 1860, 1880, AND 1900
1860 1880 1900
Nativity and Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
White, born inU.S. with bothparents born inU.S.
644,428 43.4
White, born inU.S. with one orboth parentsforeign-born
176,649 46.5 549,529 63.6
441,794 29.7
White, foreign-born
146,528 38.6 217,652 25.2 316,505 21.3
Total white 323,177 85.0 767,181 88.7 1,402,727 94.5
Asian, Chinese 75,132 8.7 45,753 3.1
Asian, Japanese34,933 9.2
86 .0001 10,151 0.7
American Indian 17,798 4.7 16,277 1.9 15,377 1.0
African American 4,086 1.1 6,018 0.7 11,045 0.7
Latino No reliable dataavailable
No reliable dataavailable
No reliable dataavailable
TOTALPOPULATION
379,994 864,694 1,485,053
Source: Population of the United States in 1860 (Washington, 1864); Statistics of the population of theUnited States at the tenth census (Washington, 1883); Twelfth census of the United States, taken in theyear 1900. Population (Washington, 1901–1902).
New Social Patterns 185
crossed religious dividing lines. Though most Scandinavians were Lutheran, their churches in America often differed significantly from those by German Lutherans. Many Norwegian Lutherans, for example, opposed the consumption of alcohol but few Germans saw any sin attached to a glass of beer.
In San Francisco and throughout the West, Chinese immigrants estab-lished Chinatowns—relatively autonomous and largely self-contained Chinese communities. Chinese Californians formed kinship organizations and district associations, whose members came from the same part of China, in order to assist and protect each other. A confederation of such associations with head-quarters in San Francisco, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association—the “Six Companies”—eventually exercised great power over the social and economic life of Chinese communities throughout the West. Chinese commu-nities were largely male, partly because of a federal law, the Page Act of 1875,
Chine
se Am
erica
n men
and c
hild i
n fro
nt of
build
ing w
ith ha
nging
lante
rns,
China
town,
San F
ranc
isco,
Arno
ld Ge
nthe,
Libra
ry of
Cong
ress,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn
restr
iction
s
186 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
Taken in the late 1890s, this photograph depicts San Francisco’s Chinatown before it became a tourist destination. Note the hanging lanterns, traditional clothing of the men and child, and how carefully the man is holding the child.
which prohibited “the importation into the United States of women for thepurposes of prostitution.” This law was often used by immigration officials toexclude Chinese women, thus limiting the possibilities for the creation of fami-lies. As in other largely male communities, gambling and prostitution flour-ished, giving Chinatowns a reputation as vice districts.
Many Chinese immigrants initially came to California for the Gold Rushand railroad construction. During the 1850s and 1860s, four-fifths of ChineseCalifornians lived in mining regions, and nearly that large a proportion workedin mining. By 1900, however, nearly half of all Chinese Californians lived in theSan Francisco Bay area and another quarter in the Central Valley. By then,about one-fifth of Chinese Californians worked in agriculture or fishing,another one-fifth as barbers, cooks, household servants, and the like, andanother fifth as laborers. By 1900, the total number of Chinese Californianshad declined significantly, from a high point of some 136,000 in 1883 tofewer than 46,000 by 1900.
These changes in the number and in the regional and occupational distri-bution of Chinese Californians reflect, in part, general economic changes. Asmining declined, agriculture rose. But those changes also reflect the responseby Chinese Californians to white mobs who tried to drive the Chinese out ofparticular occupations and particular communities. A wave of riots took placein the 1870s, accompanying the economic downturn of those years. Some whiteworkers blamed the Chinese for driving down wages and causing unemploy-ment. In 1871, an anti-Chinese riot in Los Angeles erupted when city police,breaking up a fight in the city’s Chinatown, were fired upon, wounding twopolicemen and killing a civilian. A white mob surged into Chinatown, burnedbuildings, looted stores, and attacked Chinese, killing 18. San Francisco experi-enced anti-Chinese rioting in 1877. A second wave of anti-Chinese riots sweptcommunities in the West in 1885. Anti-Chinese violence led many Chinese toretreat to the agricultural areas of central California and to the larger China-towns, especially San Francisco. Declining numbers of Chinese Californiansalso reflect a return to China by some, the exclusion of new immigrants after1882, and the limited prospects for forming families.
In parts of California, the Chinese encountered segregation similar to thatimposed on blacks in the South, including residential and occupational segrega-tion resulting from local custom rather than law. In 1871, the San Francisco schoolboard barred Chinese students from the public schools, and the ban lasted until1885, when, in response to the lawsuit brought by the parents of Mamie Tape, thecity opened a segregated Chinese school. Segregated schools for Chinese Americanchildren were also established in Sacramento and a few other places.
In places with many Chinese immigrants, merchants often took the lead inestablishing a strong economic base. Chinese organizations sometimes suc-ceeded in fighting anti-Chinese legislation. For example, when the San Fran-cisco Board of Supervisors restricted Chinese laundry owners, they went tocourt. In the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the U.S. Supreme Court for
New Social Patterns 187
the first time declared a licensing law unconstitutional because local authoritiesused it to discriminate on the basis of race.
There was relatively little immigration from Latin America to Californiabetween the Gold Rush and about 1900. Many immigrants who came fromLatin America to California during the Gold Rush assimilated into Mexicancommunities that predated the Gold Rush. By 1900, people born in Mexicomade up only three percent of foreign-born Californians. Most California Lati-nos, by 1900, had been born in California, and often their parents had been aswell. In Los Angeles, only 11 percent of the Latino population had been born inMexico as of 1880. Research on several southern California communities indi-cates very little change between 1860 and 1880 in the number of Latinos.
Historians have described a process that Albert Camarillo calls“barrioization”—the creation of barrios, separate Spanish-speaking neighbor-hoods within the cities, often near an old mission church. Such barrios, likeneighborhoods of European immigrants, provided their residents with oppor-tunities and institutions to preserve their own cultural heritages even as theyadapted to the expectations and opportunities in the larger community. Largebarrios often had a newspaper, stores run by members of the group where onemight buy culturally familiar products, and voluntary organizations includingchurch-related groups, beneficial societies, and political clubs. There was, ofcourse, one glaring difference between immigrant neighborhoods andbarrios—European immigrants chose to migrate, seeking improved opportu-nities and a better life, but Mexican Californians went from being the domi-nant group to a disadvantaged and largely landless minority, with well overhalf of the males employed as unskilled laborers.
In the late 19th century, ethnicity played a prominent role in the waymany Californians identified themselves. Foreign immigrants to Californiabegan to think of themselves as having much in common with others whospoke their language, worshiped as they did, and shared many of their valuesand expectations, whether or not they came from the same village. Theythought of themselves as members of an ethnic group, different from thegroups around them. Not surprisingly, for many Californians of the late 19thcentury, ethnic identities proved to be an important part of their self-identityand affected the way that they related to others.
Politics
During the Gilded Age, politics meant political parties. The large majority ofAmericans expected that only men would be involved, and that men wouldbe steadfastly loyal to their party. Political parties nominated candidates foroffice at party conventions (at local, state, and national levels), and the
188 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
conventions were followed by circus-like campaigns. The parties distributedballots on Election Day—a voter had to get the “ticket” with the candidates ofhis party in order to vote. In most of the country, ethnicity and loyalty to aparty were closely linked. California differed from these national patterns inseveral ways: some California males seem to have been less strongly committedto their parties, and ethnicity seems less significantly related to party affiliationin California than elsewhere.
Political Discontent in the 1870s
In the 1871 election, the Republicans of Solano County demonstrated thepotential for manipulation that was inherent in having political parties printballots. Normally, parties printed their candidates’ names on a sheet of paperand distributed those “tickets” to voters. If a voter wanted to vote for someoneelse, he had to scratch out the name printed on the ticket and write in the othername. Some candidates distributed “pasters,” small strips of paper with thecandidate’s name on one side and glue on the other, to make “scratching aticket” easier. Republicans in Solano County devised a ticket only five-eighthsof an inch wide and printed in a tiny font, making it impossible to write in aname or use a paster. Its long and narrow shape, with dense, tiny printing allover it, was soon labeled the “tapeworm ticket” and was imitated across thestate. In 1874, the legislature required that ballots be “uniform in size, color,weight, texture, and appearance”—one of the earliest efforts by any state toregulate political parties. Another law in 1878 regulated the symbols used byparties to distinguish their tickets.
Newton Booth, who won the 1871 election for governor by running as acritic of the Southern Pacific, took office just as the Granger movement beganto affect state politics. The Patrons of Husbandry—called the Grange—promoted educational programs and cooperatives among farmers. In severalstates, farmers formed independent political parties, known by various namesbut usually called Granger parties. Several states passed “granger laws,” creatingstate railway commissions to investigate, and sometimes regulate, railroadcharges. In California in 1873, Grangers combined with opponents of the SPto create a new political party, the People’s Independent Party. GovernorBooth favored the new party. The People’s Independents won a large bloc oflegislative seats in 1873 and elected their candidate to the state supreme court(judges were then elected on party tickets). In 1875, the state legislature wasfaced with filling both U.S. Senate seats, due to the death of one incumbentand the expiration of the other’s term. People’s Independents combined withBooth’s followers and a few Democrats to elect Booth to one Senate seat anda Democrat to the other. When Booth resigned the governorship, LieutenantGovernor Romualdo Pacheco, scion of a prominent Californio family, becamegovernor for the remainder of Booth’s term. By 1875, the Granger movementhad passed its peak, and the People’s Independent Party soon disappeared.
Politics 189
Another third party emerged in San Francisco in 1877, during a time ofeconomic depression and high unemployment. In July 1877, a strike by easternrailroad workers, protesting wage cuts, mushroomed into violence in severalmidwestern and eastern cities. In San Francisco, a meeting to support the rail-way strikers erupted into a riot aimed at Chinese workers. That fall, DenisKearney, a drayman whose business had suffered from the depression, attracteda wide following when he condemned the monopoly power of the SP and, atthe same time, argued that monopolists were using Chinese workers to drivedown wages. He formed the Workingmen’s Party of California (WPC) andgave it the slogan, “The Chinese Must Go.” For a time in the late 1870s, theWPC dominated political life in San Francisco, sweeping elections in 1878 and
Illustration of a meeting of the San Francisco Workingmen’s Party. What does this image suggest about the ability of popular figures like Kearney to deflect white working class grievances onto even more economically marginalized Chinese workers?
Frank
Lesli
e’s Ill
ustra
ted N
ewsp
aper
, Mar
ch 20
, 188
0, pu
blic d
omain
, no r
estri
ction
s
190 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
1879. WPC candidates also won elections for mayor in Oakland andSacramento.
Kearney and the WPC were not the first to attack the Chinese. From thestart of Chinese immigration to California, some viewed them as a threat.Beginning with Leland Stanford in 1861, most governors bemoaned the pres-ence of Chinese in California. “Anti-coolie” clubs (“coolie” was a derogatoryterm for a Chinese laborer) in working-class districts of San Francisco attractedmany members. Opponents of the Chinese claimed that they drove down whiteworkers’ wages and standard of living. Others portrayed the Chinese asunclean, immoral, clannish, and heathen. State and city laws discriminatedagainst the Chinese from the 1850s onward.
The Second Constitutional Convention, 1878
The WPC’s greatest statewide success came in 1878, in elections for a secondconstitutional convention. In many places, anxious Republicans and Democratscompromised their differences and put up nonpartisan slates to oppose theWPC. In the end, the convention consisted of 80 nonpartisans, 52 Working-men (mostly from San Francisco), 10 Republicans, nine Democrats, and oneIndependent. Of those elected from rural areas, many had been involved withthe Granger movement. Together, WPC delegates and Granger delegates com-prised a majority.
The convention delegates met in Sacramento in September 1878. The con-stitution they drafted—much amended—remains the state constitution today.The new constitution set the size of the state senate at 40 and the assembly at80 (both still in force) and specified that the legislature should meet for 60days in alternate years (a provision changed in 1966). Statewide officers wereto serve four-year terms and be elected in even-numbered years halfwaybetween presidential elections (provisions still in force). The 1849 constitutionrequired publication of all significant public documents in both English andSpanish; the new constitution specified that all public documents be inEnglish. The University of California was given autonomy from legislative orexecutive oversight (still in force). The WPC and the Grangers combinedto create an elected railroad commission (now called the Public UtilitiesCommission) that was empowered to regulate rates. Water was declared tobe under state regulation.
Clara Shortridge Foltz and Laura de Force Gordon (see p. 182) set up awell-organized lobbying operation at the convention. Though unable to getwoman suffrage, they secured two important constitutional guarantees: equalaccess for women to any legitimate occupation and to public higher educa-tional institutions.
The convention teemed with proposals for constitutional restrictions onChinese and other Asian immigrants. Only one member of the body opposeddiscriminatory legislation. In the end, the constitution authorized the
Politics 191
legislature to provide for removal from the state of “dangerous or detrimental”aliens, prohibited any corporation or governmental body from employing any“Chinese or Mongolian,” directed the legislature to discourage immigration bythose not eligible for citizenship (federal law limited naturalization to “whitepersons” and those of African descent), and specified that white foreignersand foreigners of African descent had the same property rights as native-borncitizens.
The new constitution was highly controversial, mostly because of itsrestrictions on corporations. Californians voted on it in May 1879. Despitestrong opposition, it was approved by a healthy margin. The provisionsrestricting Asians were invalidated by the courts.
Politics in the 1880s
Anti-Chinese agitation soon reached national politics. In 1880, PresidentRutherford B. Hayes sent a representative to China to negotiate a treaty per-mitting the United States to “regulate, limit, or suspend” the immigration ofChinese laborers, and the treaty was approved in November. That summer,both Republicans and Democrats promised, in their national platforms, to cutoff Chinese immigration.
In 1882, U.S. Senator John Miller, a Republican from California, intro-duced a bill to exclude Chinese immigration for 20 years and to prohibit Chi-nese from becoming naturalized citizens. Miller’s bill drew strong support fromwesterners and from Democrats. It passed both houses of Congress by largemargins, prohibiting entry to all Chinese except teachers, students, merchants,tourists, and officials. Most opposition came from northeastern Republicans,especially veterans of the abolition movement. President Chester A. Arthurvetoed Miller’s bill, arguing that it violated the 1880 treaty, that 20 years wastoo long, and that the bill might “drive [Chinese] trade and commerce intomore friendly hands.” In response, Congress cut exclusion to 10 years andstated that the act did not violate the treaty. It now drew even more votes,and Arthur signed the bill into law.
The WPC had risen to prominence on the Chinese issue; however, by1882, the party had broken into factional disarray and disappeared. State poli-tics in the relatively prosperous 1880s involved Republicans and Democrats,with no significant third parties. The Southern Pacific continued to play aprominent part in state politics—symbolized in 1885 when Leland Stanfordwas elected to the U.S. Senate amid allegations of vote-buying. In 1886, voterselected a Democrat as governor and a Republican as lieutenant governor, andgave a narrow majority in the legislature to the Democrats. This permittedthe Democrats, in 1887, to elect George Hearst to a full term in the U.S. Senate;he had been appointed by the Democratic governor to fill a vacancy theyear before.
192 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
The 1880s marked the peak of power for Christopher A. Buckley, a blindsaloon keeper who, around 1880, emerged as the most powerful Democraticleader in San Francisco. Born in Ireland and raised in New York City, Buckleyacquired the reputation of being a “boss,” a party leader whose organizationdominated all access to political office by controlling nominating conventions.As “boss,” Buckley used appointive governmental positions to reward hisloyal followers. To keep voter support, he kept taxes so low that city govern-ment could do little. Buckley apparently extracted a price from many compa-nies that did business with the burgeoning city—when he died, his estateincluded bonds issued by companies that did business with the city duringthe 1880s. Buckley also extended his power to state politics, picking theDemocrats who won the governorship in 1882 (George Stoneman) and 1886(Washington Bartlett).
As of 1890, only one candidate for governor of California had ever beenelected to a second term, and the governorship and control of the state legisla-ture (and therefore the U.S. senatorships filled by the state legislature) chan-ged parties at almost every election. Throughout the 1870s, third parties—firstthe People’s Independents and then the WPC—had attracted large numbersof California voters. Yet during much of the Gilded Age, American voters out-side California showed extraordinary loyalty to their political parties. By con-trast, enough California voters split their tickets between the two parties orchanged party commitments between elections that they produced constantpartisan turnover. Theodore Hittell, who published an extensive historyof the state in 1897, emphasized that this pattern was virtually without parallelin other states, and he attributed it to the “‘thinking-for-itself ’ character ofthe people.”
Political Realignment in the 1890s
This “thinking-for-itself character” of California voters became even more pro-nounced in the 1890s. The elections of 1890 provided a catalyst for change. InSan Francisco, the usual large Democratic majorities failed to materialize, giv-ing the governorship and control of the legislature to the Republicans. Controlof the legislature was important, because Stanford’s term in the U.S. Senate wasending, and the legislature was to choose his successor in 1891. Claiming thatBuckley had sold out to Stanford, reform-oriented Democrats campaigned tooust the boss. A grand jury investigated Buckley on charges of bribery. Belea-guered, the boss debarked on an extended foreign tour, and his organizationfell into disarray.
The legislative session of 1891 that reelected Stanford to the Senate exhib-ited such shameful behavior that it became known as the “legislature of a thou-sand scandals.” For example, when Senator Hearst died and the legislature hadto elect someone to complete his term, a wastebasket was found filled withempty currency wrappers and a list of assembly members. Nonetheless, the
Politics 193
legislature approved the Australian ballot, a change that drew support fromreformers, organized labor, and the WCTU. Henceforth, the governmentprinted and distributed ballots that included all candidates, and voters markedtheir ballots in secret.
During the early 1890s, many Americans questioned existing political andeconomic systems. In Looking Backward: 2000–1887, a novel by Edward Bel-lamy, a young Bostonian is hypnotized in 1887 and awakens in 2000 to findthat all people are equal, poverty and individual wealth have been eliminated,and everyone shares in a cooperative commonwealth. Bellamy’s admirersformed Nationalist Clubs to promote a cooperative commonwealth—an eco-nomic system based on producers’ and consumers’ cooperatives rather thanon wage labor and profits. As the San Francisco Examiner noted in 1890,“California seems to have an especially prolific soil for that sort of product.”California claimed 62 Nationalist Clubs in 1890, about a third of all those inthe entire country, with some 3,500 members. Within a year, however, themovement had virtually disappeared, with many of its adherents swept up inthe emergence of the new Populist Party.
Between 1890 and 1892, a new political party emerged, taking the namePeople’s Party, or Populists. Growing out of the Farmers’ Alliance (an organi-zation similar to the Grange), the new party appealed to hard-pressed farmersin the West and South. In their 1892 national convention, they declared thatthe old regional lines of division between North and South were healed. Thenew division, they proclaimed, was between “producers” (farmers and workers)and “capitalists, corporations, national banks, rings [corrupt political organiza-tions], trusts.” Among other changes, they called for government ownership ofrailroads.
Californians organized a state Farmers’ Alliance in 1890, later than in theMidwest or South. Nonetheless, by late 1891, the California Alliance claimed30,000 members and launched a state party. California Populists attacked rail-roads, especially the SP, and railroad influence over politics. In 1892, Populiststook nine percent of the vote in California for president and won one congres-sional seat and eight seats in the state legislature. They did especially well inrural areas, where farmers were suffering from low crop prices. In the 1893legislative session, one Populist voted with the Democrats to elect StephenWhite to the U.S. Senate. White, a Democrat from Los Angeles, built a politicalfollowing by his relentless attacks on the SP and on corporate control of poli-tics. Now led by White, California Democrats took the governorship in theelection of 1894, but lost nearly everything else. In 1894, the Populist candidatewon the office of mayor in San Francisco with his strongest support inworking-class parts of the city, and the next year a Populist was electedmayor of Oakland.
The 1896 presidential election took place amidst a serious economicdepression. Republicans nominated William McKinley of Ohio, a staunchsupporter of the protective tariff, as the means of bringing economic
194 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
recovery. The Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, argued forbringing recovery by counteracting the prevalent deflation (falling prices)through an expanded currency supply. The Populists also endorsed Bryan.Bryan carried nearly all of the West and South, leaving McKinley with theurban, industrial Northeast and the more urban and industrial parts of theMidwest. McKinley also won California, though by the narrowest of mar-gins. Thus, California behaved politically more like the Northeast than likethe rest of the West.
In 1896, California and the nation stood at the beginning of a long periodof Republican dominance of politics. Between 1895 and 1938, no Democratwon the California governorship, and Republicans typically controlled thestate legislature by large margins. In 1896, California was on the verge ofbecoming one of the most Republican states in the nation.
California and the World: War With Spain and Acquisitionof the Philippines
In April 1898, the United States went to war with Spain. Most Americans—andmost Californians—responded enthusiastically to what they understood to be awar undertaken to bring independence and aid to the long-suffering inhabi-tants of Cuba, the last remaining Spanish colony in the western hemisphere.When President William McKinley called for troops, nearly 5000 Californiansresponded, forming four regiments of California Volunteer Infantry and a bat-talion of heavy artillery.
Many people were surprised when the first engagement in the waroccurred in the Philippine Islands–nearly halfway around the world fromCuba. On May 1, Commodore George Dewey’s naval squadron steamed intoManila Bay and quickly destroyed or captured the entire Spanish fleet there.(Dewey’s flagship, the U.S.S. Olympia¸ had been built in San Francisco’sUnion Iron Works.) Dewey’s victory focused attention on the Philippines andon the Pacific more generally. One regiment of the California Volunteer Infan-try and part of the California heavy artillery were dispatched to the Philippines.They encountered not Spanish resistance, but opposition from Filipinos, whopreferred independence to American control. Several Californians died inaction against the Filipino insurgents.
Many Americans now looked to the Hawaiian Islands as a crucial basehalfway to the Philippines. Congress approved the annexation of Hawai‘i onJuly 7, 1898. At the war’s end, among other settlements, Spain ceded Guamand sold the Philippines to the United States. Soon after, the United Statessigned the Treaty of Berlin, acquiring part of the Samoan Islands. Some Cali-fornians opposed acquisition of the Philippines out of principled opposition toimperialism, and others, especially labor leaders, opposed it out of fear of aninflux of Asian labor. Other Californians, however, embraced the new
Politics 195
acquisitions and eagerly anticipated extending their entrepreneurial activities tothe new Pacific empire.
Cultural Expression
Though Mark Twain, Bret Harte, and most other literary figures of the GoldRush era had left California by 1870, a new group of writers had emerged by1900. One was María Amparo Ruiz de Burton, the state’s first published Latinaauthor, whose novel The Squatter and the Don (1885) was based, as its subtitleproclaimed, on “contemporary occurrences in California.” In her novel, Ruizde Burton presented a romance set against the conflict between an aristocraticCalifornio rancho owner and settlers squatting on his lands, and then againstthe conflict between them and the railroad.
By using contemporary social and economic conflict as the context forher novel, Ruiz de Burton anticipated the work of Frank Norris, the bestknown of California’s new authors. While at Berkeley, Norris discovered theFrench novelist Emile Zola, with his realistic treatment of contemporary life,especially among the working class, and Norris began to see the people as thestuff for powerful fiction. Of Norris’s six novels, McTeague (1899), The Octo-pus (1901), and The Pit (1903) are the most well known. He died suddenly in1902. The Octopus, first book of a projected trilogy focused on Californiawheat, dealt with conflict between wheat growers and the railroad—“theOctopus” was a thinly disguised version of the SP. In The Pit, Norris shiftedto Chicago, to treat financial manipulations in the wholesale buying and sell-ing of wheat. He died before he could write the final novel in the trilogy, TheWolf, which was to have been set in Europe, where the wheat that had beenproduced amidst conflict between railroad and farmers, and that had beenbought and sold amidst financial machinations, finally became bread thatsaved lives during famine.
California also provided the setting for one of the most popular novels ofthe day, Helen Hunt Jackson’s Ramona (1884). Jackson was an activist in themovement to change federal policy toward Indians, and Ramona was an effortto mold public opinion. Setting Ramona in southern California in the 1850s,Jackson used romance as the vehicle to depict the mistreatment of Indians.An instant success, Ramona had some influence on federal policies, but itsromanticized image of southern California had a greater effect in promotingtourism.
Henry George, a San Francisco journalist, also sought to influence politics.George analyzed the rapid growth and industrialization of California in Prog-ress and Poverty (1879), the best known of several works in which he studiedthe urban, industrial society of his day. George argued that “progress”
196 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
(economic growth and development) inevitably brought greater poverty, some-thing he attributed to land speculation and land monopolization. He proposed,as the solution, a single tax on the increase in the value of land, which hehoped would create such a tax burden on large landholders as to force themto break up their holdings.
Others also took inspiration from California itself. In his late twenties,John Muir set out to witness nature. His travels took him to Yosemite Valleyin the Sierra Nevada, and the beauty of that magnificent landscape moved himdeeply. “Born again!” he wrote in his journal. For the rest of his long life, heroamed the Sierras in the summers and spent his winters describing their gran-deur in magazine articles and books. His writings helped to make many Amer-icans more aware of the importance of preserving wilderness. In 1892, hebecame the first president of the Sierra Club. He was an important advocatefor the National Park Bill that passed in Congress in 1899, and that, amongother things, created Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks. He is consideredtoday to be one of the founders of environmental activism.
The Sierra Nevada also inspired William Keith, who by 1900 was perhapsthe most famous painter in California. His sometimes ethereal paintings ofCalifornia scenes were popular on both coasts. Carleton Watkins also tookinspiration from the California landscape, but his medium was the new oneof photography. Considered by many as the most important American photog-rapher of the 19th century, Watkins took photographs of Yosemite that madehim—and Yosemite—famous, but his work over nearly a half century includedmany photographs of urban and farm life as well.
For the first six months of 1894, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park becamethe site of the California Midwinter International Exposition, one of the era’smany celebrations of progress, technology, and culture. The exposition was alsointended to proclaim to the world not only that the city and state had attaineda high technological and cultural level, but that tourists could bask in Califor-nia sunshine when their own cities were beset by snow and ice. Great exhibithalls demonstrated accomplishments in manufacturing, liberal arts, fine arts,mechanical arts, and agriculture and horticulture. Electrical lights were strungeverywhere in dazzling celebration of that new technology. The fair succeeded,attracting visitors from around the nation and launching San Francisco’s repu-tation as a favorite destination for tourists.
Summary
The Gilded Age was an era of rapid industrialization and urbanization and oflarge-scale immigration from Europe and Asia. In California and the West,railroads were crucial to economic development because of the great distances,
Summary 197
and the Southern Pacific (SP) emerged as a powerful corporation, operatingwith virtually no competition or regulation throughout much of the GildedAge. Mining continued to be important in the economy of California and theWest, especially Nevada, which was an integral part of California’s economy.California’s bankers played key roles in the economic development of theWest. Agriculture emerged as California’s leading industry, first with wheatand then specialty crops of fruit and vegetables. Water was indispensable formining, agriculture, and urban growth. Workers, especially in urban areas,formed unions, but most had little staying power until late in the 19th century.In the 1880s and 1890s, San Francisco was one of the largest cities in thenation, and the dominant metropolis of much of the West.
The Gilded Age was a time of significant change in California’s social andcultural patterns, including the emergence of new educational institutions,changes in the status of women, and the emergence of a gay and lesbian sub-culture. California experienced significant immigration from Europe, as didother parts of the United States, but was more unique in some aspects of itsethnic and racial relations, especially those involving Latinos, Asian Califor-nians, and American Indians.
California’s voters showed a less pronounced commitment to political par-ties than was true elsewhere in the country. From the end of the Civil Waruntil 1900, the two major political parties were closely balanced and often alter-nated in power within state government. Third parties were a recurring featureof state politics, including the Grangers, the Workingmen’s Party of California,and the Populists. The second constitutional convention, in 1878, drafted theconstitution still in use, though it has been amended many times. Two recur-ring political issues were the power of the Southern Pacific and opposition toChinese immigration. In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain andacquired an island empire in the Pacific. California lay on the major route tothe new island possessions. In the Gilded Age, Californians achieved nationalprominence through their writing, painting, photography, and other forms ofcultural expression.
Suggested Readings
❚ Chan, Sucheng, Asian Californians (San Francisco: MTL/Boyd & Fraser,1991). Though not limited to the Gilded Age, this book has a great deal ofinformation about Asian immigrants during that time period.
❚ Garone, Philip, The Rise and Fall of the Wetlands of California’s GreatCentral Valley (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011). The firstcomprehensive environmental history of the Central Valley.
198 CHAPTER 6 California in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
❚ Hundley, Norris, Jr., The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s–1990s(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992). Rangeswidely over the history of the state, but contains a good treatment ofwater issues during the Gilded Age.
❚ Igler, David, Industrial Cowboys: Miller & Lux and the Transformation ofthe Far West, 1850–1920 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Califor-nia Press, 2001). An interesting account of a company that played a majorrole in changing the ecology of the San Joaquin Valley.
❚ Issel, William, and Cherny, Robert W., San Francisco, 1865–1932: Politics,Power, and Urban Development (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press, 1986). Surveys social and economic patterns as well aspolitics.
❚ Levy, Harriet Lane, 920 O’Farrell Street (1937; reprinted, Berkeley: HeydayPress, 1996). Memoirs of growing up in a Jewish, middle-class family in SanFrancisco during the Gilded Age.
❚ Monroy, Douglas, Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of MexicanCulture in Frontier California (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press, 1990). An excellent treatment of Mexican Californiansduring the late 19th century.
❚ Ngai, Mae, The Lucky Ones: One Family and the Extraordinary Invention ofChinese America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2010). The fascinat-ing story of Joseph and Mary Tape and their children.
❚ Orsi, Richard, Sunset Limited: The Southern Pacific Railroad and the Devel-opment of the American West, 1850–1930 (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 2005). The best treatment of the subject.
❚ Shumsky, Neil L., The Evolution of Political Protest and the Workingmen’sParty of California (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1991).Currently the standard treatment of the Workingmen’s Party of California.
❚ Vaught, David, Cultivating California: Growers, Specialty Crops, and Labor,1875–1920 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). An essentialwork for understanding changes in California agriculture that accompaniedthe development of specialty crops.
❚ White, Richard, Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making ofModern America (New York: W.W. Norton, 2011). A recent, often amusing,and devastatingly critical appraisal of the transcontinental railroads.
Suggested Readings 199
CHAP
TER 7
California in theProgressive Era,1895–1920
Main Topics
❚ The Origins of California Progressivism
❚ Social and Economic Change in the Progressive Era
❚ California Progressivism, 1910–1920
❚ Californians in a World of Revolutions and War
❚ The Meaning of Progressivism for Californians
❚ Summary
Katherine Philips Edson and her husband Charles movedto Los Angeles in 1899. Kate, as her friends and familycalled her, then joined the Friday Morning Club, one of
the most prestigious women’s clubs in southern California,where she was soon centrally involved in that club’s evolutioninto a proponent for reform. Her first major foray into politicswas a campaign to improve the regulation and inspection ofdairies, to guarantee that children’s milk would come fromhealthy cows and be free of contaminants. She quickly becamethe most prominent woman in state politics.
Philips Edson helped to organize support for HiramJohnson’s successful campaign for governor in 1910, thenbecame the chief lobbyist for woman suffrage during the1911 legislative session. Carefully watching the final vote,she clapped her hands gleefully when the assembly voted toput the issue before the voters. She then headed up the
200
southern California campaign for approval of the womansuffrage amendment. In 1912, she became a member of theProgressive Party State Central Committee, supporting thethird-party presidential campaign of Theodore Roosevelt andHiram Johnson.
Also in 1912, Johnson appointed her as a deputy inspec-tor in the State Bureau of Labor Statistics. In that capacity,she conducted studies that persuaded the legislature in 1913to regulate women’s working conditions. Johnson thenappointed her to the new Industrial Welfare Commission(IWC), responsible for implementing and enforcing the new
CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
1899 Construction begins on Los Angeles harbor at San Pedro
1901 Teamster and waterfront strike in San Francisco leads to victoryof Union Labor Party in municipal elections
1902 National Reclamation Act (Newlands Act)
1905 C. E. Kelsey investigates the situation of California Indians
1906 Earthquake along the San Andreas Fault, destroying much ofSan Francisco
1907 “Gentlemen’s Agreement” limits immigration from Japan
1907 Formation of Lincoln-Roosevelt League
1909 Legislature adopts the direct primary
1910 Bombing of the Los Angeles Times building
1910 Revolution and civil war in Mexico produce sharp upturn inimmigration from Mexico
1910 Hiram Johnson elected governor
1911 Legislature approves long list of progressive reforms
1911 California voters approve woman suffrage, initiative, referen-dum, and recall amendments to state constitution
1912 Hiram Johnson nominated for vice president by the newProgressive Party
1913 Legislature approves many more progressive reforms
1913 Owens Valley aqueduct opens
1913 Congress approves damming the Hetch Hetchy Valley
1914 World War I begins in Europe
1916 Preparedness Day bombing in San Francisco
1917 United States enters World War I
1918 World War I ends
201
regulations. She served on the IWC until 1931 and was thechief administrator for much of that time. During World War I,she served on the State Council of Defense and as federalIndustrial Mediator for California. A strong advocate forapproval of the Nineteenth Amendment (woman suffrage) tothe U.S. Constitution, she helped to form the League ofWomen Voters after it passed.
Though active first in Progressive Party politics, shehad moved easily to Republican politics in 1916 and was adelegate to the 1920 Republican National Convention,where she made one of the seconding speeches for HiramJohnson. Though Johnson failed to receive the nomination,Philips Edson was nonetheless appointed to the ExecutiveCommittee for the presidential campaign of the Republicancandidate, Warren G. Harding. The next year, Hardingappointed her to the advisory board for the American dele-gation to a major international conference on the limitationof armaments.
Katherine Philips Edson’s career in state politics wouldhave been unusual for most Californians, but before her timeit was unheard of for a woman to take such an active part inparty politics or to head a state agency. In fact, women’sparticipation in politics was changing rapidly during the
Katherine Philips Edson, seen here in aformally posed photograph, was the mostprominent woman in California progres-sivism. A moving force behind passage ofa minimum wage law for women in 1913,she was appointed by Hiram Johnson tothe new Industrial Welfare Commissionand served eighteen years. She alsobecame chief of the Division of IndustrialWelfare in 1927. How does her careerreflect new patterns of women’sinvolvement in politics during theprogressive era?
Califo
rnia’
s Mag
azine
, San
Fran
cisco
; pub
lic do
main,
no re
strict
ions
202 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
progressive era, the term historians use for the late 1890s andthe first 15 or 20 years of the 20th century, a time when manyindividuals and groups sought to change politics and publicpolicy. Though many of the most important changes of thisperiod were in the structure and function of government,there were also important changes in the state’s social andeconomic patterns, including a revival of anti-Asianagitation.
Questions to Consider
❚ How were the experiences of reformers in Los Angelesand San Francisco similar? How do they emphasize thedifferences within progressivism?
❚ Do events in California confirm the argument by histor-ians that there was no single progressive movement butinstead many individuals and groups pursuing separatereforms?
❚ How did the social and economic changes in Californiasometimes carry international implications? Provideexamples.
❚ What was the relation between water and economicgrowth? How did this sometimes produce conflict?
❚ How did progressive reform change the structure ofCalifornia politics?
❚ How did progressive reform change the function of stategovernment?
❚ How did the Mexican Revolution affect Californians?❚ How did Californians respond to the war that began inEurope in 1914?
❚ What are some of the long-term results of progressivism?
The Origins of California Progressivism
The Progressive Party campaign of Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson in1912 marked one high point for progressivism. It took place when reform was“in the air” almost everywhere. This commitment to reform came becausemany Americans, and probably a majority of Californians, concluded thatsomething had to be done to restrict the new industrial corporations and toremedy the problems of the cities. Many also concluded that traditional politicsposed a constraint on reform.
The Origins of California Progressivism 203
The Many Shapes of Progressivism
Progressivism took form through many individual decisions by voters andpolitical leaders, but a more basic choice loomed behind many of them: Shouldgovernment play a larger role in people’s lives? Time after time, Americans—and Californians—chose a greater role for government. As they gave govern-ment more power, Americans also sought to make it more responsive toordinary citizens by introducing new ways to participate more directly inpolitics—and nowhere did these reforms reach as far as they did in California.Changes in the structure and function of government during these decadesfundamentally altered California’s politics, and, at the same time, politics dra-matically expanded to embrace a wider range of concerns.
In the 1890s and early 20th century, groups organized and enteredCalifornia’s political arena, often sharing an optimism that responsible citizens,acting in concert, assisted by technical know-how, and sometimes drawingon the power of government, could achieve social progress—could improvethe human situation. As early as the 1890s, a few Californians began callingthemselves “progressive citizens.” By 1912, many more called themselves“progressives.”
Historians use the term progressivism to signify three related developments:(1) the emergence of new concepts of the purposes of government, expressed ina language of reform that groups and individuals used to justify their varyingproposals for change; (2) changes in government policies and institutions;and (3) the political agitation that produced those changes. A progressive,then, was a person involved in one or more of these activities. The large num-ber of individuals and organized groups with differing visions of change madeprogressivism a complex political phenomenon. There was no single progres-sive movement. Roosevelt’s Progressive Party in 1912 probably had morestrength in California than in any other state, but even in California it failedto capture the allegiance of all those who called themselves progressives.
There was no single pattern to the development of progressive reform. Insome states, most notably Wisconsin, it burst forth initially in state govern-ment. In other places, it affected city government first. In California, the firstvictories for progressive reform came in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Municipal Reform: Los Angeles
In the 1890s, city boosters in Los Angeles took pride in the city’s two railroadconnections and its booming population, but worried over the lack of a harbor.When Collis Huntington of the Southern Pacific (SP) sought to develop SantaMonica into a port for oceangoing ships, LA’s entrepreneurs and civic leadersorganized a Free Harbor League. “Free harbor” meant one not controlled bythe SP. They gained a valuable ally in U.S. Senator Stephen White, the Demo-crat elected with Populist support (see p. 194). White helped Angelenos secure
204 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
federal funds to develop San Pedro as a port. In 1899, the city celebrated a“Free Harbor Jubilee,” as construction began. One of the most significant engi-neering endeavors on the Pacific coast, the project made Los Angeles a majorport—eventually one of the largest ports in the nation.
Other Angelenos wanted to reform city government through a new charterand to defeat the conservative Republicans who dominated city government.Most of the reformers, though, were also Republicans, so they usually workedwithin the Republican Party. They created reform organizations, notably theDirect Legislation League, led by Dr. John R. Haynes, which persuaded cityvoters to amend the charter to provide for the initiative, referendum, andrecall—reforms that permitted citizens, through petitions, to propose newlaws (the initiative), block laws passed by the city council (the referendum),and evict an elected official from office (the recall). Other LA reformers soughtmunicipal ownership of public utilities and the merit system for filling cityjobs. Under the merit system, people seeking government jobs demonstratetheir abilities through competitive examinations. Previously, people securedappointments to government jobs through loyalty to elected officials. In 1908,reformers promoted charter amendments that made city offices nonpartisanand required city council members to seek election citywide rather than fromdistricts. This change, they argued, was more likely to produce councilmembers who viewed the city as a whole, rather than as a collection of neigh-borhoods. As that campaign was in progress, reformers found evidence linkingthe mayor to corruption. They recalled him from office, then elected a progres-sive mayor.
Municipal Reform: San Francisco
A city’s charter defines its structure of government. From 1856 onward, SanFrancisco’s government had been structured by the Consolidation Act, an actof the state legislature that significantly restricted city government. Severalefforts at charter revision had failed. When James D. Phelan was electedmayor in 1896, he made charter reform his first priority. His supporters,some of whom called themselves “progressive citizens,” included many of thecity’s business leaders plus a few representatives of organized labor. The newcharter, they argued, was solidly based on progressive and businesslike princi-ples and would create a more centralized city government and increase themayor’s power. These changes, they claimed, would prevent political manipu-lation by figures like “Boss” Buckley.
The new charter, which took effect in 1900, reflected Phelan’s views in pro-viding for eventual city ownership of public utilities. Phelan consistently arguedthat the city should own and operate utilities including streetcars, water, andelectrical power—a position more radical than most other urban reformers,who typically concerned themselves with creating honest and efficient city gov-ernment. Phelan argued that if city governments regulated private utility
The Origins of California Progressivism 205
companies, those companies would inevitably seek to influence, and corrupt,the officials responsible for the regulation.
In 1901, Phelan’s third term as mayor was ending when the city experi-enced a major labor battle. The struggle began with a dispute between thenew Teamsters’ Union and their employers, the Draymen’s Association. Team-sters drove teams of horses that pulled freight wagons throughout the city.Soon the Employers’ Association took over the draymen’s side of the conflictand refused to bargain with the union. Other unions saw this as a challenge totheir own ability to seek improvements in working conditions. Unions on thewaterfront went on strike in support of the teamsters, closing down the port.Phelan tried unsuccessfully to bring the two sides together. As the strikedragged on to a second month, events sometimes turned violent, especiallywhen city police began protecting strikebreakers. Father Peter Yorke, a Catholicpriest sympathetic to the strikers, had given crucial support to Governor HenryGage during his election campaign in 1898, and Yorke now persuaded Gage tobring together the teamsters and draymen. Gage got them to agree on a settle-ment that permitted the teamsters to continue to unionize.
Charging Phelan with using police to aid the employers, some angryunionists entered city politics as the Union Labor Party (ULP). In 1901, theULP candidate for mayor, Eugene Schmitz, president of the Musicians’Union, won the election. Schmitz was reelected in 1903, and the ULP sweptmost city offices in 1905. Almost from the beginning, rumors swirled throughthe city that Abraham Ruef, once a reform Republican, had become the “boss”of the ULP, exacting bribes from businesses that dealt with city governmentand manipulating Schmitz and ULP members of the Board of Supervisors(San Francisco’s equivalent to a city council).
In 1905, Fremont Older, editor of the San Francisco Bulletin, publishedexposés of Ruef’s dealings and sought federal assistance in investigating Ruefand Schmitz. He raised funds from private citizens and brought in the nation’sleading private detective firm. As the city suffered through the disastrous earth-quake and fire of 1906 and the rebuilding afterward (see pp. 216–218), the“graft prosecution” collected evidence that led to the removal from office ofSchmitz and nearly all the supervisors. A reform mayor was first appointed,and then elected in his own right.
Francis Heney, a former federal prosecutor, was appointed to prosecuteRuef. In the midst of the trial, late in 1908, Heney was shot by a prospectivejuror whom he had offended by revealing an old criminal record. Heney even-tually recovered, but prosecution of Ruef fell to Hiram Johnson, Heney’s assis-tant. A highly successful trial lawyer, Johnson secured Ruef’s conviction andbecame well known throughout the state.
The ULP survived the graft prosecution and returned to power in 1909,when Patrick H. McCarthy, head of the Building Trades Council, won theoffice of mayor. Most recent historians have concluded that the ULP wasmuch more than just a vehicle for Ruef’s graft. Instead, it was a labor party
206 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
much like those emerging in Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand—parties formed by labor organizations to prevent governmental power frombeing used against workers’ organizations, and to use government instead tobenefit unions and working people.
Thus, by 1910, both of California’s largest cities had experienced municipalreform. Both had experimented with structural changes designed to make citygovernment more effective. Both had advocates for the municipal ownership ofpublic utilities. And both had produced successful reform politicians. Thesecampaigns were publicized throughout the state and were imitated elsewhere.
Organized Labor in the Progressive Era
The political successes of the ULP helped to give San Francisco a reputation asone of the most unionized cities in the nation. The San Francisco BuildingTrades Council (BTC), organized in 1896, won a major strike in 1900 thatmade it a powerful force within the construction industry, able to require thatonly union members be hired and that work be limited to eight hours per day.Patrick H. McCarthy, BTC president after 1898, became a significant force incity politics. After a major organizing drive from 1899 to 1901, and encouragedby the strikes of 1900 and 1901, other workers in northern California alsojoined unions. Within San Francisco, the ULP mayor guaranteed that policewould not protect strikebreakers. One journalist described San Francisco as“the city where unionism holds undisputed sway,” and, in fact, the city mayhave been the most unionized major city in the country. The BTC probablyexercised more control over working conditions than any comparable groupof workers elsewhere in the country. Workers in foundries and machineshops, organized into the Iron Trades Council, got the eight-hour day after astrike in 1907, at a time when most ironworkers and steelworkers elsewhere inthe country were working 10- or 12-hour days. In general, the unionized work-ers of San Francisco were better paid and had better working conditions thantheir nonunion counterparts across the country.
In much of the country then, unions recruited only the most skilled workers.In San Francisco, however, dishwashers, stable workers, and other unskilled orsemiskilled workers had unions. At a time when some unions resisted efforts toorganize women, San Francisco’s female laundry workers, waitresses, and otherfemale wage earners had unions. Women’s road to unionization was never easy,however, even in a highly unionized city. The most important limit on unioni-zation was race. Few unions admitted African Americans, and none admittedAsians. Unions thrived in San Francisco partly because they united white work-ers by pointing to Asian immigrants as threats to white workers. Then, too, thecity’s geographic isolation made it difficult to bring in strikebreakers. Citygovernment—in the hands of the ULP from 1901 to 1906 and from 1909 to1911—did not intervene on the side of the employers. And San Franciscoemployers repeatedly failed to organize as effectively as their workers.
The Origins of California Progressivism 207
If San Francisco was “the city where unionism holds undisputed sway,” LosAngeles had a reputation as a stronghold of the open shop—the term used todescribe employers who refused to bargain with unions. In LA, the chief bul-wark against unions was Harrison Gray Otis, publisher of the Los AngelesTimes, the moving force behind the Merchants and Manufacturers Association.A conservative Republican and powerful force in LA, Otis’s newspaper beratedhis opponents, including Democrats, progressives, and unions. The Merchantsand Manufacturers Association organized the city’s businesses against unions.By keeping out unions, the city’s business leaders reasoned, they could attractcompanies seeking an inexpensive work force. Nonetheless, by 1910, some LAunions were making gains; Mexican workers on the street railways and workersin several industries declared strikes to gain recognition. Pushed by the Mer-chants and Manufacturers Association and Otis, the city council responded byprohibiting picketing by strikers.
The unions of the Bay Area looked anxiously at LA, for lower wages theretempted companies to relocate. Bay Area unions were also pressured byemployers who competed with southern California companies and their lowerlabor costs. Extremists in the International Association of Bridge and StructuralIron Workers, including John and James McNamara, had begun to set bombsto terrorize opponents of unions. In 1910, they targeted the Los Angeles Timesbuilding. In the early hours of October 1, an explosion ripped open the build-ing and ignited a roaring fire. Twenty-one people died. William Burns, whosedetective agency had aided the San Francisco graft investigation, trackeddown the bombers. Most union leaders considered it a “frame-up” and
In the early morningof October 1, a bomb exploded in the Los Angeles Times building and ignited highly flammable ink, newsprint, and natural gas, turning the building into a flaming inferno and killing 21 people. Why did the LA Times attract this form of terror? What was the aftermath?
“Los A
ngele
s Tim
es Bu
ilding
after
the b
ombin
g disa
ster o
n Octo
ber 1
, 191
0 (CH
S-57
28.1)
” by F
ae is
licen
sed
unde
r CC B
Y 2.0
208 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
defended the McNamara brothers. When brought to trial in 1911, however,James McNamara confessed and John McNamara pled guilty, cruelly disillu-sioning their supporters. Both brothers were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Efforts to Reform State Government Before 1910
Several varieties of reform swirled across the nation in the early 1900s. In 1900,Robert M. La Follette, a Republican, won election as governor of Wisconsinand led that state to regulate railroads and reduce the power of political bosses.His success prompted imitators, who began to win state elections across thecountry by attacking corporations, especially railroads. At the same time, Pres-ident Theodore Roosevelt secured his reputation as a “trustbuster” by using theSherman Antitrust Act (1890) to break up giant corporations. He then movedon to railroad regulation in 1906. Publishers discovered that their sales boomedwhen they featured dramatic exposés of political corruption, corporate wrong-doing, or other offenses—for example, Fremont Older’s crusade against Ruef.Those who practiced this provocative journalism acquired the name “muckra-kers.” Muckraking magazines brought national attention to situations in partic-ular cities or states. In 1904, for example, Ray Stannard Baker profiled SanFrancisco’s unions in McClure’s Magazine, the most prominent of the muck-raking magazines.
Though reform burgeoned across the nation, California state governmentseemed immune. In 1902, the Republican state convention nominated GeorgeC. Pardee—considered a reliable conservative and friend of the SouthernPacific—to run for governor. The Democrats ran Franklin K. Lane, who con-demned the SP and nearly defeated Pardee. As governor, Pardee slowly sepa-rated himself from the SP. When he sought renomination in 1906, theRepublican state convention instead chose James Gillett, a member of Congressknown to be close to the SP. Journalists accused the SP of brazenly dominatingthe convention and dumping Pardee. Abraham Ruef, “boss” of San Francisco’sUnion Labor Party and a Republican in state politics, later admitted that the SPhad given him $14,000 (equivalent to about $335,000 now) to help in nominat-ing Gillett. Theodore Bell, the Democratic candidate, crisscrossed the statedemanding railroad regulation and other reforms, but Gillett won.
In 1907, reformers charged the SP with blocking reforms in the legislature.In August 1907, a group of Republican reformers, most of them newspaper pub-lishers and lawyers, launched the League of Lincoln-Roosevelt RepublicanClubs—usually called the Lincoln-Roosevelt League—and pledged to end SPcontrol of state politics. They scored some victories in the 1908 elections, andthe legislative session of 1909 was marked by battles between reformers and con-servatives, and between the critics and defenders of the SP. Most importantly,the legislature passed a direct primary law. In a direct primary, voters registeredwith a particular party choose that party’s candidates for office. Previously,candidates for state offices had been chosen by conventions. At conventions,
The Origins of California Progressivism 209
reformers charged, political bosses connived with corporations—especially theSP—to nominate candidates agreeable to both of them. Thus, the direct primarywas presented as a way to remove corporate influence from the political process.
In 1910, the state stood at a significant crossroads. Progressive Republicanswere well organized, and they had the opportunity, for the first time, to godirectly to the voters for the nomination of candidates for office.
Social and Economic Change in the Progressive Era
While reformers struggled with conservatives over control of state government,the state’s social and economic patterns were undergoing important changes.Though not as obvious as the dramatic political battles between the reformersand defenders of the SP, these changes were no less important. And many ofthem worked their way into the political process.
Immigration and Ethnic Relations
Between 1900 and 1910, California’s population grew more rapidly than at anytime since the Gold Rush. The growth was most pronounced in southernCalifornia and the San Joaquin Valley. In 1900, California’s population ranked21st among the 45 states. By 1920, it moved up to eighth among 48.
The state’s population was becoming racially more homogeneous. In the1850s, a quarter or more of all Californians were African American, AmericanIndian, Asian, or Latino; however, due to white migration from other countriesand from other parts of the United States, the state became 95 percent white by1910. Among white Californians during these years, nearly half were immi-grants or children of immigrants, and these foreign-stock Californians camefrom many different cultural backgrounds. The 1920 census recorded the lan-guage of first- and second-generation white immigrants, and those data providean approximation of their cultural backgrounds. Figure 7.1 indicates the eth-nicity, based on language or race, of Californians in 1920. (In Figure 7.1, thepercentage for British and Irish are estimated because the census data com-bined those two groups. Those listed as speaking Spanish include those whoseparents were born in Latin America, Spain, and elsewhere.)
Between 1900 and 1908, 55,000 Japanese immigrants came to the UnitedStates, and most settled in California. Earlier, a few Japanese students had stud-ied at American universities, including Berkeley and Stanford. With the declinein the number of Chinese Californians after the 1880s, California growerssought new sources of labor, including Japan. Smaller numbers of immigrantsfrom Korea and the Punjab area of India (mostly Sikhs) also came to Califor-nia. And after the United States acquired the Philippines in 1898, Filipinomigrants began to arrive.
210 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
The Exclusion Act and its extensions significantly limited immigrationfrom China, but those who could prove that they were born in the UnitedStates, or were born to American citizens, were citizens and had the right toenter the country. A brisk trade developed in providing appropriate evidence towould-be immigrants, who became known as “paper sons” or “paperdaughters.” Sometimes called the “Ellis Island of the West,” the ImmigrationStation on Angel Island, in San Francisco Bay, was opened in 1910. Its majorpurpose was to detain and interrogate Chinese entering the country and to seekevidence of fraudulent papers. Most were detained for two to three weeks,some longer.
The rise in immigration from Japan provoked a revival of anti-Asian senti-ments. San Francisco union leaders formed the Asiatic Exclusion League. In
White, born in U.S. of parents born in the U.S.
48%
British(estimate)
8%
Irish(estimate)
8%
German8%
Spanish4%
Scandinavian4%
All othersless than 1%
African American1%
Japanese2%
Chinese1%
American Indian1%
All other white groups4%
French2%
Slavic2%
Portuguese2%
Italian5%
Figure 7.1 Californians in 1920, by Race, Ethnicity, or Mother Tongue of Whitesof Foreign ParentageThis figure suggests the ethnic diversity of Californians, even at the same time that itindicates the lack of racial diversity. Though the population of the state was nearly95 percent white, there was great diversity within the white population in terms ofethnicity. In this figure, the ethnicity of the white population is based on the “mothertongue,” i.e., the first language of those who were foreign-born or whose parents wereforeign-born. Among the whites who were born in the U.S. of parents born in the U.S.,many were also likely to have identified with one of the ethnic groups noted.Source: Fourteenth census of the United States: California (Washington, 1924).
Social and Economic Change in the Progressive Era 211
1906, the city’s school board, dominated by the Union Labor Party, orderedstudents of Japanese parentage to attend the segregated Chinese school. News-papers and politicians in Japan denounced the segregation order as a nationalinsult. Most Californians knew that Japanese forces had recently delivered astunning defeat to Russia—a white, European nation—in the Russo-JapaneseWar. Anxious to maintain good relations with Japan, President TheodoreRoosevelt persuaded the San Francisco school board to rescind the segregationorder. In return, he promised to persuade the Japanese government to cut offthe migration of laborers to the United States. This he accomplished throughthe “Gentlemen’s Agreement” (not a formal treaty) of 1907–1908. At the sametime, Roosevelt sent the U.S. Navy around the world, painted white as a sign ofpeaceful intentions—and known therefore as the White Fleet. It was also, how-ever, a strong statement of American ability to carry naval warfare into Japa-nese waters.
After 1908, immigration from Japan was reduced but not stopped. Thelarge majority of those who arrived before 1908 were males, and many hadtheir relatives in Japan arrange marriages for them. “Picture brides” werepermitted to enter the United States until the early 1920s. Thus, the numberof Japanese Californians increased from 41,356 in 1910 to 71,952 in 1920.Many made their living as farmers, working small plots—the average was70 acres in 1920—where they raised labor-intensive crops such as vegetables orberries.
During the early years of the 20th century, many Mexicans migrated north,most to south Texas and southern California. Though this migration beganbefore 1910, the numbers increased greatly as many Mexicans sought to escapethe revolution and civil war that began in 1910—and the serious social andeconomic dislocations that devastated their nation for years afterward. At thesame time, exclusion of Asian immigrants produced a growing demand forMexican labor in California agriculture.
A large Mexican community developed in Los Angeles. Los AngelesCounty and surrounding areas included significant agricultural operations.Many Mexican immigrants worked as agricultural field workers or canneryworkers, following the crops through the growing, harvesting, and canningseasons, then spending the winter in LA. There, they joined a long-standingMexican community in which many men worked in railroad constructionand maintenance (including LA streetcars), construction, or furniture making,and women worked in garment making—all of which, like agricultural fieldwork and canning, were often seasonal in nature.
Other Mexican immigrants lived in small barrios along the coast or inland.In 1903, Japanese and Mexican sugar beet workers in Oxnard formed a union,conducted their meetings in both languages, went on strike, and won theirmajor objectives. When they petitioned for a union charter from the AmericanFederation of Labor (AFL), however, they were refused because their unionadmitted Asian workers, a violation of existing AFL rules.
212 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, California continued ashome to one of the largest American Indian populations in the nation. YetCalifornia had few reservations, and they were small both in size and in num-ber of residents. Most California Indians continued to live outside the reserva-tions, as they had since the United States acquired California.
Congress, in 1905, authorized an investigation of conditions amongCalifornia Indians. A special agent, C. E. Kelsey, traveled throughout the state,visiting almost every Indian settlement. He contacted 17,000 California Indians,of whom only 5,200 lived on reservations. Kelsey found that about 3,000 of thenonreservation California Indians owned land, most of which was worthless forfarming. More than 1,000 lived in federal forest reserves and national parks,areas that had been their traditional homelands. Nearly 8,000 lived in ruralareas, typically in rancherías where they preserved some traditional ways of lifeeven as they adapted to white society. Men often worked as farm laborers, stockherders, lumber workers, or miners, and many women worked as laundresses,domestic servants, or basket makers. Those not living on reservations usuallytried to avoid attention, as they could still be targets for random violence.Those on the reservations had more protection from random violence but wereconstantly pressured by agents of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to give up theirtraditional ways and send their children to boarding schools.
Kelsey’s report led Congress to appropriate funds to create reservations forthe landless California Indians. As the Commissioner of Indian Affairsexplained in 1906, by establishing new reservations, the Indians of California“will be protected from the aggression of white people and have a fair chanceto make a living.” Federal authorities began to convert some rancherías intosmall, but official, reservations. Some 50 new reservations were eventuallyestablished, many of them based on existing rancherías. For example, the Pino-leville Reservation, comprising about 100 acres (less than a quarter of a squaremile), was established in 1911 on land that a group of Pomo had purchased30 years before. California’s older reservations were also experiencing change.At Round Valley, protests against the federally run school led in 1915 to thecreation of a public school on the reservation, with control lodged in a schoolboard elected by reservation residents.
Figure 7.1 illustrates the diversity of languages—and cultures—amongCalifornians classified as white. In fact, the diversity was even greater, for the49 percent of the population who were white and born in the United States ofparents born in the United States included many descendants of immigrantswho still identified with an ethnic group.
Immigration in the early 20th century expanded existing Italian communi-ties, especially in the San Francisco Bay area, where earlier Italian immigrantshad established themselves in viticulture, horticulture, and fishing. By the early1920s, San Francisco had the sixth largest Italian community in the nation, andwas second only to New York City, among major cities, in the proportion of itspopulation of Italian parentage.
Social and Economic Change in the Progressive Era 213
Other European groups who arrived in California in significant numbersafter 1900 included Eastern European Jews, many of them fleeing persecutionin Russia; Armenians, many fleeing persecution from the Turkish empire; andPortuguese, including many from Portugal’s island possessions in the Atlantic.Eastern European Jews tended to settle in urban areas, especially San Franciscoand Los Angeles, which had established Jewish communities, mostly ofGerman origin, dating to Gold Rush days. Many Armenians were drawn tofarming in the San Joaquin Valley, especially in the area around Fresno.
From the 1870s through the early 20th century, some black leaders had pro-moted the creation of all-black communities as places where African Americanscould exercise full political rights and enjoy full economic opportunities—rightsand opportunities denied them in the South. Among these all-black communi-ties was Allensworth, near Bakersfield in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Thiscommunity was founded in 1908 by Allen Allensworth. Born into slavery,Allensworth spent a career as an army chaplain, reaching the rank of lieutenantcolonel, and then retired to Los Angeles in 1906. His inspiration for an all-blacktown came from the California Eagle, a black newspaper, that advised AfricanAmericans: “Get a home of your own. Get some property.” He especiallyrecruited members of the U.S. Army’s four all-black units, urging them to livein Allensworth after completing their military service. Allensworth voterselected Oscar Overr as the first African American justice of the peace since thetime when California had become a part of the United States. Problems with thewater supply contributed to a decline of the town in the 1930s.
Economic Changes
California’s economy remained both diverse and highly productive. The 1920census reported that, during the previous year, the state’s farms and rancheshad yielded produce worth $770 million, and its mines, quarries, and oil wellshad produced $163 million worth of minerals. At the same time, Californiamanufacturing enterprises produced nearly $2 billion worth of goods. (Onedollar in 1920 is equivalent to nearly $11.00 now.) Based on the number ofemployees and the value of the products, food processing was the largest indus-try, followed by petroleum refining; other important manufacturing industriesincluded metal products, lumber, printing, and clothing.
During the early 20th century, California agriculture continued to diversifythrough the expansion of specialty crops, especially fruit, nuts, grapes, andvegetables (Map 7.1 shows where agriculture crops were being produced as of1909.). By 1920, California ranked first among the states in production of manycrops, including well over half of all lemons, oranges, olives, apricots, nuts,plums, table grapes, and raisins. Citrus crops were concentrated in southernCalifornia, other fruits and nuts in the Santa Clara Valley and around SanFrancisco Bay, and grapes in the wine-growing region north and east of SanFrancisco Bay and in the raisin-producing region of the San Joaquin Valley.
214 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
Expansion of fruit and vegetable growing spurred food processing. As earlyas 1900, California ranked first among the states in canning and preservingfruits and vegetables, producing a quarter of the nation’s canned and preservedfruits and vegetables in 1900 and half by 1919. The expansion of specialty crops
One dot = $100,000 in agricultural crops
Map 7.1 Value of All Crops, 1909This map shows the distribution of California’s agricultural crops, as of 1909. Note,even this late, that irrigation facilities in the Central Valley had still not developed tothe point that it could challenge the Bay Area and LA basin as the most productiveagricultural regions.
Social and Economic Change in the Progressive Era 215
and of canneries necessitated a significant labor force at harvest time, but therewas often little work for such employees at other times of the year.
The emergence of large numbers of relatively small-scale fruit, nut, andvegetable growers prompted the development of growers’ organizations, ini-tially to influence prices and assist distribution. Orange growers developed aneffective marketing cooperative, renamed the California Fruit Growers’Exchange in 1905. It became a powerful force in the industry, organizing nearlyall aspects of marketing, and, in 1908, creating its own brand name, Sunkist,which it promoted through extensive advertising. Given this success, other spe-cialty crop growers created their own marketing cooperatives based on theorange growers’ model.
In 1900, gold remained the most important mineral product of California,exceeding in value all other mineral products combined. Petroleum was insecond place, and California ranked fifth among the states in the value ofrefined petroleum products. By then, an oil boom was developing in southernCalifornia. Observers in 1899 noted that the only problem with California oilwas that it was not well suited for refining into kerosene, then the chief productof refineries because of the demand for home lighting. California petroleumwas better suited for making gasoline, for which, in 1899, there was lessdemand. That soon changed dramatically. By 1920, Californians had registeredone car for every six residents, and petroleum production soared. By 1919,California stood second among the states in the making of refined petroleumproducts.
Earthquake and Fire in 1906
In 1906, nearly half of all Californians lived around San Francisco Bay or alongthe coast between Monterey and Eureka. Nearly all of them were jolted awake afew minutes after five o’clock in the morning, on April 18, 1906, when a mon-strous earthquake rumbled along 296 miles of the San Andreas Fault, fromnear San Juan Bautista to Cape Mendocino. Shaking was felt as far away asLos Angeles, Oregon, and Nevada. Seismologists now conclude that the mostsevere shaking centered on two locations, west of San Francisco and west ofBodega Bay. They now estimate the moment-magnitude (Mw) at 7.9—one ofthe two most powerful earthquakes in California’s recorded history. Map 7.2shows the extent of the slippage.
The earthquake toppled centuries-old redwoods, destroyed farms and vil-lages, set church bells ringing wildly, and caused brick walls and chimneys tocrash to the ground. One witness in San Francisco said, “I could see it actuallycoming up Washington Street. The whole street was undulating. It was as if thewaves of the ocean were coming toward me.” The earthquake destroyedthousands of buildings and killed hundreds of people. It twisted streets, side-walks, and streetcar tracks, and broke water lines, gas pipes, and electricalpower wires.
216 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
In San Francisco, broken water mains rendered fire hydrants useless. Fiftyor more fires broke out, fed by escaping gas. For the next three days, city resi-dents struggled to contain what became a firestorm. General Frederick Fun-ston, commander of the U.S. Army at the Presidio, sent troops to keep orderand fight the fires. Without water to battle the flames, firefighters and federaltroops dynamited buildings to build firebreaks.
Earthquake, fire, and dynamite destroyed the heart of the city, 4.11 squaremiles and 28,000 buildings, including three-quarters of the homes of the city’sresidents. Destruction was almost universal within the fire zone—mansions andtenements, churches and brothels, saloons and libraries. The official recordlisted about 500 deaths in San Francisco and 200 outside the city, but subse-quent researchers concluded that the number probably reached 3000 or more.Financial help poured in from individuals, organizations, and governments—some $9 million, used for food, temporary housing, and assistance in reestab-lishing homes and businesses.
Californians rushed to rebuild. San Franciscans feared that any delay inreconstruction would endanger their place as economic leader of the West.Though a few civic leaders urged a careful, planned approach, including wide
Map 7.2 Slippage Along the San Andreas Fault in 1906These maps show the extent of the 1906 earthquake. The map in the upper right indi-cates the geographic range of damage, from near San Juan Bautista to Cape Mendo-cino, about 270 miles. The diagram in the lower left shows the amount of horizontalmovement of the earth for various locations. Where was the most serious slippage?Why is this earthquake usually closely associated with San Francisco?
Social and Economic Change in the Progressive Era 217
Water Wars
The fire gave new urgency to civic leaders in both San Francisco and LosAngeles who were trying to create water projects. While the danger of fire pro-vided a good talking point, the major concern in both cities was water forgrowth.
In the late 1890s and early years of the 20th century, civic leaders in LosAngeles secured their city’s control over the Los Angeles River. In 1903, votersapproved a charter amendment creating a Board of Water Commissioners tooversee the city’s water and remove it from politics. Such commissions wereone of the new forms of government that developed during the progressiveera. By 1904, the Los Angeles River could not sustain future urban growth, soWilliam Mulholland, superintendent of the LA water system, launched an
boulevards and other civic amenities, in the end, the city was rebuilt much as before—although in the current architectural style.
After
math
of the
San F
ranc
isco E
arthq
uake
and F
ire of
1906
, Arn
old G
enthe
, Libr
ary o
f Con
gress,
publi
c do
main,
no kn
own r
estri
ction
s
218 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
Compare this photograph of San Francisco after the earthquake and fire of 1906 with the photograph on p. 178, taken about a year before this one. Among older buildings, the devastation was nearly complete. In the distance can be seen the city’s first steel-frame office buildings, nearly all of which survived the earthquake, though they were also gutted by fire. Why did San Francisco business leaders rush to rebuild the city rather than engage in a carefully planned reconstruction?
Map
7.3TheOw
ensRiverWater
Project
Thisprojectdiverted
nearly
theentire
flow
oftheOwensRiver
into
anaquedu
ctthat
ranthelength
oftheOwensValleyandem
ptiedinto
theHaiwee
Reservoir.From
there,thewater
enteredan
aquedu
ctwhich
carrieditsome150milesto
theSanFernando
Valley.
Why
was
the
acqu
isitionof
largeam
ountsof
water
crucialto
thegrow
thof
LosAngeles?
219
audacious plan. The city secretly bought up land, including water rights, alongthe Owens River, 235 miles north of LA. In 1907, city voters approved a bondissue for an aqueduct from the Owens Valley to the San Fernando Valley inLos Angeles County. Completed in 1913, the project diverted virtually theentire Owens River into the LA water system, providing four times as muchwater as the city needed and permitting rapid development in the SanFernando Valley, which was annexed to LA in 1915. Though some Owens Val-ley residents resisted the water project in court, LA won, and the Owens Valleybecame a parched area suitable mostly for cattle grazing. By 1920, Los Angelesexpanded to nearly 365 square miles and half a million people.
In San Francisco, civic leaders also worried that the privately owned SpringValley Water Company could not provide enough water for the growth of thecity. Mayor James Phelan, in 1901, chose the Hetch Hetchy Valley for a reser-voir. Located 170 miles east of San Francisco, the valley was a canyon withnear-perpendicular granite walls—2,500 feet high—and a flat meadow floor,ideal for a reservoir if a dam were built across the canyon entrance. It waspart of Yosemite National Park, but uses other than recreation were then per-mitted in national parks. In 1910, city voters approved bonds to construct awater system based on Hetch Hetchy. The city then sought permission fromCongress to dam the valley. In addition to opposition from the Spring ValleyWater Company, John Muir and the Sierra Club argued forcefully against con-struction in a national park. Hetch Hetchy, Muir proclaimed, was “one of thegreatest of all our natural resources for the uplifting joy and peace and healthof the people.” “Dam Hetch Hetchy!” he exclaimed angrily. “As well dam forwater-tanks the people’s cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has everbeen consecrated by the heart of man.” Electrical power companies, especiallyPacific Gas & Electric, also opposed the project because the dam would gener-ate electricity and might lead to public ownership of the city’s electrical system.Despite this opposition, Congress passed, and President Woodrow Wilsonsigned, the necessary legislation in 1913, and construction began in 1914.Hetch Hetchy water finally flowed through the city’s faucets in 1934.
The struggle over Hetch Hetchy revealed divisions within the emergingenvironmental movement. On one side were those like Muir, who argued forthe preservation of wilderness as a place where urban people might find inspi-ration and recreation. On the other side were progressives like Phelan andGifford Pinchot, Theodore Roosevelt’s chief adviser on conservation, whodefined conservation as the careful management of natural resources so as tosecure the maximum benefit from them, and who argued that the needs of ahalf million thirsty San Franciscans should take precedence over the recreationof a few “nature lovers.” The preservationists lost the battle but helped to shapethe nation’s awareness of the long-term need to preserve national parks.
As San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other cities began to tap the water ofthe Sierra Nevada for their own uses, California farmers were also expandingtheir irrigation facilities. By 1920, more than half of California’s farms were
220 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
irrigated. Some irrigation could be found in almost every county but was mostcommon in the San Joaquin and Imperial Valleys and the citrus-growing areasof Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
Individual entrepreneurs developed many of the initial irrigation projectsin California; however, the National Irrigation Association, created in 1899,set out to secure federal financing of irrigation projects. Francis Newlands, amember of Congress from Nevada and the son-in-law of William Sharon(p. 171), introduced key legislation. The National Reclamation Act of 1902,also called the Newlands Act, reserved the funds from the sale of federallands in 16 western states for irrigation projects. To promote family farms,the law specified that only farms of 160 acres or fewer could receive waterfrom its projects. The Newlands Act established a new federal commitment,later expanded many times: The federal government would assume responsibil-ity for constructing western dams, canals, and other facilities that made agricul-ture possible in areas of slight rainfall. Over the course of the 20th century,governmental water projects profoundly transformed the western landscape,and water—perhaps the single most important resource in the arid West—came to be extensively managed.
California in the World Economy
The growth in agriculture, manufacturing, and petroleum refining were allreflected in the cargo of the ships that left California’s ports, and the impor-tance of those ports was magnified by construction of the Panama Canal.Californians eagerly anticipated the completion of the canal, expecting that itwould boost the volume of cargo moving through their ports and significantlyreduce the cost of shipping between the West Coast and the East. In both SanFrancisco and Los Angeles, harbor commissions rushed port improvements tocompletion.
San Francisco hosted an international exposition to celebrate the openingof the canal. Dominated by a dazzling “Tower of Jewels,” the Panama-PacificInternational Exposition opened in 1915. Though the exposition presentedexhibition halls that displayed the commercial and cultural products of muchof the world, San Francisco civic leaders had another purpose as well—theyhoped the exposition would provide clear proof of the city’s recovery fromthe devastation of 1906. A similar exposition celebrating the opening of thecanal was held in San Diego, and some of its structures, later restored, nowstand in Balboa Park.
The opening of the canal in 1914 did significantly increase intercoastalshipping. By the early 1920s, the port of San Francisco was unloading half amillion tons of cargo a year from the eastern United States, with metal pro-ducts and coal the most prominent. Almost as much cargo bound for theEast Coast passed over the San Francisco docks, led by canned goods. Califor-nia’s agricultural produce was also shipped all around the Pacific and to Great
Social and Economic Change in the Progressive Era 221
Britain and Europe, and refined petroleum products were exported throughoutthe Pacific. California’s ports also handled a large volume of Pacific imports—Hawaiian pineapple and sugar, coffee and crude oil from Latin America, silkfrom Japan and China, as well as coconut products (used in making soapand other toiletries) and sugar from the Philippines and the Pacific islands.California also imported iron, steel, and coal from Great Britain and Europe.
California Progressivism, 1910–1920
Progressivism came late to California state government, but in 1910 Californianselected a governor and a legislature that put their state in the forefront ofprogressive reform.
Hiram Johnson and the Victory of the Progressives, 1910–1911
The direct primary law of 1909 empowered California voters to choose theirparty’s candidates for state office. For the Lincoln-Roosevelt League, the pri-mary election of 1910 tested their ability to organize a campaign. After consid-erable discussion, League leaders persuaded Hiram Johnson to seek theRepublican nomination for governor.
Johnson had grown up in Sacramento. His father, Grove Johnson, was astaunch conservative and defender of the Southern Pacific who had beenaccused of shady political maneuvering. Hiram had quarreled with his fatherover politics and moved to San Francisco. He had developed such a distastefor politics that progressive Republicans found it difficult to persuade him toseek the nomination for governor in 1910.
Once committed, though, he threw himself into the campaign. He easilywon the Republican primary, then took his campaign to as many voters as pos-sible, driving throughout the state and wearing out his car in the process. Com-mitted and combative, Johnson tirelessly repeated his central message: “TheSouthern Pacific must keep its dirty hands out of politics.” Democratic votersnominated Theodore Bell, their anti-SP candidate from four years before. WithJohnson and Bell as candidates for governor, Californians were certain to electan enemy of the SP. Johnson won narrowly, mostly on the basis of his largevote in southern California. Upon winning, Johnson traveled east to talk withTheodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and other leading Republicanprogressives.
As governor, Johnson was a whirlwind of action, wasting no time inannouncing the reforms he wanted the legislature to approve. California’s pro-gressive tide was rapidly rising. Rarely has a single session of the legislatureproduced so many new laws as that of 1911. Early in the session, Johnson
222 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
urged a constitutional amendment for the initiative, referendum, and recall.The initiative and referendum encountered some opposition, but the recall ofjudges provoked the greatest criticism. Johnson stood firm. When a statejudge’s irresponsible behavior generated headlines all over the state, the pro-posal sailed through the legislature. Johnson also pushed for a measure to per-mit the voters to elect U.S. senators, another “direct democracy” reform. Otherconstitutional amendments were also approved by the legislature and submit-ted to the voters.
Johnson pushed a drastic overhaul of the state’s regulation of railroads bygiving the previously ineffective Railroad Commission new power to determinethe maximum rates railroads could charge. Another measure gave the commis-sion authority over privately owned public utility companies (companies sellingelectricity, gas, water, streetcar service, and the like) in addition to railroads.
In extending direct democracy and regulating railroad and utility compa-nies, California progressives followed a path marked out by progressives inother states. When it came to organized labor, however, many California pro-gressives, especially Johnson, showed more sympathy for working people andtheir unions than was usual elsewhere. Despite some divisions among progres-sives, the legislature, with Johnson’s support, approved laws requiring theeight-hour day for most female workers, restricting child labor, and creating aworkmen’s compensation program based on employers’ liability for injuriescaused by industrial accidents.
The legislature passed still more measures. Textbooks were to be providedwithout charge in the public schools; previously, students had to buy theirbooks. A Board of Control was created to investigate corruption and ineffi-ciency in state government. Elections for judicial and school officials weremade nonpartisan—now, candidates for judgeships and school boards orother school positions had to run as individuals rather than as party nominees.Prohibitionists secured a “local option” law that permitted voters in any countysupervisorial district to ban the sale of alcohol within the district. Within twoyears, voters prohibited the sale of alcohol in half the state’s supervisorial dis-tricts. Other laws prohibited racetrack gambling and slot machines.
Johnson took no position on woman suffrage, but the legislature submittedto the voters an amendment to the state constitution to extend the suffrage towomen. In lobbying the legislature and in persuading male voters, a few suf-frage advocates made straightforward feminist arguments, that women shouldhave the same rights as men. Most suffragists made more complex arguments,drawing upon some tenets of domesticity to argue that women would bringtheir moral and nurturing nature to politics, clean up politics, and protectwomen and children. Still others, especially female unionists, argued thatfemale wage earners needed the ballot to protect themselves from economicexploitation.
Meeting for only three months, the legislature of 1911 passed more than800 bills and sent 23 constitutional amendments to the voters. It was an
California Progressivism, 1910–1920 223
amazing record. The voters approved nearly all of the constitutional changes,including the initiative, referendum, and recall, the changes in the RailroadCommission, and woman suffrage. California now marched in the forefrontof progressive reform.
The new laws and constitutional amendments transformed the role of indi-vidual voters. The initiative and referendum were extensively used from thebeginning: by 1920, Californians had voted on 41 proposals, including prohibi-tion of alcoholic beverages, the eight-hour day, regulation of chiropractors, theclosing of brothels, and the banning of vivisection. California voters were cau-tious in using their new power—of the 41 proposals, voters approved only sixinitiatives and three referenda. California ballots now became lengthy, crowdedwith initiatives, referenda, proposed constitutional amendments, and bondissues. In 1914 alone, voters confronted nearly 50 such issues.
California Progressives and the Presidential Election of 1912
In 1912, California progressives, especially Hiram Johnson, moved into thefront ranks of national politics. Theodore Roosevelt, during his presidency(1901–1909), had helped to define progressivism by his bold forays against bigbusiness—using antitrust laws to break monopolies and pushing Congress topass the first meaningful federal regulatory laws. In 1908, he personally pickedWilliam Howard Taft as his successor and helped elect him. Taft, however,inherited a Republican Party deeply divided between progressives and conser-vatives. Lacking Roosevelt’s leadership qualities, Taft watched Republican unityrapidly unravel.
As the 1912 presidential election approached, Johnson and other leadingCalifornia Republican progressives concluded that Taft could not win inCalifornia and probably not in the nation. In January 1912, Roosevelt invitedJohnson to discuss the coming election. Johnson quickly boarded an eastboundtrain, hoping to persuade Roosevelt to seek the Republican nomination. He wasnot disappointed—Roosevelt announced his candidacy soon after talking withJohnson and other progressive Republican governors.
In 1912, California was one of only 13 states that used direct primaries toselect delegates to the national nominating convention. Roosevelt easily carriedthe California primary, winning more votes than his two opponents—Taft andRobert La Follette—combined. In other states with direct primaries, Rooseveltalso won the most delegates. Elsewhere, however, Taft supporters controlledthe party machinery. At the Republican nominating convention, Taft’s suppor-ters dominated the credentials committee and gave contested seats to delegatessupporting their man. Johnson led the California delegates out of the conven-tion, claiming that Taft had stolen the nomination. Other Roosevelt delegatesfollowed. The remaining delegates nominated Taft on the first ballot. At thesame time, in a hall nearby, Johnson urged the Roosevelt delegates to create anew party and to nominate Roosevelt.
224 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
Roosevelt’s angry supporters formed the Progressive Party, nicknamed the“Bull Moose Party” after Roosevelt’s boast that he was “as fit as a bull moose.”The delegates wrote a platform that included regulation of corporations, anational minimum wage, an end to child labor, woman suffrage, tariff reduc-tion, and the initiative, referendum, and recall. Roosevelt was nominatedfor president without opposition, and Johnson was similarly nominated forvice president.
When the Democratic convention opened, joyful delegates predicted thatthe Republican split would give them victory. The hotly contested nominationwent to Woodrow Wilson, governor of New Jersey, who had a reputation as aprogressive.
In much of the nation, the contest was between Roosevelt and Wilson. InCalifornia, that was even more the case, because Johnson and his allies keptTaft off the ballot. Johnson campaigned vigorously for Roosevelt, both inCalifornia and nationwide. Wilson’s California campaign was led by JamesPhelan, former mayor of San Francisco and the state’s leading progressiveDemocrat. Late in the campaign, Phelan issued a campaign card with an oldstatement by Roosevelt favoring citizenship rights for Japanese immigrants,and, on the other side, a harshly anti-Asian statement composed by Phelanand signed by Wilson. Johnson thought the card cost Roosevelt 10,000 votesin California. Roosevelt still eked out a narrow victory in California but lostto Wilson nationwide.
Radicals in a Progressive Era
For the nation, the 1912 presidential election marked the high point for thenew Socialist Party of America (SPA). Before World War I, several radicalorganizations had flourished in California. While many progressive organiza-tions reflected middle-class and upper-class concerns, such as businesslike gov-ernment, prohibition, and greater reliance on experts, the SPA claimed to bethe political voice of workers and farmers. Formed in 1901, the SPA arguedthat industrial capitalism had produced “an economic slavery which rendersintellectual and political tyranny inevitable.” Socialists rejected progressivismas inadequate to resolve the nation’s problems and called instead for workersto own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
In California, the SPA scored some local victories. In 1911, amidst theMcNamara trial (see pp. 208–209), the citizens of Los Angeles voted in a run-off contest between two candidates for mayor: George Alexander, a progressiveRepublican, and Job Harriman, a Socialist. The progressive narrowly won.Women had gained the vote between the first election and the run-off, andwomen voters may have swung the balance against Harriman. Nonetheless,Harriman’s strong vote in working-class neighborhoods indicated that manyof LA’s working people were turning from progressive reformers to a moreradical alternative. That same year, J. Stitt Wilson, a Socialist, won election as
California Progressivism, 1910–1920 225
mayor of Berkeley, and Socialists won a majority on the city board in DalyCity. In both places, the Socialists promised little more than municipal owner-ship of public utilities—proposals not far different from what progressives wereimplementing in San Francisco (city-owned water and streetcar lines) and LosAngeles (city-owned water and electricity). More radical Socialists dismissedsuch efforts as mere “gas and water” socialism and called for public ownershipof factories and transportation facilities. Whether of the radical variety or ofthe gas-and-water persuasion, SPA candidates drew few votes in most parts ofCalifornia. Nonetheless, one Socialist won election to the state assembly in1912, and three were elected to the assembly in 1914.
In 1905 in Chicago, a group of unionists and radicals organized the Indus-trial Workers of the World (IWW). Often called Wobblies, IWW organizersreached out to the workers at the bottom of the economy—sweatshop workers,migrant and seasonal laborers, and other workers usually ignored by the Amer-ican Federation of Labor with its emphasis on skilled workers. The Wobblies’objective was simple: When the majority of all workers had joined the IWW,they would call a general strike, labor would refuse to work, and capitalismwould collapse.
In California, the IWW organized among timber workers, farm workers,maritime workers, and any others who would listen to their message. One tac-tic of IWW activists was to stand on a box on a sidewalk and speak about theexploitation of labor. When local authorities in Fresno tried to ban Wobblyspeakers from the streets, dozens of Wobblies descended on the town, madespeeches, got arrested, and filled the jail. As the costs of maintaining so manyprisoners rose, and as more Wobblies kept arriving, the city government gavein and permitted street speaking if the IWW promised to call back the morethan 100 Wobblies on their way to Fresno to continue the fight.
In San Diego, the IWW held frequent street meetings. In 1912, the Mer-chants and Manufacturers Association pushed the city council to ban streetspeaking. Wobblies joined AFL unionists, Socialists, and some church groupsto form a California Free Speech League, and Wobblies began to pour into SanDiego for a “free speech fight.” The IWW hoped that the city would back downwhen they filled the jail and forced the city to feed hundreds of prisoners.Instead, local vigilantes joined San Diego police in beating the demonstratorsand running them out of town. Those who were jailed were treated so brutallythat one died. The police shot and killed one demonstrator. Governor Johnsonsent a personal representative to investigate, and he confirmed the horrorsreported by free-speech advocates. Finally, the state attorney general arrivedand informed local authorities that the state would intervene if they did nothandle protests within the law. Vigilante action ceased, but the right to makesidewalk speeches was not restored until 1914.
In 1913, near Wheatland in northern California, violence drew attention toproblems afflicting migrant farm labor. The Durst brothers, owners of a ranchthat raised hops (used in brewing beer), advertised widely for hoppickers. Some
226 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
2,800 men, women, and children responded—double the number needed. TheDursts could name their price for labor and still have enough pickers. Therewere virtually no sanitary facilities in the camp, and in the blazing hot fieldsthe only drink was watery lemonade, sold by the Dursts for five cents a glass.
Among the pickers were perhaps 100 IWW members and a few experi-enced organizers. They called a protest meeting and demanded fresh water,better sanitation, higher wages, and other improvements. Ralph Durst offeredsome changes but refused others, then discharged the IWW organizers andcalled in a sheriff’s posse. The crowd refused to disperse, so one deputy fireda shotgun in the air, setting off about 40 shots, some from the strikers, somefrom the deputies. Four people were killed, including the district attorney, adeputy, a young striker who had fired on the deputies, and a boy on the edgeof the crowd. Others were wounded. Several IWW activists were accused ofsecond-degree murder, convicted, and sentenced to prison—though everyoneagreed that they had not fired a gun. They immediately became labor martyrs,imprisoned for no crime other than presenting workers’ grievances.
The success of some Socialist candidates and sympathy for the victims offree-speech fights and for miscarriages of justice showed that some Californianswere willing to endorse a radical analysis of social problems. Most Californians,however, had no interest in eliminating private property. Most progressivereformers looked aghast at the Socialists and Wobblies and tried to undercuttheir appeal with reforms that addressed some of their concerns but stoppedshort of challenging capitalism. Some of the important labor legislation of the1911 and 1913 legislative sessions may be understood in that light.
A Second Flood of Reform, 1913
After the presidential campaign of 1912, progressives faced some difficult deci-sions, many of which affected the legislative session of 1913. The session beganin controversy, over proposed legislation to prohibit aliens not eligible for citi-zenship (i.e., immigrants from Asia, especially the Japanese) from owning landin California. Similar proposals had been introduced before but were blockedby leading Republicans (including Johnson in 1911) to prevent diplomatic pro-blems for Republican presidents Roosevelt and Taft. Now, in 1913, a Democrat,Woodrow Wilson, sat in the White House, and his California supporters hadpulled votes away from Governor Johnson’s ticket by appealing to anti-Asiansentiments. Johnson signaled legislators, and a bill restricting the propertyrights of Asian immigrants moved toward passage. The government of Japanprotested. Wilson, anxious over relations with Japan, sent his secretary of stateto California to urge defeat of the bill. The legislature listened respectfully, thenpassed the bill.
Johnson signed the Alien Land Act into law, which placed Wilson and theDemocrats in the politically embarrassing position of siding with Japan andJapanese immigrants against the California legislature and, probably, a majority
California Progressivism, 1910–1920 227
of California voters. The law particularly appealed to Central Valley voters,many of whom disliked the Japanese. Some legislators, however, probablyunderstood that the law could be evaded by putting land titles and leases inthe names of the American-born children of Japanese immigrants. In retro-spect, the Alien Land Act seems little more than a cynical political exercise, asRepublican progressives used racial antagonism to benefit their own politicalstanding and create political embarrassment for President Wilson.
The 1913 legislative session accomplished more of lasting significance.Though progressives elsewhere put limits on political parties, California wentfurther than any other state. In 1913, the legislature required all county andlocal offices to be nonpartisan. When combined with the nonpartisan measuresof 1911, this meant that only members of the federal Congress, the half-dozenstatewide officers, and members of the board of equalization and the state leg-islature could run for office as party candidates. The 1913 legislature also mod-ified the direct primary law through cross-filing. Under cross-filing, candidatesin the primary election could seek the nomination of more than one party,thereby permitting former Republicans who had become Progressives in 1912to file for the nominations of both parties.
In 1913, the California Federation of Women’s Clubs lobbied for a long listof reforms supported by women’s groups. With assistance from the nationallyprominent reformer Florence Kelley, and over the opposition of organizedlabor, Katherine Philips Edson (see pp. 200–203) persuaded the legislature toadopt a minimum wage for female workers. The legislature also created theIndustrial Welfare Commission, and Governor Johnson appointed PhilipsEdson to the new commission, responsible for implementing the minimumwage for women and developing policies regarding the health, safety, and wel-fare of women and children. Women’s organizations lobbied hard for a law thatmade property owners responsible if their buildings were used for brothels.Called the Red Light Abatement law, it was challenged in a referendum.Women then took the lead in organizing voter support in the referendum, andvoters backed the new law. It led to the closing of the wide-open houses of pros-titution that had, until then, flourished in San Francisco and a few other places.
The 1913 legislature approved several new labor laws. One created theIndustrial Accident Commission to promote industrial safety and to administerthe 1911 workmen’s compensation act and a new State Compensation Insur-ance Fund. Another new commission, the Commission of Immigration andHousing, was to address the needs of migrant farm laborers, whose plight hadbeen so vividly demonstrated at Wheatland. To head the agency, Johnsonappointed Simon Lubin, a social worker turned Sacramento businessman. Thecommission created housing and educational programs for migratory farmlabor and brought some improvements in sanitation. For these new commis-sions and other state agencies, Johnson appointed a number of representativesfrom organized labor—perhaps more than were appointed by any other gover-nor of the progressive era.
228 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
The Progressive Tide Recedes, 1914–1920
Late in 1913, Johnson convinced his closest allies to abandon the state Repub-lican Party and form the California Progressive Party. He expected the Progres-sives to become one of the major parties, and he wanted California to remainin the forefront of progressivism. In 1914, Johnson sought reelection as aProgressive—and received more votes than his Republican and Democraticopponents combined, thus becoming the first governor to win a second termsince the 1850s. Republican, Democratic, and Progressive candidates also ranin the state’s first direct election for the U.S. Senate, and the winner wasJames D. Phelan, the progressive Democrat.
The peculiarities of cross-filing became apparent among members electedto the assembly in 1914: 24 were elected as Republican, 10 as Democrat, sevenas Progressive, 10 as Republican-Progressive, seven as Republican-Democrat,seven as Democrat-Progressive, six as Republican-Democrat-Progressive, andthe other nine had various combinations of Republican, Democratic, Progres-sive, Prohibitionist, and Socialist nominations. One assembly member, a Social-ist, had all five parties’ nominations! Thus, from the beginning, cross-filingsuggested that party labels had little meaning if one person could simulta-neously be the candidate of both the Republican and Socialist parties (despitetheir contradictory platforms) or of both the Democratic and Prohibitionistparties (which took contrary positions on alcohol) or of the Republican, Dem-ocratic, Socialist, and Prohibitionist parties!
By 1914, progressivism seemed to be waning in California. The many newlaws adopted in 1911 and 1913 addressed nearly all concerns that reformershad voiced before 1910. In 1915, the legislature added little to that list ofreforms. The next year, in 1916, Theodore Roosevelt urged his followers toreturn to the Republicans, and most Progressives followed his lead. Johnsonwas elected to the U.S. Senate in 1916, and his lieutenant governor, WilliamD. Stephens, became governor. Then, in April 1917, the nation went to war,and many Californians turned their attention from reform to mobilizing awar machine. Women continued their political activism, however, and in1918 four women won seats in the state legislature. In 1919, the legislatureenacted significant restrictions on child labor.
Californians in a World of Revolutions and War
During the early 20th century, more than ever before, Californians wereaffected by events elsewhere in the world—the construction of the PanamaCanal, revolution in Mexico after 1910, and war that began in Europe in 1914but engulfed much of the world by 1917.
Californians in a World of Revolutions and War 229
Californians and the Mexican Revolution
Rebellion broke out in Mexico in 1910, and peasant armies calling for tierra ylibertad (land and liberty) attacked the mansions of great landowners. A seriesof governments proved unable to establish stability.
One group of revolutionaries operated from southern California. In LosAngeles in 1907, several exiles from Mexico established a branch of the PartidoLiberal Mexicano (PLM, or Mexican Liberal Party). Founded in St. Louis byRicardo Flores Magón in 1905, the PLM opposed the dictatorship of PorfirioDíaz, who ruled Mexico with support from great landholders, the church, andthe military. When Magón called for revolution in 1907, he was arrested andspent nearly two years in the LA jail while his lawyer, Job Harriman (see p. 225),fought to prevent him from being extradited to Mexico. Magón and his followers,called magonistas, moved toward a radicalism similar to that of the IWW, advo-cating the overthrow of Díaz and also a redistribution of property and wealth.
In 1910, Magón moved his headquarters to Los Angeles and, when revolutioncame to Mexico, the magonistas were ready. Early in 1911, they joined with someWobblies on a foray into the Mexican state of Baja California. They first seized thetown of Mexicali. Prominent American anarchists, including Emma Goldman,converged on San Diego to build support for the ragtag army of Mexicans,Wobblies, and adventurers. They took Tijuana in early May but developed littlefollowing elsewhere. Soon, a Mexican army arrived to reestablish control, and themagonistas fled back to the United States. Magón, his brother, and a few otherleaders were convicted of violating U.S. laws by sending weapons into Mexico.
The growing numbers of Mexican immigrants to southern California com-bined with the radical agitation of the era to breed what some historians havecalled a “Brown Scare” during the years 1913 to 1918—a predecessor of theRed Scare of 1919 and a parallel to the anti-IWW activities in San Diego andelsewhere. The radical speeches and publications of Flores Magón and his fol-lowers persuaded some white Californians that the Mexican community of LosAngeles harbored dangerous revolutionaries. In 1915, Texas officials announcedthey had found a “Plan de San Diego” for an invasion from Mexico to coincidewith an insurrection by Mexican Americans. When Mexican raiders led by therevolutionary Pancho Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916, it seemed toconfirm rumors of impending insurrection and intensified the Brown Scare. InLos Angeles, the police chief banned the sale of guns and liquor to Mexicans.
War in Europe and Conflict at Home
In the summer of 1914, assassinations by a Serbian terrorist led to world war. ByAugust, two great alliances were attacking each other—the Allies (the BritishEmpire, France, Russia, Belgium, and eventually Italy) versus the Central Powers(Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey).
President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the United States to be neutraland urged Americans to be neutral in thought as well as deed. Neutrality
230 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
proved difficult to maintain, however. From the beginning, some Americans advo-cated that the United States should join the Allies. Others supported neutrality. By1916, many Americans had lined up on opposite sides over “preparedness”—amilitary and naval buildup to prepare the United States for war.
In San Francisco in 1916, the city seemed on the verge of a “labor war,” asunions and employers squared off over several issues. In the midst of a strikeby longshoremen, the Chamber of Commerce sponsored a mass meeting of thecity’s business leaders, drew upon the heritage of the vigilantes to create a Lawand Order Committee, bankrolled it with a million dollars, and charged it withrestoring “peace and quiet” on the waterfront. The Law and Order Committeethen launched a wide-ranging offensive against unions. At the same time, agroup of business leaders, including many from the Law and Order Committee,organized a parade on July 22 in support of preparedness. Unions urged theirmembers to boycott the parade, as did Socialists, pacifists, and a few leadingprogressives. About half an hour after the parade began to wend its waydown Market Street, as various parade units were still waiting to join themarch, a bomb went off at the corner of Market and Steuart Streets, killingnine people and injuring 40. The search for those responsible soon narrowedto a small group of radical unionists.
Authorities arrested five suspects and began to bring them to trial, one at atime. The first, Warren Billings, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.The next, Tom Mooney, was convicted and sentenced to death. By the time ofthe third trial, of Rena Mooney, the defense had discovered evidence of perjury.Rena Mooney was found not guilty, as was the next defendant, and the prose-cution dropped charges against the final defendant. But Billings and Mooneywere in prison, Mooney awaiting execution. Radicals and unionists across thecountry demonstrated for their freedom, but Governor Stephens only com-muted Mooney’s sentence from death to life imprisonment, guaranteeing thecontinuation of the struggle to free the two men.
In March 1917, President Wilson began to move toward war with Germany.On March 1, he made public a decoded message from the German state secretaryfor foreign affairs, Arthur Zimmermann, to the German minister in Mexico.Zimmermann proposed that, if the United States went to war with Germany,Mexico should ally itself with Germany and attack the United States. Further,Mexico should urge Japan to change sides and oppose the United States and theAllies. If the Central Powers won, Mexico would recover its “lost provinces” ofTexas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Zimmermann’s suggestions created outrageand fear among many Californians as the sensationalist press projected the hor-rors of a Mexican or Japanese conquest of California. Then, in April 1917, thenation went to war against Germany and the other Central Powers.
Californians Go to War
More than 130,000 Californians served in the war. Nearly all were men whobecame part of the army or navy. A few women served as army nurses or in
Californians in a World of Revolutions and War 231
the Red Cross or other support organizations. Some 4,000 Californians losttheir lives on the battlefield or to disease while serving in the military.
The war produced important changes at home. Historians have called WorldWar I the first “total war” because modern warfare demanded mobilization of anentire society and economy. The State Council of Defense sought to build sup-port for the war effort, usually equating opposition to the war with disloyalty.
German-language newspapers were banned. Radicals came under suspi-cion, and many were arrested. The war altered nearly every aspect of the econ-omy, as the progressive emphasis on expertise and efficiency producedunprecedented centralization of economic decision making. The railroads andthe telephone and telegraph systems came under direct federal management.Mobilization extended beyond war production to the people themselves, theirattitudes toward the war, and their response to the need for labor. In the midstof war, in 1918, the nation—and the world—were plunged into a serious influ-enza epidemic that killed many thousands.
Most Californians’ lives were significantly changed by the need for morefood, clothing, ships and weapons, and other manufactured goods. One crucialAmerican contribution to the Allied victory was through agriculture, for the wardisrupted European farming and increased demand for many products. PresidentWilson chose Herbert Hoover as federal food administrator. Prior to the war,Hoover, a Californian, had a worldwide reputation as a mining engineer. Beforethe United States entered the war, he skillfully directed a relief program inBelgium. Now he promoted increased production and conservation of food.Farmers brought large areas under cultivation for the first time, and food ship-ments to the Allies tripled. In addition to producing more food, California growerssignificantly increased their cotton production in response to wartime demands.
Demands for increased production when thousands of men were marchingoff to war opened up jobs for new workers. Employment of women in factory,office, and retail jobs was increasing before the war, but the war acceleratedthose trends. The war also had a great impact on African American communities.Until the war, about 90 percent of all African Americans lived in the southernstates. By 1920, some 500,000 had moved out of the South in what has been calledthe Great Migration. The number of African Americans in Los Angeles morethan doubled, and the black community of LA became the state’s largest—nearlytwice the size of the black communities of the Bay Area—and most importantcenter for black business and politics. In 1918, African Americans in LA helpedto elect Frederick Roberts, a Republican, as the first black member of the statelegislature. Black voters did not comprise a majority in Roberts’s district, how-ever, and he won with support from white as well as black Republicans.
Peace and the Backwash of War
When the war ended on November 11, 1918, church bells pealed and sirensshrieked. Californians thronged into the streets, celebrating the end of thewar. One remembered that “it was just like New Year’s eve.” Huge bonfires
232 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
were lit on the highest hills in San Francisco, and, on the next day, Catholic,Protestant, and Jewish religious leaders joined in a massive thanksgiving servicein San Francisco’s Civic Center.
Californians soon found themselves embroiled in economic and social con-flicts that spun off from the war. The year 1919 saw not only the return of thetroops from Europe, but also raging inflation, massive strikes, fear of subver-sion, violations of civil liberties, and passage of an unenforceable law to pro-hibit alcohol.
Inflation—which newspapers called HCL, for “high cost of living”—mayhave been the most pressing single problem Americans faced after the war.Between late 1914 and the end of the war, the cost of living increased byabout half, then continued to climb in 1919. Many unions made wage demandsto keep up with the soaring cost of living, but, by 1919, employers were readyfor a fight. Some companies were determined to return labor relations to pre-war patterns. Others planned to roll back prewar union gains.
Against the backdrop of a general strike in Seattle, a police strike inBoston, and a multistate strike by steelworkers—all of which failed—severalCalifornia unions struck for improved wages and working conditions. In thespring, shipyard workers in Los Angeles went on strike, but lost. Telephoneworkers struck throughout much of California in June. Telephone companieshired strikebreakers, and by late July most strikers returned to work with nogains. In the fall of 1919, San Francisco longshoremen went on strike; the strikefailed, and the longshoremen’s union was destroyed. Shipyard workers up anddown the Pacific coast walked out, but their strike, too, was a failure.
Across the country and in California, many companies discredited strikersby claiming that they were motivated not by legitimate desires to improve wages,but by political commitments to Bolshevism—the radical version of socialismthat had taken power in Russia in 1917 and that was soon called Communism.The California legislature, like state legislatures across the country, adopted astate criminal syndicalism law, making it a crime to advocate changes in theeconomy and government of the sort sought by the IWW or the new Commu-nist Party. In May 1919, a group of veterans formed the American Legion, whichnot only lobbied on behalf of veterans but also condemned radicals and commit-ted itself “to foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism.”
The Meaning of Progressivism for Californians
The progressive era began with efforts at municipal reform in the 1890s andsputtered to a close during World War I. Some politicians who called them-selves progressives, including Hiram Johnson, remained prominent afterward,and progressive concepts of efficiency and expertise continued to guide govern-ment decision making. But the war diverted public attention from reform, andby the end of the war political concerns had changed.
The Meaning of Progressivism for Californians 233
The changes of the progressive era transformed California’s politics andgovernment. Regulation of railroads and other public utilities continues to bea major function of state government. Protection of particular types ofworkers—women, children, migrants—has also been a continuing responsibilityof state government. The progressives’ assault on political parties, throughnonpartisan elections, cross-filing, and direct democracy, transformed state pol-itics. As parties declined, organized pressure groups—and their lobbyists—proliferated and gained significant influence in politics. Reliance on the initia-tive expanded dramatically over the course of the 20th century. With thedecline of political parties came political campaigns based largely on personalityand advertising. Hiram Johnson left a far greater personal mark on the statethan did any of the governors or senators who preceded him. During the John-son years, Californians came to expect policy proposals to flow from a forcefulgovernor. Johnson became the standard against which later governors wereoften measured—usually to their disadvantage. Women’s participation in poli-tics has continued to increase, especially in the last third of the 20th century.
Cross-filing remained a feature of California primary elections until 1959.Almost from the beginning, it permitted candidates with large personal follow-ings to lock up all major party nominations in the primary. This gave a strongadvantage to incumbents, for they usually had the greatest name recognitionamong voters. Given the Republican majority among California voters, cross-filing especially benefited Republicans. By the late 1910s and early 1920s, theRepublican primary was often the real election, because the winner of theRepublican primary won other parties’ nominations as well.
Johnson himself became a fixture in state politics, moving from the gover-norship to the U.S. Senate, and then winning reelection every six years until hisdeath in 1945. In the Senate, he continued to carry the progressive bannerthrough the conservative 1920s and into the 1930s. Pugnacious, tenacious,and deeply hostile to corporate influence in government, he defined the mean-ing of progressivism for a generation of Californians. Throughout his longcareer, he remained largely outside the bounds of political parties, thoughostensibly a Republican after 1916. But his insistence on his own independencemeant that his campaigns for office were always his campaigns and not partycampaigns. In many ways, Johnson set new patterns for state politics.
Summary
California progressivism began with municipal reform in San Francisco andLos Angeles. Efforts to reform state government, especially to regulate theSouthern Pacific Railroad, mostly failed before 1910. Organized labor becamepowerful in San Francisco, but Los Angeles was a stronghold of the open shop.Extremists bombed the Los Angeles Times building because of the newspaper’santi-union attitudes.
234 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
After 1900, California’s population grew rapidly, but the populationremained largely white, despite increased immigration from eastern Asia andMexico. A new federal commitment brought the creation of many new, butsmall, reservations for California Indians.
California’s agricultural economy moved further toward specialty crops,including fruit, vegetables, nuts, and grapes. Food processing was the state’slargest manufacturing industry, but growing numbers of automobiles stimulatedan oil boom and expansion of petroleum refining. In 1906, a massive earthquakecaused widespread damage through central California, centered on San Fran-cisco, which was also devastated by fire. Both San Francisco and Los Angelesundertook mammoth water projects to permit further growth. Irrigated agricul-ture grew in importance. California’s agricultural produce and refined petroleumproducts were sold around the Pacific Rim, and the opening of the PanamaCanal in 1914 fostered more shipping between the East and West coasts. To cel-ebrate the opening of the canal, a great exposition was held in San Francisco.
In 1910, the election of Hiram Johnson as governor initiated reform instate government. In 1911, reformers put limits on corporations and politicalparties and adopted woman suffrage. Johnson became the vice-presidentialcandidate of the new Progressive Party in 1912. The Socialist Party made afew gains in California, and the IWW tried to organize the most unskilledand exploited workers. In San Diego and Wheatland, IWW demonstrationsturned into violent confrontations. The legislature enacted more reforms in1913, but then progressivism began to recede.
Mexico experienced rebellion and political instability after 1910, andCalifornia provided a base for some revolutionaries in Baja California. Theunsettled situation in Mexico encouraged migration to the United States,including California. When Europe went to war in 1914, Californians wereaffected despite American neutrality. An anti-war bombing in San Franciscoled to the imprisonment of Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, even thoughkey evidence against them was tainted. When the United States entered thewar, it stimulated California agriculture and manufacturing. After the war, sev-eral unions were destroyed when strikes failed to improve wages. During thewar itself and in 1919, there were efforts to restrict radical groups, includingthe Socialists, the IWW, and the new Communist Party.
Suggested Readings
❚ Brechin, Gray, Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin (Berkeleyand Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999). A highly criticalaccount of the growth of the city and its effect on its environment.
❚ Cherny, Robert, Irwin, Mary Ann, and Wilson, Ann Marie, eds., CaliforniaWomen and Politics: From the Gold Rush to the Great Depression (Lincoln,
Suggested Readings 235
NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2011). An anthology that surveyswomen’s involvement in state and local politics before and after womansuffrage.
❚ Deverell, William, and Sitton, Tom, eds., California Progressivism Revisited(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994). An anthol-ogy focused on class, gender, and ethnicity in California progressivism,intended to supplement and revise earlier treatments.
❚ Gullett, Gayle, Becoming Citizens: The Emergence and Development of theCalifornia Women’s Movement, 1880–1911 (Urbana: University of IllinoisPress, 2000). A thorough study of California women’s efforts to achievesuffrage.
❚ Kahrl, William L., Water and Power: The Conflict over Los Angeles’ WaterSupply in the Owens Valley (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press, 1982). The most thorough account of the acquisition ofthe Owens Valley by Los Angeles.
❚ Kazin, Michael, Barons of Labor: The San Francisco Building Trades andUnion Power in the Progressive Era (Urbana and Chicago: University ofIllinois Press, 1987). An outstanding history of one of the most powerfullabor organizations in the country.
❚ Lower, Richard Coke, A Bloc of One: The Political Career of Hiram W.Johnson (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993). A thorough and well-written biography of the most influential progressive leader.
❚ Mowry, George E., The California Progressives (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1951). The classic account, still interesting and useful butneeds to be read with more recent treatments.
❚ Olin, Spencer C., California’s Prodigal Sons: Hiram Johnson and the Progres-sives, 1911–1917 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). A goodintroduction to events and issues in state politics in the progressive era.
❚ Walsh, James P., and O’Keefe, Timothy J., Legacy of a Native Son: JamesDuval Phelan and Villa Montalvo (Los Gatos: Forbes Mill Press, 1993). Athoroughly researched and well-written biography of the state’s leadingDemocrat during the early 20th century.
❚ Wallis, Eileen, Earning Power: Women and Work in Los Angeles, 1880–1930(Reno: University of Nevada, 2010). Interesting study of ethnicity, class, andgender as they affected the lives of working women in Los Angeles.
❚ Walton, John, Western Times and Water Wars: State, Culture, and Rebellionin California (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,1992). A good treatment of the many dimensions of the politics of water.
236 CHAPTER 7 California in the Progressive Era, 1895–1920
CHAP
TER 8
California Betweenthe Wars, 1919–1941
Main Topics
❚ The Rise of Los Angeles: Twentieth-Century Metropolis
❚ Prosperity Decade: The 1920s
❚ Depression Decade: The 1930s
❚ Summary
California is a garden of Eden,A paradise to live in or see,But believe it or notYou won’t find it so hot,If you ain’t got the Do Re Mi.
So sang Woody Guthrie, who was born in Oklahoma in1912 and came to California in 1937. Throughout the1920s, California seemed to some like a paradise. Then
the nation’s economy turned sour after 1929. A long-lastingdrought began in 1931, affecting much of the nation andturning Oklahoma, Kansas, and surrounding areas into a “DustBowl.” Farm families from the Dust Bowl and farm families dis-placed from their farms by technology, the Depression, or new
DO RE MI Words and Music by Woody Guthrie WGP/TRO-(c) Copyright 1961 (Renewed) 1963 (Renewed) WoodyGuthrie Publications, Inc. & Ludlow Music, Inc., New York, NY administered by Ludlow Music, Inc. InternationalCopyright Secured Made in U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Including Public Performance For Profit. Used by Permission.
237
governmental policies headed for California, hoping to startover. Guthrie described his trip to California:
I got what you wood call disgursted, busted, and rooled meup a bundel of duds, an’ caught a long-tail, frate-train thathad a California sign on the side of it…. I was headin’ outto see some relatives, but I diden’t know for shore wich r.r.bridge they was alivin’ under…. I seen about 99 44-100 ofCalifornia’s great senery, from Tia Juana to the Redwoodforests, from Reno, an’ Lake Tahoe, to the Frisco bay. Ifinally … found my relatives up at Turlock, Calif., and etoff of them till we all picked up an’ moved down to LostAngeles—where we’ve been ever since.
In Los Angeles, Guthrie was one of many Okies—an epithetapplied to all those from the Dust Bowl who came to California.Some estimated that as many as 200,000 had come. Many
CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
1918 World War I ends
1920–1921 Major oil discoveries in Los Angeles basin
1922 Colorado River Compact
1924 Piper v. Big Pine School District
1927 First talking movie, The Jazz Singer
1929 Great Depression begins
1930 Los Angeles ranks fifth in size among U.S. cities
1930 Bank of Italy renamed as Bank of America
1933 New Deal begins
1934 Coastwide longshoremen’s strike
1934 San Francisco general strike
1934 Upton Sinclair’s unsuccessful EPIC campaign
1935 WPA begins
1937 Woody Guthrie comes to California
1937 Construction completed on Golden Gate Bridge
1938 Culbert Olson elected governor
1939 Publication of John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath
1940 Construction completed on first California freeway
1941 United States enters World War II
238
found work as seasonal agricultural workers, harvesting cropsup and down the Central Valley. Few Californians greeted themwarmly; the LA police chief sent police to the state border toencourage Okies to turn back. Woody sang about that too:
Lots of folks back east, they say,Leavin’ home ev’ry day,Beatin’ the hot old dusty way to the California line.Cross the desert sands they roll,Getting out of that old dust bowl,They think they’re going to a sugar bowlBut here is what they find:Now the police at the port of entry say,“You’re number fourteen thousand for today.”
By the time that Woody Guthrie arrived in California in 1937, he had already identified with those most hard hit by the economic and environmental catastrophes of the 1930s, and his politics quickly moved far to the left, in sympathy with the outcast and suffering. After spending a few years in California, he continued to travel around the country, singing his affection for the people and the land, and his criticism of the economic system. What is your reaction to Guthrie’s effort to reproduce the language and spelling of someone with little education? What do you think the reaction was in the 1930s?
“woo
dy ki
lls fa
scists
-WOO
DY G
UTHR
ie” by
s76fi
tz is
licen
sed u
nder
CC BY
-NC-
SA 2.
CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941 239
Oh, if you ain’t got the do re mi, folks,If you ain’t got the do re mi,Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas,Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.
Woody found a job singing on radio station KFVD, where hetried many of the songs that later became classics of theDepression and the Dust Bowl. His politics moved left. By 1939he was writing for the People’s World, a daily newspaper of theCommunist Party in California. As he put it in his first column,
Don’t be bashful a bout writing to me if you know of a job.I play the guitar…. If you are afraid I woodent go over in yourlodge or party, you are possibly right. In such case just mail me$15 and I wont come. When I perform I cut it down to $10.When for a good cause, $5. When for a better cause, I comefree. If you can think of a better one still, I’ll give you myservice, my guitar, my hat and 65¢ cash money.
Woody’s songs transformed the folk ballad, making it aninstrument of social protest, showing the way for such song-writers as Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and Tracy Chapman.
The image of California in the 1920s included some of thethings Guthrie said about it—a Garden of Eden, a paradise.Many Americans in the prosperous 1920s imagined Californiaby picturing movie stars driving convertibles down palm-linedstreets under a sunny sky. During the hard times of the 1930s,that image changed. Now California became a place inhabited,as Woody described it, by “the [Dust Bowl] Refugees a livin’in the various Trailer Cities thet are strung around over thecountry, the conditions in which the children must live indestitution, want, filth and despair.” Both images containedelements of truth, but neither was complete. Nonetheless,everyone who lived through those times drew a sharp distinc-tion between the 1920s and the 1930s.
Economists think in terms of alternating periods of expan-sion and contraction in the economy. During expansion, theeconomy grows, demand for products rises, stock market pricesrise, unemployment is low, and wages often rise. Expansionphases are periods of prosperity. But every expansion isfollowed—though not on any easily predictable basis—by con-traction, a time when the economy shrinks, demand for productsdecline, stock market prices fall, and employers lay off workers orcut wages in response to declining demand. In the 1920s, theeconomy expanded, based largely on the demand for consumergoods such as automobiles, radios, and electrical appliances.Consumer purchases were encouraged by the introduction ofinstallment buying—making a down payment and paying off
240 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
the remaining cost (plus interest) in “easy monthly payments.”During the 1930s, the nation experienced the most seriouscontraction of the 20th century—the Great Depression. Allthese national patterns had parallels in California.
Questions to Consider
❚ What explains the rapid growth of Los Angeles in theearly 20th century?
❚ How did Los Angeles develop differently from oldercities?
❚ What are the connections between California politics inthe 1920s and progressivism?
❚ What role did the federal government play in the eco-nomic and social changes of the 1920s?
❚ What role did the federal government play in the state’seconomic and social changes during the 1930s?
❚ How did the Great Depression change state politics inthe 1930s?
The Rise of Los Angeles: Twentieth-Century Metropolis
The 1920 census recorded that Los Angeles had passed San Francisco in popu-lation, becoming the 10th largest city in the nation. LA was, in fact, the fastest-growing major city in the country during the early 20th century. Figure 8.1on the next page presents population patterns among the largest cities inCalifornia between 1890 and 1940. During the 1920s, LA doubled in size—by1930, it ranked fifth in the nation in size and continued to grow in the 1930s.
The Economic Basis for Growth
LA’s spectacular growth began in the 1880s, when competitive railroad passen-ger rates from the Midwest and South combined with the sunny climate and aromanticized version of California history to attract health seekers and tourists.The development of refrigerated railroad cars and ships in the 1890s contrib-uted to a boom in citrus growing. LA boosters secured massive federal fundingto construct a port at San Pedro. The Owens River began to flow into the LAwater system in 1913, providing much more water than the city then needed,and later projects expanded water supplies in advance of need. The availabilityof water permitted growth, and other factors contributed to the emergence of adiversified economy. During the 1920s and 1930s, three elements contributedto the city’s growth: the motion picture industry, oil discoveries, and a varietyof manufacturing enterprises.
The Rise of Los Angeles: Twentieth-Century Metropolis 241
By World War I, the motion picture industry was the most prominentindustry in southern California. Los Angeles was a natural for makingmovies—the weather was usually sunny, it rarely rained, and a variety of natu-ral scenery existed nearby, including ocean, mountains, and desert. By 1914,Hollywood, a suburb of Los Angeles, had become the center for moviemaking.By the mid-1930s, the industry was dominated by a few large studios, notablyMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM, formed in 1924), RKO (1928), Warner Broth-ers (1929), 20th Century-Fox (1935), and Paramount (1935). These studioscompeted to lock up actors and directors in long-term contracts and to pro-mote their own “stars.” Movies became big business, dependent on New Yorkbanks for capital to construct huge physical plants and to deploy the latest tech-nology of light and sound. By 1937, moviemaking was the fourth largest indus-try in the nation. And, by then, eight corporations produced 90 percent of allfilms and controlled both distribution of the films and many movie theaters.
A second factor in the growth of LA was oil. Major oil discoveries in theLA basin in the early 1920s boosted California to first place among oil-producing states during the 1920s. Discoveries in 1920 and 1921 at Huntington
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
Oakland
Figure 8.1 Population of Major California Cities, 1890–1940This graph shows the dramatic surge in the population of Los Angeles over the 50years between 1890 and 1940. Though the population of San Francisco doubled duringthose years, the other three cities grew much faster. What factors help to account forthe spectacular growth of Los Angeles during this period?
Source: Report on the social statistics of cities in the United States at the eleventh census, 1890(Washington, 1895); Twelfth census of the United States, taken in the year 1900 (Washington,1901–1902); Thirteenth census of the United States taken in the year 1910 (Washington, 1913);Fourteenth census of the United States (Washington, 1924); Fifteenth census of the United States,1930 (Washington, 1932); Sixteenth census of the United States, 1940 (Washington, 1942–1943).
242 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
Beach, Long Beach, and Santa Fe Springs set off a speculative mania—as oneobserver put it, everyone went “stark, staring oil mad.” A geologist called it “thegreatest outpouring of mineral wealth the world has ever known.” In 1924, oilpassed agriculture as the state’s leading industry. By 1930, the LA basin held32 refineries employing 5000 people.
A third factor in LA’s growth was manufacturing. In the early 1920s, thenation’s three largest tire companies all separately concluded that they shouldbuild plants in Los Angeles—its port was convenient for shipping rubber fromSoutheast Asia, it was close to newly developed cotton fields (cotton cord wasthe other major ingredient in making tires), and it was in the center of themost rapidly growing market for tires. LA could also promise to meet theplants’ heavy demands for water. Similar reasoning led Ford to locate an auto-mobile assembly plant in the LA basin and steelmakers to open a plant inTorrance. At the same time, the LA basin remained a major agricultural region,producing crops for food-processing plants. Between 1919 and 1930, LAmoved from 28th to ninth place among American manufacturing cities. By1930, however, LA ranked fifth in population, so manufacturing did not domi-nate the city’s economy in the same way that it did in Detroit or Pittsburgh,where a third to a half of the work force was in manufacturing. In LA, theproportion was a bit over a quarter.
The growth of LA was not affected by one of the state’s greatest disasters,the collapse of the St. Francis Dam. Built in San Francisquito Canyon in1924–26 to create a reservoir for water from the Owens River, the dam filledto capacity on March 7, 1928. It collapsed on March 12, sending a torrent125 feet high down the canyon, destroying everything in its path. The hugewave then followed the Santa Clara River channel through Ventura Countyand into the Pacific Ocean, carrying debris and victims with it. The officialdeath toll was 385, but current estimates are as many as 600, making it secondonly to the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 as California’s deadliest disaster.The collapse of the dam badly damaged the reputation of William Mulholland(pp. 218–220), and he soon retired from the LA water department that he haddone so much to create.
The Automobile and the Growth of Southern California
The rapid growth of Los Angeles came just as the automobile industry waspromoting the notion of a car for every family. By 1925, LA had one automo-bile for every three residents, twice the national average. The LA basin also hadan excellent streetcar system. The auto and the streetcar made it possible forAngelenos to live further from work than ever before. At the same time, real-estate developers busily promoted the ideal of the single-family home. By 1930,94 percent of residences in Los Angeles were single-family homes—somethingunprecedented for a major city—and Los Angeles had the lowest populationdensity by far among the nation’s 15 largest cities.
The Rise of Los Angeles: Twentieth-Century Metropolis 243
“Gra
uman
’s Ch
inese
Thea
ter” b
y The
City
Proje
ct is
licen
sed u
nder
CC BY
-NC-
SA 2.
244 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
Life in Los Angeles came to be organized around the automobile to an extent unknown in other major cities, where most growth and construction had taken place in the era of the horse and the streetcar. The experience of LA set the pattern for future urban development nearly everywhere else. The first modern supermarket, offering “one-stop shopping,” appeared in LA. The “Miracle Mile” along Wilshire Boulevard was the nation’s first large shopping district designed for the automobile. The Los Angeles Times put it this way in 1926: “Our forefathers … set forth ‘the pursuit of happiness’ as an inalienable right of mankind. And how can one pursue happiness by any swifter and surer means … than by the use of the automobile?”
Promoters attracted hundreds of thousands of new residents to southern California by presenting images of perpetual sunshine, tall palm trees lining wide boulevards, gushing fountains, and broad, sandy beaches. The rapid growth of the economy and the population also attracted many who hoped to
Grauman’s Chinese Theater is perhaps the most famous movie theater in the United States. It opened in 1927, and its architecture and interior décor were even more exotic than most theaters of the day. Why do you think that movie theater owners wanted theaters with unusual, even bizarre, architecture and ornament?
profit from the unsettled society, and the LA basin acquired a reputation as acenter for get-rich-quick schemes, bizarre religious cults, and unusual politicalgroups. Carl Sandburg, in the late 1920s, wrote that “God once took the coun-try by Maine as the handle, gave it a good shake, and all the loose nuts andbolts rolled down to southern California.”
Prosperity Decade: The 1920s
Called the “Jazz Age” and the “Roaring Twenties,” the 1920s was a period ofprosperity that sometimes seems a swirl of conflicting images. Prohibition triedto preserve the values of 19th-century America. “Flappers” scandalized manyby flaunting their sexuality. The booming stock market and the oil gushers ofsouthern California seemed to promise prosperity to all. Many blue-collarworkers endured the destruction of their unions. Technology emerged as anever-more-potent ingredient in the state’s economic growth.
Politics in a Time of Prosperity
During the 1920s, a large majority of California voters registered as Republi-cans, but the state Republican Party was sharply divided between progressivesand conservatives. U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson led the progressive faction. In1920, he sought the Republican nomination for president, running as a pro-gressive and the heir of Theodore Roosevelt. Another Californian, HerbertHoover, also ran for the presidency that year. He could claim some commit-ment to progressive values and pointed to his experience as a highly successfulfederal administrator during the war. In California, progressives and union lea-ders lined up behind Johnson, and conservatives and business leaders backedHoover. In the state’s Republican presidential primary, Johnson took about370,000 votes to Hoover’s 209,000. Only about 23,000 Democrats voted intheir party’s presidential primary. The Republican presidential nomination,however, went to Warren G. Harding, who easily carried California and thenation in the general election. Hoover became secretary of commerce. Johnsonturned down the Republican nomination for vice president; had he accepted,he would have become president when Harding died in 1923.
Johnson sought reelection to the U.S. Senate in 1922. He faced strongopposition in the Republican primary but won the election easily. In 1922,there was also a closely contested Republican primary for governor. Theincumbent, William Stephens, was a pragmatic progressive. He shared manyof Johnson’s concerns about big business and was willing to extend the roleof state government as seemed necessary, but he shied away from projectsthat seemed unpopular or unworkable. Stephens lost in the Republican primary
Prosperity Decade: The 1920s 245
to Friend Richardson, a staunch conservative. When Richardson sought reelec-tion to the governorship in 1926, he was defeated in the Republican primaryby a progressive, C. C. Young. In 1928, Johnson sought reelection to the U.S.Senate and again faced a conservative opponent in the Republican primary.
Thus, throughout the 1920s, the Republican Party of California scored vic-tory after victory in statewide and local elections but remained deeply divided.The most important elections were those in the Republican primary. After1910, many voters seem to have moved to the Republican Party as a way toparticipate in the important contests that characterized every primary. By1930, 73 percent of the state’s voters called themselves Republicans, makingCalifornia one of the most Republican states in the nation. The Republicanproportion among registered voters in major urban areas ranged from 81 per-cent in San Francisco, to 79 percent in Alameda County (Berkeley andOakland), 71 percent in Los Angeles County, and 70 percent in San DiegoCounty. California Democrats could not come close to a majority in asingle county.
Throughout the 1920s, prohibition divided voters and affected state politicsin sometimes unpredictable ways. The Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution, prohibiting production or sale of alcoholic beverages, was, insome ways, the last gasp of the reforming zeal that had generated progressiv-ism. Many Californians simply disregarded it from the beginning, and it grewless popular the longer it lasted. Nonetheless, prohibition remained the lawfrom 1920 until 1933, when the Twenty-first Amendment repealed it. Prohibi-tion was most effective among those groups and in those areas—notably south-ern California—that had provided its greatest support. It was not well enforcedin most places, and police largely ignored it in most cities, especially San Fran-cisco. Bootlegging—production and sale of illegal beverages—flourished.
The administrations of Governors Stephens, Richardson, and Young dem-onstrated that divisions among Republicans were not mere personality contests;rather, they reflected significantly different approaches to the role of the statein the economy and society. Stephens was a cautious, pragmatic progressive. In1919, he promoted a huge bond issue to build highways. In 1921, he proposeda number of new programs to regulate business or protect particular groups ofconsumers or workers. To pay for the new programs, he backed a 35 percentincrease in taxes on corporations. At the same time, he tried to reorganize stategovernment to make it more efficient.
Richardson defeated Stephens in the 1922 Republican primary by con-demning Stephens for higher taxes and spending. As governor, Richardsonslashed spending for state programs, and, in 1925, set an all-time record byvetoing more than half of all bills passed by the legislature. Young defeatedRichardson in the 1926 Republican primary by criticizing his negativity. Dur-ing Young’s administration, state government expanded to assist the disabledand elderly, protect the environment, conserve water, and expand state parks.To pay for these new programs, Young backed a tax on banks and greater
246 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
efficiency in state government. State budgets had been in the range of $100million in the early 1920s; by 1930, despite Richardson’s budget cutting, thestate budget stood at $244 million.
In the early 1920s, California politics continued in the anti-Asian mode setby the progressives through the Alien Land Law in 1913. A wave of anti-Japanese sentiment swept the state beginning in 1919. James D. Phelan, theprogressive Democrat elected U.S. senator in 1914, faced reelection in 1920.He based much of his campaign on the slogan, “Keep California White.”Though defeated by a large margin, Phelan ran well ahead of otherDemocrats—due, perhaps, to his anti-Asian campaign but also to his progres-sive stance on economic issues. Phelan’s Republican opponent differed little onracial issues but was more conservative on economic matters. That year, votersapproved by a three-to-one margin a second Alien Land Law, designed to closeloopholes in the legislation of 1913 by prohibiting aliens who were ineligible forcitizenship (those born in Asia) from putting land in the names of theirAmerican-born minor children. With this Alien Land Law and with changesin federal immigration policy (see pp. 250–251), anti-Asian rhetoric becamemore low-key, at least until World War II.
New Economic Patterns
During the 1920s, important changes emerged in the state’s economy. Someinvolved massive construction projects by local, state, or federal government.Others involved innovations in the structure of business or the application ofnew technologies. And, everywhere in the state, labor organizations foundthemselves on the defensive.
California’s first paved highway opened in 1912, but the 1920s saw a burstof highway construction. The state had 784 miles of concrete-paved roads in1916 and 2,171 miles in 1930. This construction went far toward realizing along-term plan for two major highways, one through the Sacramento and SanJoaquin Valleys and one along the coast, connecting as many cities and townsas possible and with branches to cities and towns not on one of the highways.The Bayshore Highway, connecting San Francisco and San José, built between1924 and 1932, represented one of the most advanced highway designs of itsday, carrying three lanes of high-speed traffic in each direction. California’sfirst freeway—multilane, divided, with controlled access, patterned after theGerman Autobahn—was in southern California. Planning began in the 1920sfor what became the Pasadena Freeway, and it finally opened in 1940.
Highways were crucial for California’s transportation infrastructure, butthe two most dramatic transportation projects, by far, were the two greatbridges that linked San Francisco eastward to Oakland (the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge) and northward to Marin County (the Golden GateBridge). Both projects began in the 1920s. When the Golden Gate Bridgeopened in 1937, it was the longest and highest single-span suspension bridge
Prosperity Decade: The 1920s 247
in the world and quickly became a widely recognized symbol of San Francisco.Proposals for a bridge or tunnel connecting San Francisco and Oakland hadbeen discussed for many years before the 1920s, but planning intensified in1927 and 1928, and the Bay Bridge opened late in 1936. It was, at the time,the largest bridge ever built.
Highway and bridge building contributed to a transportation infrastructurecrucial to the state’s long-term economic development. Other massive con-struction projects sought to develop water and electrical resources by reengi-neering the landscape. California’s electrical power companies had long beenpioneers in the development of hydroelectric power, and California’s growershad been at the forefront of developing irrigated agriculture. In the 1920s, pub-lic officials began to look to projects of such size that only the governmentcould possibly undertake them. Throughout the 1920s, Californians debatedelaborate plans to dam the Sacramento River and construct canals to carry itswater south into the San Joaquin Valley. Voters rejected three such plans, butthe planners persisted, drawing encouragement from Governors Stephensand Young. Eventually, those plans led to the California Water Project afterWorld War II.
Throughout the mid-1920s, Senator Hiram Johnson and Congressman PhilSwing promoted federal legislation to create a gigantic dam at Boulder Canyonon the Colorado River, in Nevada, to accomplish flood control, generate hydro-electric power, and provide water for irrigation and urban growth. They firstintroduced their bill in 1922, but passage came only in 1928, after agreementsamong the six states affected by such a drastic change in the river. The first ofthese, the Colorado River Compact of 1922, was the first compact ever amongstates under the provisions of Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution.Negotiations among states and amendments to the original bill limited theamount of water that could be claimed by California. When Boulder Damwas completed in 1935, it was the largest dam in the world. In 1947, it wasofficially renamed Hoover Dam, for Herbert Hoover.
Large-scale highway, bridge, and dam construction during the 1920s and1930s brought the emergence of new business enterprises. Henry Kaiser beganin road construction before World War I and built projects throughout muchof the West in the 1920s. When the federal government sought contractors forBoulder Dam, Kaiser realized that few companies in the entire West couldmobilize the resources necessary for such a huge project. He led in the forma-tion of a consortium of six western construction companies that successfullybid on the contract. They emerged from the project as leaders in western con-struction. Eventually Kaiser, Warren Bechtel, and some of their partners eachbecame the head of a giant, multinational construction corporation.
When Kaiser needed financing for the Boulder Dam project, he turned toAmadeo Peter Giannini, the San Francisco banker whose Bank of America wastransforming Americans’ thinking about banking. The son of Italian immi-grants, Giannini founded the Bank of Italy in 1904 as a bank for shopkeepers
248 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
and workers in the Italian neighborhood of San Francisco. Called the greatestinnovator in 20th-century American banking, Giannini created his bank forordinary people and opened branches near people’s homes and workplaces.Until then, most banks had only one location, in the center of town, andmost limited their services to businesses and people with hefty accounts.Giannini broadened the base of banking through advertising that encouragedworking people to open checking and savings accounts and to borrow forsuch purposes as car purchases—all virtually unknown before his efforts. By1920, the Bank of Italy was the largest bank in California and became thethird largest in the nation in 1927. Giannini renamed it the Bank of Americain 1930. His bank backed entrepreneurs such as Kaiser and helped to fundthe fledgling film industry in southern California. By 1929, one Californiafarmer in every 11 had a loan from the Bank of Italy. The bank not onlymade loans to growers, but also provided information on new agriculturaltechniques and crops.
Between World War I and 1940, cotton emerged as a major crop. In 1909,only 18 California farms raised cotton; by 1939, more than 5000 farms raisedcotton, pushing California to eighth place among the states in cotton produc-tion. By then, California cotton growers were the most productive, on a peracre basis, in the country. Cotton growing was concentrated in the southernSan Joaquin Valley, with some production in Imperial and Riverside Counties.One of the leading cotton growers was J. G. Boswell, who came from Georgiain 1921 and began growing cotton in the former bed of Tulare Lake (p. 175).
California agriculture was becoming increasingly industrialized duringthose years. These new patterns can be seen in operations of the CaliforniaPacking Corporation, or Calpak, whose products were marketed under thename Del Monte. Throughout the 1920s, Calpak was the largest canning oper-ation in the world. By the 1930s, it not only contracted with thousands ofgrowers to supply its canneries but also raised its own fruit and vegetables onthousands of acres. Another California company, Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation,was the nation’s largest seller of fruit, based on some 15,000 acres of irrigatedfarmland in the San Joaquin Valley and on contracts with other growers.Calpak and Di Giorgio had storage and distribution facilities in other parts ofthe nation and thus represented vertical integration in agriculture—growingcrops, processing the fruits and vegetables, and distributing the produce todealers across the country.
New Social Patterns
California’s rapid growth in the 1920s brought changes in some social patternsand intensified some previous patterns. Changes in federal immigration lawsaltered the ethnic composition of migrants to California, and this, in turn,affected both ethnic and racial relations and ethnic patterns in some sectorsof the economy.
Prosperity Decade: The 1920s 249
Though LA led the state’s population growth, other areas also experi-enced rapid growth. California more than doubled in population between1920 and 1940, moving from the eighth largest state in 1920 to fifth in1940. Population growth in the 1920s came largely from other parts of theUnited States, especially the Midwest, and most of the newcomers located insouthern California. Most came for economic opportunities, but some camefor other reasons—for example, to establish utopian communities or createnew religious organizations.
California, from the time of the Gold Rush, has attracted utopians—thosewho hope to create a perfect society. In the early 20th century, a group ofartists and writers created a colony at Carmel, and that area and the nearbyBig Sur region attracted artists and writers through the 1920s and after. Duringthe late 19th and early 20th centuries, several socialist communities were estab-lished, based on cooperative principles, but few lasted very long.
Many utopians had religious inspirations. From 1897 until her death in1929, Katherine Tingley led the Theosophical Society in America from an elab-orate complex at Point Loma, now part of San Diego. They drew upon variousreligious traditions, especially those of India, to create a community devoted to“developing a higher type of humanity.” A few other Theosophical communi-ties developed along the coast, including a large one at Ojai.
Aimée Semple McPherson preached a different message. She arrived insouthern California in 1918 and by 1922 had organized her Four Square Gos-pel Church in Los Angeles. In her immense Angelus Temple, she preached inwhite robes, staged spectacular performances complete with a full orchestrathat sometimes played jazz, and drew thousands of enthusiastic converts toher version of fundamentalist Protestantism—a call to return to the Bible andthe simplicity of old-time religion. She was also a pioneer in the use of radio.One observer suggested that she was popular because “she made migrants feelat home” and “gave them a chance to meet other people.”
Though among the most flamboyant, Sister Aimée was only one of manyfundamentalist preachers in California. Fundamentalist Protestantism emergedin the early 20th century from a conflict between Christian modernism andorthodoxy and became a powerful force throughout the nation by the 1920s.Whereas modernists tried to reconcile their religious beliefs with modernscience, fundamentalists rejected anything incompatible with a literal readingof the Scriptures and argued that the Bible’s every word is the revealed wordof God.
Migration to California in the 1920s came largely from within the nationrather than Europe, due partly to changes in federal law. Californians had longbeen at the forefront of efforts to restrict immigration from Asia, but otherswanted to limit immigration from Europe. The National Origins Act of 1924limited immigration to 150,000 people each year, with quotas for each Euro-pean country based on two percent of the number of Americans whose ances-tors came from that country. Those provisions cut immigration from southern
250 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
and eastern Europe to a mere trickle. Californians in Congress shaped two pro-visions of the new law. The author of the law, Albert Johnson, a Republicanfrom Washington State, included no provisions regarding immigration fromAsia. Senator Hiram Johnson of California demanded exclusion of all immi-grants from Japan, and the final language prohibited entry by any immigrantnot eligible for citizenship—meaning those from all of Asia. Johnson and otherCalifornians failed to persuade Congress to amend the Constitution to denycitizenship to the American-born children of Japanese immigrants. Thoughthe new law excluded Asians, it placed no limits on immigration from Canadaand Latin America. Occasional efforts to introduce quotas for the westernhemisphere were defeated through loud protests from representatives ofCalifornia and southwestern agriculture and business, who argued that theycould not survive without laborers from Mexico.
Though the new law placed no numerical limits on immigration fromLatin America, all immigrants entering the United States had to provide birthcertificates (and marriage certificates if they were traveling as a family), provetheir ability to read and write, undergo health inspections, and pay fees of $18(equivalent to nearly $230 today) plus $8 for each family member. For poorMexicans seeking a better life north of the border, these were significant limita-tions, discouraging many would-be migrants from entering legally. Even so,more than half a million migrants from Mexico did pass through border check-points and secure their papers between 1919 and 1930. Probably another halfmillion people entered without papers. Most migrants went to Texas, butincreasing numbers came to California. By 1930, Mexican Californians (thoseborn in Mexico and those of Mexican descent) made up at least 6.5 percent ofthe state’s population, with larger proportions in the south and the cities. By1930, the Mexican population of Los Angeles was estimated at 8 to 15 percent,or between 100,000 and 190,000 people. Mexicans also made up some 80 per-cent of agricultural field labor in southern California, and somewhat less far-ther north.
During the 1920s, in many areas of southern California, the children ofMexican immigrants were increasingly segregated into separate schools aslocal boards of education established “American Schools.” These were separatefacilities or classrooms where Mexican students received instruction in Englishand American culture. Behind this policy there was usually a racial agenda ofseparating Anglo and Mexican children. The Los Angeles School District, forexample, justified segregation by saying that Mexican children “are more inter-ested in action and emotion but grow listless under purely mental effort.” Suchpractices were widespread throughout the Southwest, until the Supreme Courtdeclared them illegal in Mendez v. Westminster (1947).
Anti-immigrant sentiments, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and fear ofradicalism contributed to the growth of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 1920s.The original Klan, created during Reconstruction to intimidate former slaves,had long since died out. D. W. Griffith’s hugely popular film, The Birth of a
Prosperity Decade: The 1920s 251
Nation, released in 1915, glorified the old Klan and led to efforts to resurrect it.The new Klan portrayed itself as a patriotic order devoted to America, Protes-tant Christianity, and white supremacy. It attacked Catholics, Jews, immigrants,and African Americans, along with bootleggers, corrupt politicians, and gam-blers. Bob Shuler, a leading fundamentalist preacher in Los Angeles, defendedthe Klan as helping to keep Los Angeles, as he put it, the only large Americancity “not dominated by foreigners.” Other Protestant ministers also encouragedthe Klan, which established strong chapters in Los Angeles and San Diego.There the targets of Klan attacks—verbal and physical—were often Mexicans.
Cultural Expression
The most conspicuous form of cultural expression to come out of Californiaduring the 1920s was the movies. The new medium quickly gave birth to awide variety of genres—comedy, westerns, sentimental dramas, swashbucklingadventure tales, history epics, and romances—all of which were silent. In 1927,Hollywood produced The Jazz Singer, the first “talking picture.” Many moviesderived from earlier forms of cultural expression—novels, vaudeville, and thetheater—but they reached much larger audiences than their predecessorscould have imagined. The plots of movie westerns and swashbucklers usuallybore little resemblance to historical reality, but they reached so many peoplethat their version of the past was often more widely known than the actualhistory. The Mark of Zorro, for example, a 1920 adventure film, fostered aromantic version of Mexican California. Though some critics dismissed themovies as inherently tasteless and uninspired, some films demonstrated thatthey were, in fact, a new art form. The comedies of Charlie Chaplin, BusterKeaton, and Harold Lloyd not only provoked laughter—they also frequentlyprovided a moving commentary on the human condition.
Hollywood’s productions reached and affected the majority of Americans.Movie attendance doubled from a weekly average of 40 million people in 1922to 80 million in 1929. By then, the equivalent of two-thirds of the nation’s pop-ulation went to the cinema every week! The popularity of movies created a newtype of celebrity—the movie star. Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd, cowboy starsTom Mix and William S. Hart, and dashing Douglas Fairbanks became aswell known as champion baseball sluggers or presidents. Sex, too, sold movietickets and made stars of Theda Bara, the “vamp,” Clara Bow, the “It” girl, andRudolph Valentino. Through their movies, California’s screenwriters, directors,producers, and studios played a significant role in redefining and homogeniz-ing American culture.
Californians who contributed to literature, the arts, and architecture couldnot hope to reach the numbers that the movies did, but there was a floweringof cultural expression in the 1920s, especially in architecture. The prosperity ofthe decade took concrete form as the central business districts in both SanFrancisco and Los Angeles boomed upward with dramatic new high-rise office
252 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
buildings. Movie theaters sprouted everywhere; in the cities, especially, architects employed exotic styles for grandiose theaters, drawing inspiration from ancient Egypt, traditional China, and medieval Spain (For an example, see p. 244.).
The 1920s marked the high point of popularity for the bungalow, a California contribution to residential architecture associated especially with the work of Charles and Henry Greene. The brothers came to Pasadena in 1893 and gradually incorporated architectural elements from Mexican California, Japan, and the Arts and Crafts movement into their work, produc-ing some spectacular residences in the Pasadena area in the early 20th century. A scaled-down, one-story, inexpensive version, the California bungalow, was widely popular from around 1905 through the 1920s, making it possible for an ever larger number of middle-income Californians to acquire their own single-family home.
The 1920s and 1930s marked the culmination of the careers of two of California’s most creative and influential architects. Bernard Maybeck, son of a German immigrant, studied at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris (the world’s leading school for architecture). During the early 20th century, he adapted the popular Arts and Crafts style to emphasize building materials native to the Pacific coast, and he applied his own vision to the creation of a series of remarkable houses and churches in the Bay Area. The First Church of Christ,
“Cra
ftsma
n Hou
se” b
y roa
rofth
efour
is lic
ense
d und
er CC
BY-S
A 2.0
Prosperity Decade: The 1920s 253
Highly popular during the 1920s, the California bungalow design derived from several architectural sources, but one of its key characteristics was simplicity. The bungalows were usually all on one floor with a large front porch that was offset from the center of the house and which usually had distinctive pillars. One of the great advantages of the simplicity of design was that prices could be kept low. Aside from price, what may have made this design so popular?
Scientist, in Berkeley (1910), is especially notable. He drew upon his Beaux-Arts training to create the majestic Palace of Fine Arts for the Panama-PacificInternational Exposition (1915) and to design elegant showrooms for sellingautomobiles in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles in the 1920s.
Julia Morgan studied engineering at the University of California at Berke-ley, worked for a time with Maybeck, then, in 1898, became the first womanadmitted to the École des Beaux-Arts. Upon returning to the Bay Area, shebegan, like Maybeck, to define a California variant of the Arts and Craftsstyle with her designs for houses. Morgan also designed larger commercial orpublic structures for the YWCA, other women’s organizations (notably theBerkeley Women’s City Club), the University of California at Berkeley, andMills College. She was a pioneer in the use of reinforced concrete and was per-haps best known for the creation of William Randolph Hearst’s fantastic man-sion at San Simeon. Morgan’s sophisticated seismic engineering preventedserious damage there when a major earthquake struck in 2003.
Depression Decade: The 1930s
By 1928, the economy showed signs of slowing, both in California and acrossthe nation. In fact, much of American agriculture had never shared in the pros-perity, though California growers had fared relatively better than their counter-parts elsewhere in the country. As early as 1926, the southern Californiaconstruction boom began to level off. The price of stock in Giannini’s banksdropped sharply in mid-1928. Then, on October 24, 1929, prices on the NewYork Stock Exchange fell, and continued to decline over the next weeks,months, and years. Businesses failed. Unemployment mounted, especially formanufacturing workers. Those who kept their jobs often worked fewer hoursand at reduced wages. People were evicted from their homes when they couldnot make their rent or mortgage payments. Cars and radios bought on theinstallment plan were repossessed. The economy did not fully recover untilWorld War II.
Impact of the Great Depression
Until the mid-1930s, no governmental agency kept data on unemployment, sothere are no reliable statistics on the number of Californians out of work in theearly 1930s. Estimates suggest that unemployment reached as high as 30 per-cent in San Francisco and Los Angeles by late 1932. The number of peopleemployed in the oil industry was about three-fifths of what it had been in themid-1920s. For lumbering and canning, it was about a third. The Bank ofAmerica compiled a monthly business index that, in late 1932, showed the
254 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
state at 60 percent of normal. New construction slowed to a trickle. Depart-ment store sales declined by 38 percent between 1929 and 1932.
The Depression cruelly affected many Californians. In 1930, the LosAngeles Parent Teacher Association (PTA) launched a school milk and lunchprogram when teachers reported children coming to school hungry. Some LAschools remained open through the summer to dispense milk and lunch. Evenso, in the fall of 1931, some children arrived at school so malnourished theywere hospitalized. When the PTA ran out of funds, the county board of super-visors paid for the program. Aimée Semple McPherson’s church fed 40,000people during 1932. On the San Francisco waterfront, Lois Jordan, the “WhiteAngel,” fed as many as 2000 men each day using contributed food and finan-cial donations. In 1931, the state created work camps for unemployed, home-less men. They worked on roads and built firebreaks and trails, but received nowages—only food, clothing, and a bed in a barracks. City and county govern-ments mounted work programs in which unemployed men worked for a box ofgroceries. When San Francisco ran out of money for relief in 1932, a largemajority of voters approved borrowing funds to provide minimal assistance tothe unemployed.
In southern California, some claimed that Mexican immigrants were takingjobs away from whites or driving down wage levels. As unemployment rose, sodid agitation to deport undocumented Mexicans, with the loudest voices com-ing from AFL unions, the Hearst press, and patriotic (and often nativist)groups such as the American Legion. During the presidential administrationof Herbert Hoover (1929–1933), the Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS) conducted raids in Mexican neighborhoods. Thousands were deportedto Mexico, the large majority for lacking proper papers, but the deporteesincluded a significant number of American citizens, the American-born chil-dren of Mexican immigrants. The Los Angeles county supervisors offeredcounty funds for transportation for Mexicans willing to return to Mexico, andmore than 13,000 did so between 1931 and 1934. Other communities pro-moted similar programs. Those who were deported and those who returnedon their own included some who had lived and worked in the United Statesfor many years, and some left behind their homes, savings, and family mem-bers. After the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt (who took office in 1933), theINS took a more humane approach, and the number of deportations fellby half. In 2005, the California legislature approved a resolution apologizingfor the violations of civil liberties and constitutional rights committed duringthe 1930s.
As unemployment rates rose, other ethnic groups also felt threatened. Afterthe United States acquired the Philippine Islands in 1898, Filipino immigrantscame to California, as growers sought workers for agriculture. Because thePhilippines were an American possession, their residents were not consideredaliens, but neither were they citizens. The 1940 census recorded more than30,000 Filipinos in California, two-thirds of all Filipinos in the United States.
Depression Decade: The 1930s 255
Half worked in agriculture or canneries, and some led strikes during the early1930s. Some white Californians urged that Filipinos be deported, but there wasno legal basis for doing so. In 1930, anti-Filipino rioting broke out in Watson-ville. Several Filipinos were injured, and two were killed. Other violence fol-lowed, spawned by fears that Filipinos were competing for jobs or byanxieties over Filipino men socializing with white women. Eventually, anti-Filipino attitudes combined with a long-standing promise of the DemocraticParty to bring independence to the Philippines. In 1934, Congress passed andPresident Roosevelt signed the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which set in motion aprocess leading to Philippine independence. The same law cut migration fromthe Philippines to 50 people per year.
The plight of migrant farm labor drew less interest. As Mexican farmworkers left or were deported, increasing numbers of Dust Bowl migrantstook their place. Most Californians at the time thought of the migrants as refu-gees from drought, but many of them had been uprooted by technologicalchange in agriculture (the transition from small farms to larger units that reliedon heavy machinery) or by the impact of federal agricultural programs thatfavored landowners over tenant farmers. Usually denigrated as Okies, regard-less of the state from which they came, they encountered miserable living con-ditions. The state Commission of Immigration and Housing, created in 1913 tosupervise migratory labor camps, had its budget cut so much that, by 1933,there were only four camp inspectors for the entire state. Most migratorylabor camps lacked rudimentary sanitation, and most migratory labor familiescould not afford proper diets or health care. A survey of migratory children inthe San Joaquin Valley during 1936 and 1937 found that 80 percent had medi-cal problems, most caused by malnutrition or poor hygiene.
Though some Californians reacted to rising unemployment by seeking sca-pegoats, others turned to a Marxist analysis and argued that the problem waswith capitalism itself. The Socialist Party had declined since its high pointbefore the war. Though it still provided a focal point for a critique of capital-ism, it was able to muster less than four percent of the vote for governor in1930, up from two percent in the 1928 election for the U.S. Senate.
In the 1930s, a different Marxist group began to attract attention. Radicalshad formed the Communist Party (CP) of the United States shortly after thewar, but it struggled through the 1920s, losing more members than it recruited.The CP defined itself as a revolutionary organization, devoted to ending capi-talism and to uniting all workers. Communists saw the Soviet Union as theonly workers’ government in the world and committed themselves to itsdefense. These revolutionary and pro-Soviet attitudes made it difficult torecruit American workers, few of whom wanted to overthrow the governmentor defend the Soviet Union. At the same time, CP organizers committed them-selves to the “class struggle”—to helping workers achieve better wages andworking conditions. They saw their special task as organizing the unskilled,African Americans, Mexican Americans, and other workers ignored by existing
256 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
unions. Throughout the 1920s, they had little success. The California CP had730 dues-paying members in early 1925, recruited 145 new members that yearand in early 1926, but had only 438 dues-paying members in mid-1926—a lossof half their members in a year’s time.
In the early 1930s, the CP grew dramatically, in numbers and visibility.Communists organized protest organizations for the unemployed. Though theCP counted only about 500 members in the entire state in 1930, many morejoined the party’s Unemployed Councils. In March 1930, the CP organizedmarches by the unemployed. One thousand people marched in San Francisco,where Mayor James Rolph met with them and offered them coffee. In LA, themayor mobilized 1000 police to stand against the marchers and sent police toarrest leaders the night before the march. One LA police commissionerexplained his view on dealing with radicals: “The more police beat them upand wreck their headquarters the better.” By early 1934, the CP counted 1,800members in the state, and provided leadership to thousands more.
The Communists were not the only group from the fringes of the politicalspectrum to attract attention. On the right, remnants of the Ku Klux Klan werestill active in some parts of California in the 1930s, and they found new alliesin the Silver Shirts, a San Diego branch of a national fascist organization thatemulated Nazism. Another right-wing, militaristic group, the California Cava-liers, organized statewide in 1935. These and similar groups usually blamed thestate’s problems on Jews, immigrants (especially Mexicans and Filipinos), andCommunists, and some added President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his NewDeal. Most required their members to be proficient with firearms.
Some groups closer to the mainstream, notably the American Legion (thestate’s largest organization of veterans), also mobilized against what its leaderssaw as a Communist menace. Some Legionnaires joined vigilante groups to ter-rorize radicals and striking workers. The state organization set up a RadicalResearch Committee to collect information on suspected radicals, sometimesthrough undercover operatives. The committee cooperated closely with theIndustrial Association and Associated Farmers (see p. 258) and traded infor-mation with local and state police and with military and naval intelligence. InLos Angeles, the Better America Federation denounced advocates of publiclyowned utilities as Communists, tried to purge liberal books and magazinesfrom the schools, and contributed to the repression of labor unions.
Labor Conflict
During the 1920s, labor organizations were on the defensive all across thecountry, and nowhere more than in California. The powerful Merchants andManufacturers (M&M) in LA stood ready to block union efforts in southernCalifornia. In San Francisco, several failed strikes from 1919 to 1921 led tothe decline of once-powerful unions. In 1921, the San Francisco Chamber ofCommerce helped to organize the Industrial Association, with funding from
Depression Decade: The 1930s 257
banks, transportation companies, and utility companies—indeed, nearly everycompany in the city. From the early 1920s until the mid-1930s, the IndustrialAssociation closely governed labor relations in San Francisco, blocking everyeffort to revive union organizations.
In the early 1930s, California agriculture was wracked by strikes, some-times violent, usually in response to wage cuts or miserable working condi-tions. The first came in early 1930, in the Imperial Valley, when Mexican andFilipino farm laborers walked off their jobs in the lettuce fields. The strikespread to 5000 field workers. Communist organizers quickly offered help forthe strikers through their union, which was soon renamed the Cannery andAgricultural Workers Industrial Union (CAWIU). Other strikes broke out else-where, most by Mexican and Filipino field and shed workers, and CAWIUorganizers always appeared to offer support and seek converts. Whether inthe Imperial Valley or Half Moon Bay, the CAWIU seemed unable to winstrikes. By 1932, they had begun to target particular areas and to build an orga-nizational base prior to a strike. In 1933, strike after strike hit the state’s agri-cultural regions. By August, more strikes were successful, pushing averageagricultural wages from 16 cents an hour to 25 cents. Growers regrouped, how-ever, and strikes in late 1933 were met by violence against the strikers andthreats of lynching against the strike leaders.
Growers and business leaders formed the Associated Farmers in March1934, with funding from the Industrial Association, banks, railroads, utilities,and other corporations. The Associated Farmers blamed Communists for thelabor unrest in agriculture, launched a statewide anti-Communist campaign,and sought indictments of CAWIU leaders under criminal syndicalism laws.Seventeen CAWIU leaders, mostly CP members, were brought to trial in1935. The Associated Farmers paid generously to assist the prosecution, andeight defendants were convicted. The CAWIU was dissolved the next year,but the Associated Farmers remained alert, ready to oppose any new effortsto unionize farm workers.
In May 1934, longshoremen (workers who load and unload ships) went onstrike in all Pacific coast ports. Before World War I, Pacific coast longshoremenhad been organized into the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA).By the early 1920s, however, as a result of unsuccessful strikes, California dock-workers had no meaningful union. Dock work was harsh and dangerous, andlongshoremen were hired through the “shape-up,” in which foremen hiredmen for a day at a time. In 1933, the ILA launched an organizing drive in Pacificcoast ports. In San Francisco, Harry Bridges, an immigrant from Australia whohad worked on the docks since 1922, emerged as a leader of one group oflongshoremen—including some CP members—who used the WaterfrontWorker, a mimeographed newsletter, to advocate militant action.
In 1934, the ILA’s Pacific Coast District (California, Oregon, and Washing-ton) sought a union contract. When waterfront employers refused, some10,000–15,000 longshoremen from northern Washington to San Diego walked
258 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
out in an attempt to shut down shipping on the Pacific coast. They demanded a union hiring hall (replacing the hated shape-up), higher wages, and shorter hours. Greeted by picket lines upon entering Pacific coast ports, ships’ crews quickly went on strike with issues of their own, adding 6000 more strikers. In San Pedro on May 15, private guards fired on strikers, killing two of them.
The strike focused on San Francisco, site of the largest ILA local and of many employers’ headquarters. Bridges, chairman of the strike committee for the San Francisco local, became a prominent figure in opposing compromise and insisting on the union’s full demands. In late June, the Industrial Associa-tion took over the employers’ side of the strike and determined to reopen the port using strikebreakers under heavy police protection. Union members and their supporters fought back. During a daylong battle on July 5, police killed two union members and injured hundreds more. Governor Frank Merriam dis-patched the National Guard in full battle array, armed with machine guns and tanks, to patrol the San Francisco waterfront. Ostensibly deployed to prevent further violence, the Guardsmen also protected the strikebreakers.
On July 9, thousands of silent strikers and strike supporters took over Market Street, solemnly filling that great thoroughfare as they marched after the caskets of those killed on July 5. From July 16 through July 19, the
Harri
s and
Ewing
, pho
togra
pher
, U.S.
Mar
ine Co
rps,
publi
c dom
ain, n
o kno
wn re
strict
ions
Depression Decade: The 1930s 259
Harry Bridges and other labor leaders meet in Washington D.C. in 1937 to plan a coordinated unionization drive among longshore workers. Following the meeting, John Lewis, the head of the C.I.O. vowed to supportcreating a “uniform policyfor the entire industry.”
San Francisco Labor Council coordinated a general strike that shut down thecity in sympathy with the striking maritime workers and, implicitly, in opposi-tion to the tactics of the police and the governor’s use of the National Guard.Never before or since have American unions shut down a city as large as SanFrancisco through a general strike. At the time, business leaders and politiciansfeared that the general strike held the seeds of Communist insurrection, but thereal moving force was workers’ anger over the use of government power to killworkers and protect strikebreakers. By late July, all sides agreed to arbitration,and the longshoremen secured nearly all of their demands.
The strikes by agricultural workers and by longshoremen and seafaringworkers were the leading California instances of a strike wave that broke overthe nation between 1933 and 1937. In 1933, Congress tried to reverse the eco-nomic collapse of the nation with the National Industrial Recovery Act. One ofits provisions, Section 7-a, encouraged collective bargaining between employersand unions. Section 7-a stimulated union organizing all across the country, asworkers turned to unions to stop wage cuts and improve working conditions.Everywhere, workers formed unions. In San Francisco, the number of unionmembers doubled within a few years after 1933. In 1935, Congress passed theWagner Labor Relations Act, strengthening and extending federal protection ofunions and bargaining.
In Los Angeles, unions challenged the M&M, organizing in many fields,notably furniture making, printing, the movie studios, and construction. TheM&M did not give in easily. They hired an army of private guards to protectstrikebreakers and counted on close cooperation from city police, but they losta showdown with the Teamsters’ Union in 1937. By 1941, unions claimed halfthe workers in LA as union members.
As union membership burgeoned, the labor movement divided betweentwo groups: the American Federation of Labor (AFL), oriented to organizingthe more skilled workers into unions defined along the lines of skill or craft;and a group led by John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers, who calledfor an industrial approach to organizing, in which all workers in an industrywould belong to the same union regardless of skill or craft. At first they calledthemselves the Committee on Industrial Organization (CIO) and workedwithin the AFL, but in 1937 the AFL expelled the CIO unions.
Lewis and the CIO reorganized themselves into the Congress of IndustrialOrganizations. The Pacific Coast District of the ILA, now led by Harry Bridges,broke away from the ILA to become the International Longshoremen’s andWarehousemen’s Union of the CIO. The CIO also chartered the UnitedCannery, Agricultural, Packing, and Allied Workers of America (UCAPAWA),which launched an organizing drive among California agricultural and canneryworkers, only to meet strong and often violent opposition from the AssociatedFarmers. Nonetheless, UCAPAWA organized thousands of cannery workers,the large majority of them women, including many Mexicans. Latinas advancedto leadership in some UCAPAWA locals, and Luisa Moreno, a well-educated
260 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
immigrant from Guatemala, became a vice president of UCAPAWA, the firstLatina to serve in such a post in any American union. Other CIO unions, espe-cially the Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Clothing Workers, and Rubber Work-ers, organized manufacturing workers, especially in southern California. AFLunions grew too, especially the Teamsters and the Machinists. By 1940, AFLunions in California claimed a half million members and the CIO had150,000, making California a leading state for union membership.
Federal Politics: The Impact of the New Deal
The revolution in labor relations represents only one of the many ways thatnew federal policies changed life in California during the 1930s. There weremany others. The political changes of the 1930s worked a transformation notjust in state–federal relations but also in the relationship between individualsand the government at all levels. The impetus for most of these changes wasthe Depression. The first changes came during the presidency of HerbertHoover, but greater changes came after 1933, under President FranklinD. Roosevelt.
Hoover spent much of his four years as president addressing the Depres-sion. He approved programs that went further in establishing state–federalcooperation than ever before. One example was the Hoover-Young Commis-sion to plan the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. Another was his approvalof funding for the bridge construction from the Reconstruction Finance Corpo-ration (RFC), an agency that loaned funds to companies to stabilize the econ-omy. In the case of the Bay Bridge, the loan was to a state agency, for thepurpose of constructing a publicly owned bridge—something unprecedented.As in the case of the dam project at Boulder Canyon, Hoover’s approval helpedto promote other massive federal water projects throughout the West; however,Hoover was adamant that the federal government should not directly assist theunemployed or those in need.
When Hoover faced reelection in 1932, he lost in a landslide to the Demo-cratic candidate, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the governor of New York, who prom-ised to do more to address the problems of the Depression. California’s votersgave 1,324,000 votes to Roosevelt, and 848,000 to Hoover. As Figure 8.2 on thenext page indicates, the election marked the beginning of a new pattern toCalifornians’ voting for president, a move toward the Democratic Party.
As president, Roosevelt conveyed a confidence that something could bedone about the Depression, and he called upon Congress to pass legislation forrelief, recovery, and reform. The Public Works Administration (PWA) set up anambitious federal construction program to stimulate the economy. In California,PWA paid for many new federal buildings—post offices, court buildings,and buildings on military posts and naval bases—and also new ships for thenavy. Other PWA projects included schools, courthouses, dams, auditoriums,and sewage treatment plants. The Works Progress Administration (WPA),
Depression Decade: The 1930s 261
created in 1935, was a work program for the unemployed. WPA projects acrossthe state included public parks, buildings, bridges, and roads. The WPA andPWA together helped to fund the Pasadena Freeway. All in all, the PWA andWPA had a major impact on the state’s infrastructure, but the WPA wentbeyond construction projects to include orchestras (composed of unemployedmusicians), murals in public buildings (painted by unemployed artists), a col-lection of guidebooks (compiled by unemployed writers), and adult educationprograms (presented by unemployed teachers).
New federal agencies took up the plight of migratory farm workers. In1935, the Resettlement Administration (RA) set out to construct camps withadequate sanitation and housing that met minimal standards. Two campswere built before the RA gave way, in 1937, to the Farm Security Administra-tion (FSA), which continued the work of building and operating camps—13 by1941. The FSA was closed down in 1942, however, ending direct federal effortsto assist migratory farm workers and their families.
The New Deal brought important changes to the governance of Indianreservations. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, California was home to nearly20,000 Native Americans, putting California among the half-dozen states withthe largest Indian populations. In the early 1920s, whites and CaliforniaIndians formed the Mission Indian Federation to improve the situation ofsouthern California Indians. Similar efforts took place in the north. When the
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1892 1896 19161912190819041900 1920 19361924 1928 1932 1940 1944 1948
Republican
Democratic
Populist/Progressive
Figure 8.2 Number of Votes Received by Major Party Presidential Candidatesin California, 1892–1948This graph shows the number of votes received by major party presidential candidatesin California between 1892 and 1948. Note especially the sharp change from 1928 to1932 and 1936. What accounts for this dramatic change in voters’ support?
Source: Historical Statistics of the United States (Washington, 1975).
262 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
state legislature, in 1921, approved a law specifying that Native American chil-dren could only attend local public schools if there were no Indian schoolwithin three miles of their homes, Alice Piper, a Native American, sued toattend her local public school. In Piper v. Big Pine School District (1924), theCalifornia Supreme Court ruled in Piper’s favor. The Bureau of Indian Affairs(BIA) also continued to buy small plots of land to create reservations for land-less California Indians. Roosevelt appointed John Collier as the commissionerof Indian Affairs. A longtime critic of previous federal Indian policies, Collierclosed down programs aimed at forced assimilation, including boarding schoolsand the suppression of traditional religious practices. His “Indian New Deal”included, as its centerpiece, the Indian Reorganization Act (1934), whichencouraged tribal self-government.
State Politics: The Rise of the Democrats
Though California’s voters clearly turned to the Democrats in the 1932 presi-dential election and continued to vote for Democrats through the presidentialelections of the 1940s, they showed more ambivalence in state elections. Therewas an increase in support for Democratic candidates, but that increase did notautomatically translate to the election of Democrats to state offices.
In the elections of 1930, the real contest, once again, was in the Republicanprimary. The incumbent progressive governor, C. C. Young, faced two oppo-nents in the Republican primary. One was James C. “Sunny Jim” Rolph, thepopular mayor of San Francisco, first elected in 1911 and reelected every fouryears, usually by large margins. Though Rolph had promoted progressivecauses in the 1910s, he became more moderate during the 1920s, and wasprobably best known, in 1930, for his outspoken opposition to prohibition.Young’s other opponent was Buron Fitts, a conservative from LA who was astaunch prohibitionist. Young, too, supported prohibition. Fitts and Youngdivided the “dry” vote. Rolph took the “wet” vote, won the Republican nomi-nation, and easily defeated his Democratic opponent.
As governor, Rolph spent much of the state’s budget surplus on assistanceto the victims of the Depression. He also supported the Central Valley ProjectAct of 1933 to create dams and canals for hydroelectric power and irrigation,and the bill passed despite strong opposition from electrical power companies.With Rolph’s support, the legislature repealed the enforcement of prohibition,which meant that policing the unpopular law was entirely the responsibility ofa handful of federal officials. However, Rolph seemed to condone violenceagainst farm strikers, and he publicly approved of the lynching, in San José,of two men suspected of kidnapping and murder. He died in office, in June1934, and was succeeded by his lieutenant governor, Frank Merriam.
Democrats hoped to win the governor’s office in 1934, for the first time inmore than 40 years. Voter registrations had shifted from the huge Republicanmajorities of the late 1920s to a fairly even split by 1934. In 1932, a Democrat
Depression Decade: The 1930s 263
captured one of California’s U.S. Senate seats. For 1934, Democratic Party lea-ders backed George Creel, a moderate liberal, for governor; however, the Dem-ocratic primary for governor became a battle between Creel and UptonSinclair. Sinclair had become nationally famous for his novel, The Jungle, in1906. A classic example of progressive muckraking, The Jungle revealed in sick-ening detail the unsanitary conditions and exploitation of workers in Chicago’smeatpacking industry. A Pasadena resident after 1915, Sinclair continued towrite novels with strong social and political messages. He ran for governor asa Socialist in the 1920s, but changed his party registration to Democrat in 1934and entered the Democratic primary for governor.
Sinclair’s slogan was “End Poverty in California,” soon abbreviated to EPIC.He wrote a novel—I, Candidate for Governor and How I Ended Poverty—andused it to promote his candidacy. At the center of the EPIC program was “pro-duction for use,” a plan to let the unemployed raise crops on idle farmland andmake goods in idle factories, and then exchange their products using state scrip(by scrip, Sinclair meant state-issued certificates that would specify the valueof the agricultural and manufacturing products). Thousands of Californiansjoined EPIC clubs across the state, making them a new force in politics. Sinclairwon the Democratic nomination for governor by a clear majority, and his sup-porters won nominations for other offices. Frank Merriam, the bland conserva-tive who had become governor upon the death of Rolph, won the Republicanprimary.
In the general election, Sinclair’s opponents attacked EPIC as unworkableand Sinclair as incompetent for proposing it. Sinclair’s plan reflected a weakgrasp of economics but hardly deserved the abuse heaped on it as dangerously“red.” In fact, Socialists and Communists both vigorously attacked EPIC.Hollywood studios regularly produced a short news feature that ran in theatersbefore the main feature; now they created alleged news stories, actually staged,that claimed the state faced a deluge of hobos and Communists attracted byEPIC. Republicans hired press agents Clem Whitaker and Leone Baxter tosort through Sinclair’s writings and produce lurid campaign advertisementsbased on Sinclair’s supposed support for free love and contempt for organizedreligion. In the process, Whitaker and Baxter created a new career—that of thefreelance campaign consultant—and their success inspired a host of imitatorson both the right and the left. National Democratic leaders abandoned Sinclair,and Roosevelt refused to endorse him. Merriam won, but Sinclair had trans-formed the California Democratic Party, as 26 EPIC candidates were electedto the state assembly, including Augustus Hawkins, the first black Democratto serve in the legislature. In many places, EPIC clubs began to prepare forthe next election.
In the 1934 elections, the Communist Party showed surprising strength.Though their candidate for governor got fewer than 6,000 votes, AnitaWhitney, the CP candidate for controller, got 100,000 votes and five percentof the total. Leo Gallagher, running for the supreme court without a party
264 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
label but with support from the CP, received 240,000 votes and 17 percent. TheCP was highly critical of the New Deal in 1933 and 1934, but from 1937 to1939, top CP leaders reversed their position and encouraged party membersto support New Deal Democrats.
EPIC was not the only unusual proposal to percolate out of southernCalifornia. In 1934, Francis Townsend, a retired physician from Long Beach,launched Old Age Revolving Pensions. He proposed taxing business transac-tions to pay $200 each month to every citizen over the age of 60 (except crim-inals) on the condition that he or she retire and spend the full amount eachmonth. The plan had something for nearly everyone: older people could retire;putting money into circulation would stimulate the economy; and retirementswould open jobs for younger people. It was enormously popular. Some olderpeople bought goods on credit, expecting to pay for them with their firstchecks. Townsend’s popularity translated to political clout—California candi-dates hesitated to criticize his plan, and many endorsed it. The adoption ofSocial Security in 1935, however, took the wind from Townsend’s sails. In1938, grassroots activists put a new panacea on the ballot, nicknamed “Hamand Eggs,” which proposed to pay $30 in state “warrants” every Thursday toall unemployed people over 50. The measure lost in 1938, and a revised versionlost in 1939.
The progressive reforms that reduced the power of political parties mayhave made Californians more likely than before to cross party lines. Thus,they supported Roosevelt in 1932 and elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate,but in 1934 they elected a conservative Republican as governor. In 1934, Roo-sevelt endorsed Republican Hiram Johnson for the U.S. Senate, and Johnsonused cross-filing to win both the Democratic and Republican nominations.Like other prominent progressive Republicans, Johnson supported Rooseveltin 1932 and endorsed much of the early New Deal, but he was privately turn-ing against Roosevelt by 1936. In 1936, California voters gave Roosevelt a largemajority and elected a majority of Democrats to the state assembly for the firsttime in the 20th century. State senate districts, however, had been drawn tominimize the number of senators from urban districts, where the Democratswere developing much of their support.
After Merriam was elected governor in 1934, he disappointed his mostconservative supporters by acting pragmatically to implement some New-Deal-type reforms, to create a state income tax (generally considered a liberalapproach to taxation), and to increase taxes on banks and corporations. Seek-ing reelection in 1938, he faced Culbert Olson, a Democrat who had enteredpolitics through EPIC and now campaigned to “Bring the New Deal toCalifornia.” In the Democratic primary, another former EPIC supporter,Sheridan Downey, won the nomination for the U.S. Senate, and still anotherformer EPIC activist won the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor.Business and conservative groups promoted Proposition 1, an initiative toclamp severe restrictions on unions, and they backed it with the most money
Depression Decade: The 1930s 265
spent to support a proposition up to that time. The Republican candidates forgovernor and senator supported Proposition 1. Despite the bitterness betweenthe AFL and CIO, nearly all the state’s unions combined to defeat Proposition1 and support the Democrats. Olson, Downey, and other Democrats won, andthe Democrats again won a majority in the state assembly.
A good campaigner, Olson proved less effective as governor. He freedTom Mooney and Warren Billings (see p. 231), for which he won high praisefrom labor and the left, but earned the hatred of conservatives. He alsosupported efforts to unionize farm workers. In 1939, Olson proposed a longlist of reform legislation—including medical insurance for most workingCalifornians and the protection of civil rights—but such proposals garneredno support among the conservative Republicans who dominated the statesenate. In 1940, two years into the Olson administration, voters sent a major-ity of Republicans to the assembly. That same year, Hiram Johnson againwon both the Democratic and Republican nominations for U.S. Senatethrough cross-filing, although, by then, he had become highly critical of theNew Deal.
Cultural Expression During the Depression Decade
During the 1920s, many American writers and artists rejected the consumer-oriented society around them. Their novels often seemed exercises in hedonismor escapism. Some artists produced works so abstract that they held differentmeanings for each viewer. In the 1930s, much of that changed. Some leadingnovelists of the 1930s portrayed working people and their problems, and otherslooked for inspiration to leading figures in American history. Artists producedrealistic scenes, sometimes motivated by a desire for social change and othertimes rooted in affection for traditional values. And Californians producedsome of the leading examples of these trends.
John Steinbeck defined the social protest novel of the 1930s. Born inSalinas in 1902, Steinbeck attended Stanford briefly. Among his early works,Tortilla Flat (1933) portrayed Mexican Californians and In Dubious Battle(1936) presented an apple-pickers’ strike through the eyes of an idealisticyoung Communist. The Grapes of Wrath (1939), which won the PulitzerPrize for best novel, presented the story of the Joad family, who lost theirfarm in Oklahoma and migrated to California. There, the family disintegratedunder the stresses of transient agricultural work and the violence of a farm-workers’ strike. Sinclair’s novel has been likened to Uncle Tom’s Cabin for itssocial impact. Some artists also presented social criticism in their work. DiegoRivera, the great Mexican muralist whose work usually carried a leftist politi-cal message, painted murals in California and influenced a generation ofCalifornia mural painters. Other muralists, especially those in the WPA artsprojects, often presented the lives of ordinary Californians or themes fromthe state’s history.
266 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
Dorothea Lange, a commercial photographer before the Depression, beganphotographing the victims of the Depression in the early 1930s. Lange becamewell practiced in photographing these victims, ranging from unemployed menin San Francisco to strikers and migrant workers. In 1935, the California RuralRehabilitation Administration hired Lange and Paul Taylor (an economics pro-fessor at the University of California, Berkeley) to document the plight of agri-cultural labor, and she continued that work with the Federal ResettlementAdministration. Her photograph of a farm-migrant mother and children, laterentitled “Migrant Mother,” taken in 1936, emerged as perhaps the most famousand most moving photograph of the era. In 1939, Lange and Taylor publishedAmerican Exodus, a documentary counterpart to The Grapes of Wrath, vividlydepicting the misery of life in the migratory labor camps and in the fields,through photographs, commentary, and statistics.
Hollywood produced a few films of social criticism during this time, mostnotably an adaptation of The Grapes of Wrath (1940), starring Henry Fonda.Charlie Chaplin’s leftist politics were apparent in two important works: ModernTimes (1936), portraying the dehumanizing tendencies of technology, and TheGreat Dictator (1940), which mocked Adolf Hitler. Studio heads were oftenuncomfortable with social protest films, however, and some barred thementirely, insisting that the public needed entertainment that would take theirminds off the Depression. Musical extravaganzas like Forty-Second Street(1933) fit the bill. So did some westerns and gangster films, but others probed
Dorothea Lange gave this pho-tograph the title “Destitute pea-pickers in California; a 32 year old mother of seven children. February 1936.” In 1960, in an article in Popular Photography, Lange explained how she took her famous picture: “I saw and approached the hungry and des-perate mother, as if drawn by a magnet…. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food.”
“Migr
ant M
other
” (Do
rothe
a Lan
ge) b
y Lind
ell D
illon i
s lice
nsed
unde
r CC P
DM 1.
Depression Decade: The 1930s 267
more deeply into the human condition. Stagecoach (1939), directed by JohnFord, so defined the western genre that it inspired imitators for years after.Gangster films rose to popularity with Little Caesar (1930), which boostedEdward G. Robinson to stardom. Similarly, Hollywood turned the hardboileddetective stories of California writers Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chan-dler into immensely successful movies, notably The Thin Man (1934) and TheMaltese Falcon (1941), both based on novels by Hammett. In The MalteseFalcon, set in San Francisco, Humphrey Bogart first defined the character hecontinued to develop in such later films as Casablanca (1942), The Big Sleep(1946), and Key Largo (1948).
By the late 1930s, the rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany and hisNazi party’s attacks on Jews and the Left produced a flood of refugees, and10,000 of them came to southern California. Hollywood had attractedEuropean immigrants from the beginning. Many of the studio heads and lead-ing directors had been born in Europe, and many studio heads were Jewish. Bythe late 1930s, southern California had become home to a significant numberof displaced European intellectuals, including the German novelist ThomasMann, the Russian composer Igor Stravinsky, the German writer BertoltBrecht, and the Austrian director Otto Preminger. Their presence gave the LAbasin a more cosmopolitan cultural bent.
Many of these currents came together in 1939 and 1940, when SanFrancisco hosted the Golden Gate International Exposition, held on TreasureIsland, a 400-acre artificial island created in San Francisco Bay with WPAfunding. The island was connected to both sides of the bay by the new SanFrancisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, and had full views of the new Golden GateBridge. Much of the exposition’s architecture reflected prevailing Art Deco andModerne styles, but sometimes with Pacific themes. One theme of the expositionwas the unity of the Pacific basin, and one of the popular exhibits was the real-life arrival and departure of PanAmerican Airways’ Flying Clippers—giant (forthe day) airplanes, able to carry 48 passengers that landed and took off from thewater of the bay. PanAmerican charged $360 (equivalent to more than $5,500today) for a one-way ticket to Hawai‘i. Another, more mundane, goal of theexposition was to promote the growth of tourism to the Bay Area.
California on the Eve of War
Treasure Island had been constructed with the intent that, after the exposition,it would become San Francisco’s airport. But the first year of the expositionwas marked by war. War was already raging in Asia, as Japan had seizedManchuria in 1931 and then initiated all-out war against China in 1937. In1939, Germany marched into Czechoslovakia, then Poland. Britain and Francedeclared war on Germany. In 1940, German armies rolled into Denmark,Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. When theTreasure Island exposition closed, the island became a base for the U.S. Navy.
268 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
The creation of a naval base on Treasure Island was just one of manyexamples of increased federal expenditures in California for the army andnavy after World War I. In 1921, the U.S. Navy decided to divide its fleetinto Atlantic and Pacific divisions. This decision was due partly to rising con-cerns about the intentions of Japan in the Pacific and the need to protect theAmerican possessions there. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego allinsisted that they were the best location for a navy base, which was predictedto have as many as 45,000 naval personnel. Members of California’s congres-sional delegation contested with each other over the prize, but in the end thenavy decentralized its facilities, scattering elements up and down the Pacificcoast. As international tensions increased in the late 1930s, so too did navaland military expenditures in California.
Despite the headlines of war, despite increasing naval and military prepara-tions all around them, most Californians hoped to stay out of the war. Unlike1914 through 1917, when advocates of preparedness often hoped openly thatthe United States would enter the war, few made such arguments from 1939through 1941. All Californians were shocked when their radios announced,on Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, that Japanese planes and ships hadattacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawai‘i. California was onthe verge of one of its greatest transformations.
Summary
The 1920s and 1930s marked very different eras in California’s economic his-tory. The 1920s were years of prosperity, the 1930s a time of depression. Still,Los Angeles grew at a rapid pace through both decades. The motion pictureindustry, oil, and manufacturing all contributed to LA’s economic base duringthe 1920s and 1930s. LA was the first large city to be designed around theautomobile and the single-family home.
The large majority of Californians voted Republican during the 1920s, butthe Republican Party was divided into progressive and conservative wings.Hiram Johnson served in the U.S. Senate throughout the two decades andbeyond, leading the progressive wing of the state Republican Party. The othermost prominent California Republican was Herbert Hoover, who was electedpresident in 1928. Prohibition divided voters during the 1920s, and the early1920s saw a renewal of anti-Asian actions and laws.
Highway and bridge construction laid the basis for the state’s transporta-tion infrastructure in the automobile age. Hoover Dam was a massive hydro-electric and irrigation project promoted largely by Californians, though locatedin Nevada. Henry Kaiser was one of several construction companies that tookon such mammoth projects. A. P. Giannini’s Bank of America brought
Summary 269
important innovations to banking, especially the concept of branch banking.Cotton became an important crop during the 1920s and 1930s, and agriculturewas becoming increasingly industrialized, as large corporations owned farm-land, processing plants, and distribution networks.
California’s population grew throughout the 1920s and 1930s, with muchof the growth concentrated in southern California. Federal immigration policychanged dramatically in 1924. Californians, led by Senator Hiram Johnson,succeeded in writing Asian exclusion into the new law. Though no formal lim-its were placed on immigration from Mexico, the process for legal immigrationwas intimidating and expensive.
Movies were California’s most conspicuous contribution to culturalexpression. They came in a variety of genres and reached large numbers ofAmericans. Important architectural contributions included the Californiabungalow, popularized by Greene and Greene. Bernard Maybeck and JuliaMorgan helped to create a distinctive California variant of prevailing architec-tural styles.
During the Great Depression, beginning in 1929, unemployment rose,wage levels fell, and business slowed. Some blamed Mexicans and Filipinosand agitated to have them removed from the state. The Communist Partyshowed some success in its efforts to organize the unemployed. Large numbersof Dust Bowl refugees poured into the state seeking work, but camps for migra-tory farm workers were unhealthy.
Labor conflict broke out among agricultural workers, often led by Commu-nists. Longshoremen struck for three months in 1934 at all Pacific coast portsand encountered violent opposition, but secured most of their objectives.Changes in federal labor policy encouraged unions, and unions grew rapidlyin both the San Francisco Bay area and the Los Angeles basin. The labor move-ment divided between the AFL and CIO, and both were well represented inCalifornia.
New federal laws, especially during the administration of PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt, redefined federal–state relations. California voters gavelarge majorities to Roosevelt. PWA and WPA programs resulted in the con-struction of a wide variety of new buildings and other facilities in California.New federal programs tried to assist migratory farm workers and CaliforniaIndians.
Democrats hoped to win the governorship in 1934, but Upton Sinclair’sEPIC campaign came under heavy attack from both right and left, and theRepublican candidate won. Other unusual proposals percolated up from south-ern California in addition to EPIC, including the Townsend movement andHam and Eggs. The Democrats won the governorship in 1938, but GovernorCulbert Olson proved ineffective.
270 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
Suggested Readings
❚ Balio, Tino, Grand Design: Hollywood as a Modern Business Enterprise,1930–1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). An examinationof nearly every aspect of the industry.
❚ Bottles, Scott L., Los Angeles and the Automobile: The Making of the Mod-ern City (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). A good account ofthe relation between the expansion of Los Angeles and the automobile.
❚ La Chapelle, Peter, Proud to Be an Okie: Cultural Politics, Country Music,and Migration to Southern California (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 2007). Focuses on the country music that was introduced to LosAngeles by the Okie migration.
❚ McWilliams, Carey, Southern California Country: An Island on the Land(New York: Duell, Sloane & Pearce, 1946). One of the classic works onCalifornia; never unbiased, McWilliams wrote with the freshness thatcomes from personal observation.
❚ Sanchez, George J., Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, andIdentity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900–1945 (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1993). A major contribution to understanding the experience ofMexican Americans in the early 20th century.
❚ Selvin, David F., A Terrible Anger: The 1934 Waterfront and General Strikesin San Francisco (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996). Thoroughand well written, Selvin’s book also conveys the intensity of feeling of thestrikers.
❚ Sitton, Tom, and Deverell, William, eds., Metropolis in the Making: LosAngeles in the 1920s (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 2001). An anthology that treats many of the important elements inthe growth of Los Angeles during the 1920s.
❚ Starr, Kevin, Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). A sweeping account of south-ern California in the 1920s based upon a wide range of material.
❚ , Endangered Dreams: The Great Depression in California (New York:Oxford University Press, 1996). Continues Starr’s account of the state’sdevelopment, with rich details and balanced interpretations.
❚ Steinbeck, John, The Grapes of Wrath (New York: Viking, 1939). Nothingmatches this novel for its depiction of the Okies and of California farmworkers in the 1930s.
Suggested Readings 271
❚ Tygiel, Jules, The Great Los Angeles Swindle: Oil, Stocks, and Scandal Duringthe Roaring Twenties (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). A livelyaccount of the financial manipulations of C. C. Julian cast against LosAngeles in the 1920s.
❚ Weber, Devra, Dark Sweat, White Gold: California Farm Workers, Cotton,and the New Deal (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). An inci-sive analysis of cotton growing, especially the agricultural work force, andits relation to government.
❚ Yung, Judy, Unbound Feet: A Social History of Chinese Women in SanFrancisco (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995). An exhaustivelyresearched study from about 1900 to World War II.
272 CHAPTER 8 California Between the Wars, 1919–1941
CHAP
TER 9
World War IIand the GreatTransformation
Main Topics
❚ Economic Expansion
❚ Japanese Relocation and Internment
❚ Population Growth and Diversity
❚ Daily Life and Culture
❚ Political Transformation
❚ Summary
On October 20, 1943, Theresa Waller stood in the “col-ored” waiting room in the train station at Houston,Texas. Dressed in her Sunday best, this tall, dignified
24-year-old felt a disquieting mixture of fear, expectation,excitement, and uncertainty. Her strong will and poise—traitsthat marked her as a person who “wanted to go somewhereand be someone”—had propelled her to this departure point.In a few moments there would be no turning back. A youngwoman who “wanted to do something good and big, butcouldn’t name it” was about to leave everything that she hadknown as a child for the promise of a new life in California.
In Houston, Theresa had worked as a domestic servant.Each morning, she left her home in the mostly black FifthWard for the rich white neighborhoods in “the heights.” Asshe worked at jobs that “didn’t amount to much” and waspaid only a few dollars a week, she endured the dangers and
273
humiliations of life in the segregated South. Struggling todescribe her experience, Theresa remarked, “You just don’tknow what it was like. They [white people] would try tomake you feel like you weren’t human.” Facing a future limitedby racial discrimination, she dreamed about leaving Texas.
Early in 1943, Theresa met and fell in love with a man whoworked on the Houston waterfront. Through a network of fellowworkers, he learned of plentiful, high-paying defense jobs inthe San Francisco Bay area. Their relationship flourished onshared dreams of a better life out West, and soon they married.Within weeks, he moved to Oakland, found housing and a job inthe shipyards, and sent for his bride. Theresa, about to embarkon a journey that would reunite her with her husband and pro-foundly change her world, felt small and alone on that Octoberday in the Houston train station. But as her journey unfolded,it bore a striking resemblance to the journeys made by count-less other California-bound migrants during the war years.While most found economic opportunity, others—particularlyblack migrants like the Wallers—encountered significant racialprejudice and discrimination. In this regard, California was notthe promised land.
By the early 1940s, California had become central to thenation’s war effort. Its aircraft and shipbuilding industries,funded by huge federal defense contracts, dramaticallyexpanded production and provided new employment opportu-nities for skilled and unskilled workers, women, and ethnicminorities. California’s ports and military bases, suddenly bus-tling with defense-driven activity and thousands of newrecruits, also contributed to civilian job growth. The wartime
CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
1941 United States enters World War II
1941–1945Wartime defense production transforms the state’s economyPopulation grows by 1.5 millionWomen enter the industrial labor force in unprecedented numbers
1941 Executive Order 8802 bans racial discrimination in defenseindustry
1942
Japanese relocation and internment authorizedEarl Warren elected governorBracero program establishedSleepy Lagoon case
1943 Zoot Suit Riots
1944 Port Chicago explosion and “mutiny”Defense industries begin to demobilize
1945 Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and NagasakiWar ends
274
boom spilled over to virtually every sector of the economy.Restaurants, nightclubs, theaters, and other service establish-ments, responding to a burgeoning clientele of soldiers andround-the-clock defense workers, extended their hours andhired additional employees. The state’s growers, attemptingto keep pace with wartime demand for agricultural commodi-ties, increased production and expanded their labor force. Thedefense effort even stimulated the development of new elec-tronics, communications, and aerospace technologies thatbecame the mainstay of the state’s postwar economy.
Sadly, the war also ignited long-smoldering anti-Asianprejudice, culminating in the worst mass violation of civilrights in the state’s history. In the spring of 1942, California’sJapanese American population was deported by governmentorder to a series of internment camps in remote sections ofthe western United States. In the process, most lost homes,treasured possessions, and businesses, and suffered severeemotional and physical trauma. Wartime prosperity, whichpartially offset the pain and humiliation of racial discrimina-tion for other ethnic minorities, only added to the raw senseof loss experienced by Japanese Americans.
As this tragedy unfolded, California’s economic boomattracted newcomers from a variety of ethnic and class
Shown here is a shift change of workers at the Kaiser, Richmond Shipyards circa 1942–1944. What does this photograph reveal about wartime changes in the age, gender, and ethnic composition of the industrial labor force?
“a tw
o oce
an w
ar Ka
iser S
hipya
rd, R
ichmo
nd 19
42-1
944 (
Doro
thea L
ange
) by J
ean B
. is lic
ense
d und
er CC
BY-N
C-SA
2.0
CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation 275
backgrounds, greatly increasing the size and diversity of thestate’s population. Unfortunately, growth placed strains onschools, recreation facilities, housing, and transportationsystems—strains that heightened existing patterns of racialdiscrimination and produced tensions between migrants andestablished residents. Emboldened by the pro-democracyrhetoric of the war, minority activists and their sympatheticsupporters attacked discrimination in housing, employment,and public accommodations with new zeal, creating thefoundation for postwar struggles for civil rights and politicalpower. The Wallers, and countless other African Americannewcomers, joined this struggle to make the Californiadream a reality. At the same time, state government, underthe leadership of Earl Warren, responded to growth-relatedchallenges by taking a more active role in directing theforces of social and economic change.
Questions to Consider
❚ Did World War II have a significant and lasting impacton the state’s economy? How? Discuss why historianshave described this era as the “Second Gold Rush.”
❚ Who was responsible for Japanese relocation and intern-ment? Did anti-Asian prejudice, rather than “informedmilitary judgments,” contribute to this mass violation ofcivil rights?
❚ Excluding Japanese Americans, did Californians benefitequally from the Second Gold Rush? Why or why not?
❚ How and why did World War II alter the priorities ofpolitical activists and leaders and expand the size andscope of state government?
Economic Expansion
Overview of the War’s Economic Impact
By 1939, war in Europe created increased demand for goods produced in theUnited States. This helped draw California’s manufacturing, oil, and agricul-tural industries out of their Depression-era slump. At the same time, the fed-eral government initiated a rearmament program and the nation’s firstpeacetime draft, leading to an expansion of the state’s existing military facilitiesand the construction of several new training centers, supply depots, and bases.The influx of military personnel, in turn, generated civilian jobs at military
276 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
installations and stimulated retail and service sector growth in nearby townsand cities.
When the United States officially entered the war following the Japaneseattack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, California’s economy swung into high gear.The war was no longer solely a European conflict, but one waged in the Pacificas well, with personnel, ships, aircraft, food, munitions, and supplies all chan-neled through California’s ports and military staging facilities. The federal gov-ernment, acknowledging California’s geographic importance to the Pacific wareffort, committed $35 billion to the state’s defense industries and militaryinstallations. And Californians, receiving a windfall that amounted to 10 per-cent of the government’s entire budget, went from unemployment lines toaround-the-clock, high-wage production work. Jobs, once scarce, were createdfaster than workers could fill them. The Second Gold Rush had arrived.
The Aircraft Industry
The southern part of the state, with its mild climate, nonunionized work force,numerous small airstrips, and affordable land prices, began attracting aircraftmanufacturers as early as 1912. The industry, however, did not take permanentroot until 1920 when Donald Douglas, an aviation engineer for Martin in Ohio,organized his own company in Los Angeles. Two other aircraft entrepreneurs,Ryan in San Diego and Lockheed in Burbank, soon joined Douglas. As the airtravel industry expanded during the 1930s, the region attracted other manufac-turers, such as Consolidated Aircraft Corporation and American Aviation. By1940, a majority of the nation’s aircraft workers were employed by southernCalifornia firms.
With the war, demand for aircraft suddenly increased, and California’smanufacturers, already at the center of aircraft production, came to dominatethe industry. Over the course of the conflict, aircraft companies in southernCalifornia received nearly 60 percent of all defense contract dollars that flowedinto the state from the federal government. Change was sudden and dramatic.In 1939, the region’s 20,000 aircraft workers produced only a few thousandplanes in modestly sized shops and factories. By 1943, sprawling fabricationfacilities employed more than 280,300 workers, who produced 100,000 planesin that year alone. Lockheed, whose mostly skilled work force built 37 planes in1937, employed more than 90,000 workers at the height of the war and mass-produced more than 18,000 aircraft between 1941 and 1945, a productionrecord matched by Douglas, Northrup, North American, Convair, and Ryan.
The infusion of federal funds, however, only partially explains the astound-ing level of productivity. Plant employees, over 40 percent of whom werewomen, worked around the clock, logged thousands of hours in overtime,and risked serious injury to meet production demands. While rising wageshelped motivate workers, many also made wartime sacrifices out of a sense ofpatriotic duty. Early in the war, Roosevelt called for the production of 50,000
Economic Expansion 277
planes a year. Workers, responding to reports of growing casualties overseas,more than doubled that figure by 1944.
The war left a lasting imprint on southern California’s aircraft industry.Federal dollars not only funded plant expansion, they also financed researchand development that created the foundation for diversification. Wartimeresearch, funded by the government and conducted in partnership with theCalifornia Institute of Technology and UCLA, pushed aircraft manufacturinginto the age of aerospace technology. Industry giants like Douglas, Lockheed,and Convair moved confidently into the postwar period as manufacturers of jetpropulsion equipment, missiles, missile guidance devices, and electronic track-ing systems.
Shipbuilding
California’s shipbuilding industry, centered in the San Francisco Bay area,underwent a similar transformation during the war. Existing shipyardsexpanded their facilities and hired thousands of new workers to fill militarycontracts. Demand, however, soon exceeded existing capacity and entrepre-neurs such as Henry Kaiser constructed new shipyards throughout the region.Prior to the war, Kaiser directed the construction of several large dams andbridges, successfully applying mass production and prefabrication techniqueson an enormous scale. When the war started, Kaiser secured government sup-port to build a new shipbuilding facility in Richmond and turned his expertiseto the production of supply freighters or “Liberty Ships.”
Kaiser’s application of assembly-line construction techniques, replicated byother Bay Area shipbuilders including Bechtel in Sausalito, reduced the needfor skilled labor and cut production time from 250 days per ship to an averageof 25 days. The shipyards were open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. KaiserShipyard workers set a record by constructing one ship in four days. At peakoperation, Kaiser’s four Richmond yards employed more than 100,000 workers,including large numbers of women and black migrants from the South. Tomeet ongoing labor demands, Kaiser sent recruiters across the country insearch of workers, helped arrange transportation out West, and offered on-the-job training. He also promoted worker retention by funding on-site childcare and creating a subsidized, prepaid medical program for his employees, oneof the first group health plans in the nation.
During the war, shipbuilders employed more than 260,000 workers andreceived more than $5 billion in federal government contracts. For a brieftime, the Bay Area was the country’s premier shipbuilding center, producingmore than one-quarter of the nation’s ships, and attracting thousands of new-comers with the promise of high-paying, dignified employment. Wartime ship-yards provided unprecedented, though fleeting, economic opportunities towomen and ethnic minorities. Most significantly, defense jobs propelled DustBowl migrants from the fields into the state’s blue-collar work force, removing
278 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
the stigma of poverty and outsider status that had dogged them throughout theDepression. Their whiteness, now that jobs were plentiful, became the currencyof acceptance and assimilation, while other newcomers—particularly AfricanAmericans—were branded as undesirable intruders.
Agriculture
Agriculture was one of the first industries to recover from the Great Depres-sion. As domestic and overseas demand increased, labor shortages rather thanlabor strife became the primary concern of the state’s growers. Growers notonly fed an expanding civilian labor force, but also supplied troops stationedin California and abroad, and U.S. allies overseas. Between 1939 and 1945,California agriculture grew from a $623 million industry to one netting$1.75 billion—a level of growth that solidified the state’s position as thenation’s leading agricultural producer and accelerated the trend toward con-solidation and corporate ownership of California’s farmland.
As the military, defense industries, and forced incarceration of JapaneseAmericans siphoned workers out of the fields, growers faced severe laborshortages. Defense jobs, in particular, beckoned workers with wages thatgrowers—despite labor shortages—were unwilling to match. Labor shortagesalso raised the unhappy prospect of unionization; a labor force much indemand could potentially obtain the level of unity and bargaining power thathad eluded agricultural workers during the 1930s. In 1942, at growers’ urging,Congress approved the “bracero program,” a joint agreement between theAmerican and Mexican governments that allowed the importation of Mexicanguest workers into California’s fields. The program, administered by the U.S.Department of Agriculture, and monitored by the Mexican government, wasintended to provide a steady stream of labor during the wartime emergency,while guaranteeing braceros decent housing, transportation, food, health care,a minimum wage, and unemployment compensation in the unlikely event ofwork shortages.
The program held several advantages for growers. Transportation, medical,unemployment, and disability expenses were financed by the federal govern-ment. The growers were responsible for providing decent housing and workingconditions and a minimum wage, but these obligations were easily and repeat-edly circumvented. Braceros, as a temporary, contract labor force, undercut thecollective bargaining power of other field workers and were frequently used tobreak strikes. In essence, growers used the federal subsidy to freeze farm wages,to keep all but the most desperate domestic workers from the fields, and toargue that foreign workers were necessary to meet agricultural labor demands.Long after the war ended, growers successfully defended the program on thegrounds that the supply of domestic workers was not sufficient to meetdemand. Not until 1964 did Congress, bowing to public criticism of thesystem’s abuses, terminate the program.
Economic Expansion 279
Other Industry
The war’s impact reached beyond aircraft, shipbuilding, and agriculture to sev-eral other industries, transforming the state into a powerhouse of heavy indus-try and creating the foundation for a high-tech postwar economy. Steel, muchof it imported from outside the state, was suddenly in huge demand, and BayArea producers expanded production to meet the needs of local shipbuilders.Kaiser, ever the innovator, further reduced dependence on imports by buildinga state-of-the-art blast furnace and rolling mill in Fontana. East of Los Angeles,the Kaiser mill produced more than 700,000 tons of steel per year, increasedthe state’s production capacity by 70 percent, and created a new blue-collarsuburban development to house its work force.
The war also stimulated the growth of the state’s fledgling electronicsindustry. In 1938, Stanford graduate students David Packard and Bill Hewlettbegan producing electronic devices out of a garage behind their Palo Altoboarding house. One of Hewlett’s projects, and the subject of his master’s the-sis, was a variable frequency oscillator. Hewlett’s professor, Fred Terman, wasconvinced of its commercial potential and helped the two men secure fundingto start a business. Walt Disney Studios made the first large purchase, buyingeight oscillators to produce the soundtrack for their full-length animated film,Fantasia.
Their real breakthrough, however, came with World War II. By 1942,Hewlett and Packard employed about 100 workers and grossed around $1 mil-lion in sales of defense-related electronic equipment. More significantly, theypioneered a bottom-up management style that encouraged and rewardedemployee creativity and innovation. After the war, Hewlett Packard becamethe nucleus of Silicon Valley and a model for other high-tech firms around thecountry (see Map 9.1 on the next page).
Across the bay, physicists at the University of California, Berkeley, focusedtheir efforts on developing nuclear weapons. During the 1930s, Ernest O. Lawr-ence created an atom-smashing cyclotron and isolated new radioactive ele-ments and isotopes that soon became integral to weapons production. In1942, the federal government launched the Manhattan Project and contractedwith the university to build atomic weapons. Lawrence’s laboratory at Berkeleywas expanded, and a second lab, at Los Alamos, New Mexico, was placedunder the direction of Lawrence’s Berkeley colleague, J. Robert Oppenheimer.
In 1945, the military dropped atomic bombs produced at Los Alamos onthe Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, concluding the war in thePacific and ushering in the “nuclear age.” The destructive force of the bombskilled and injured hundreds of thousands of civilians, deeply shockingLawrence and Oppenheimer, and raising public concern that technologicalinnovation was outstripping the human capacity to ethically judge its impactor control its application. In the meantime, another Los Alamos physicist,Edward Teller, was pioneering the development of a more powerful nuclear
280 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
Map 9.1 Silicon ValleySilicon Valley is, of course, a state of mind rather than a specific location on a map. This map shows the location of major technology companies and the universities that contributed to the development and growth of such companies, all centered in the southern part of San Francisco Bay.
“Silic
on Va
lley”
by al
ifaan
is lic
ense
d und
er CC
BY-N
C-SA
2.0
Economic Expansion 281
weapon: the hydrogen bomb. At his urging in the early 1950s, the AtomicEnergy Commission established another weapons lab in Livermore, California,ensuring that the state remained in the forefront of nuclear research for dec-ades to come.
Japanese Relocation and Internment
The war brought Californians out of the Depression and stimulated the growthof new industries that ensured economic vitality for years to come; however, italso generated intense fear and hatred of the “enemy” and fueled long-standinganti-Asian prejudice and hostility. Wartime hysteria, primarily directed towardJapanese Americans, quickly evolved into government policy that deeplywounded many of the state’s most loyal citizens.
The Unfolding Tragedy
Immediately following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, newspapers and radiocommentators across the state began scapegoating Japanese Americans. TheLos Angeles Times called California a “zone of danger” and warned: “We havethousands of Japanese here.… Some, perhaps many, are good Americans.What the rest may be we do not know, nor can we take a chance in light ofyesterday’s demonstration that treachery and double-dealing are major Japa-nese weapons.” Such reports, found in virtually every California newspaper,were accompanied by Governor Culbert Olson’s announcement to the pressthat he was considering house arrest of all Japanese Americans “to avoid riotand disturbance.” In the meantime, the federal Department of Justice tookmore decisive action, working with local law enforcement to round up anddetain “dangerous enemy aliens,” including hundreds of Japanese Americanreligious and community leaders. In some cases, authorities failed to notifyrelatives of the whereabouts of detainees for weeks or even months after theirarrest.
Public alarm increased in mid-December, when Secretary of the NavyFrank Knox held a press conference in Los Angeles. Detailing the damage inHawai‘i, Knox deflected criticism of the military’s incompetence and lack ofpreparedness by blaming the “treachery” on the island’s Japanese Americanpopulation. Uninformed and frightened Californians speculated that the WestCoast was equally vulnerable to alien subversion and attack. By the end of themonth, the Justice Department authorized the FBI to randomly search thehomes and businesses of “enemy aliens” for weapons, explosives, radio trans-mitters, cameras, and other so-called contraband. Although the FBI laterreported that none of the seized “contraband” was used for subversive pur-poses, the searches contributed to mounting public suspicion and hysteria.
282 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
By mid-February, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, head of the WesternDefense Command in San Francisco, issued a recommendation to the secretaryof war for the “Evacuation of Japanese and other Subversive Persons from thePacific coast.” After outlining how the “enemy” presence threatened West Coastmilitary installations, DeWitt asserted that all persons of Japanese descent,including American-born citizens, were a menace to security: “The Japaneserace is an enemy race and while many second and third generation Japaneseborn on American soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become‘Americanized,’ the racial strains are undiluted.” Tragically, public, political,and military pressure groups reinforced DeWitt’s personal prejudices.
The press, the general public, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, LosAngeles mayor Fletcher Bowron, Governor Olson, and state Attorney GeneralEarl Warren, all lobbied for Japanese removal. Moreover, the West Coast con-gressional delegation, led by Leland Ford, John Costello, A. J. Elliot, and JackAnderson, applied additional political pressure by issuing a unanimous resolu-tion on February 13 that called for the “immediate evacuation of all persons ofJapanese lineage and all others, aliens and citizens alike, whose presence shallbe deemed dangerous or inimical to the defense of the United States from allstrategic areas.…” DeWitt was also concerned that failure to take action mightresult in his removal from command, a disgrace recently suffered by Hawai‘i’schief officers. Finally, DeWitt’s superiors consistently pressed for the massevacuation of Japanese Americans.
On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed ExecutiveOrder 9066, authorizing the secretary of war to designate military areas fromwhich “any or all persons may be excluded.” Although the order never men-tioned the words “Japanese” or “Japanese Americans,” its executors quicklymoved to apply its provisions selectively. More than 93,000 Japanese Ameri-cans were forced from their homes in California into internment camps. Abouttwo-thirds were American-born citizens, or Nisei. The rest, members of theolder Issei immigrant generation, were “aliens” only in that the law had pre-vented them from becoming citizens. Ironically, Hawai‘i’s large and economi-cally indispensable Japanese American population was not relocated orinterned.
Smaller numbers of German and Italian aliens were forced to relocate awayfrom sensitive military installations and were subjected to special curfews andtravel restriction. Except for those suspected of enemy connections, none wereincarcerated. For an 11-month period from late 1941 to late 1942, the govern-ment also prohibited Italian aliens from leaving port in their fishing boats. Thisall but decimated San Francisco’s fishing industry and led to fish shortages andhigher seafood prices. To be sure, many suffered financial hardship or werewrongly accused of subversive ties, but they were not singled out for intern-ment on a mass scale simply because of their ethnicity. Even on the EastCoast, where enemy attack from Europe was more of a direct threat, Germanand Italian aliens were never subjected to group incarceration.
Japanese Relocation and Internment 283
Prior to the Japanese evacuation, Congress organized a series of hearings toaddress any lingering public concerns over the plan, including its “militarynecessity” and constitutionality. State Attorney General Earl Warren, who hadrecently declared his candidacy for governor, testified that the proposed evacu-ation was “absolutely constitutional,” given the questionable loyalty of theJapanese in California. Warren, in fact, asserted that the American-born Niseiwere more dangerous than their noncitizen Issei parents, and that in wartime“every citizen must give up some of his rights.”
City and county officials came forward with similar testimony, creating anuncomfortable dilemma for Japanese American leaders: disagreement with theproposal could easily be viewed as un-American or evidence of subversion.Agreement, on the other hand, would be seen as evidence of loyalty, but also asan admission that the public’s fears were reasonable. The Nisei-run JapaneseAmerican Citizens League filled the leadership vacuum left when the Depart-ment of Justice arrested and detained older, Issei community leaders in theweeks following Pearl Harbor. Members of the league adopted a nonconfronta-tional posture before the hearings, hoping for lenient treatment in exchange fortheir avowal of loyalty. Others, however, took an opposing stand. James Omura,publisher of a small Japanese American magazine, testified that he was opposedto mass evacuation of American-born citizens. “It is my honest belief that suchan action would not solve the question of Nisei loyalty,” he said.
Omura and other Japanese American dissenters, along with white suppor-ters from organizations such as the Northern California ACLU and the Califor-nia CIO, failed to stop the mass evacuation. Just as disappointing, the U.S.Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality on three separate occasions. In1942, Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, refusedto comply with the evacuation order and was sentenced in federal court to sixmonths in prison. He and his attorneys appealed on the grounds that the order,to be constitutional, had to apply to all citizens, not just to a select group. In1943, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction on the grounds that militarynecessity and the questionable loyalty of persons of Japanese ancestry justifiedthe selective restrictions.
In 1944, the Supreme Court more directly affirmed the constitutionality ofthe exclusion order by upholding the conviction of Fred Korematsu, a youngCalifornian who refused to report for evacuation. His attorneys asked the courtto consider “whether or not a citizen of the United States may, because of hisJapanese ancestry, be confined in barbed-wire stockades euphemistically termedAssembly Centers or Relocation Centers—actually concentration camps.” Themajority opinion maintained that “the gravest imminent danger to the publicsafety” and the questionable loyalty of persons of Japanese ancestry justified theorder “as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it.” In the thirdcase, involving Californian Mitsuye Endo, the court again failed to act, furtherundermining the system of checks and balances designed to protect the rights ofAmericans. All levels of government—local, state, federal, legislative, executive,
284 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
and judicial—abandoned higher moral principles in favor of racist hysteria,undermining the very system that was allegedly threatened by “enemy aliens.” Ittook 40 years for the government to acknowledge its mistake and conclude thatthe exclusion decision was shaped by “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failureof political leadership,” rather than “informed military judgments.”
Relocation and Internment
The evacuation process began in early March of 1942, when LieutenantGeneral DeWitt designated western Washington and Oregon, parts of southernArizona, and all of California as military areas off-limits to persons of Japaneseancestry. His proclamation created a trickle of voluntary migration out of thezone, but most families either lacked the resources to leave or were discouragedby reports of vigilante violence directed at those who had relocated. By the endof March, DeWitt curtailed even this small option by prohibiting all JapaneseAmericans from leaving the zone, and issuing the first forced removal order toresidents of Bainbridge Island near Seattle. Other removal orders soon fol-lowed, giving families only a few days to pack their belongings, vacate theirhomes, and report to a central receiving station for transport to an assemblycenter. With an average of six days’ notice, and allowed to bring only personalbelongings they could carry, families were forced to make major economic andpersonal decisions under severe time pressure.
This is a view of the desert and camp at Manzanar, east of the Sierra Nevadas. How didthe geographic location and physical design of camps like Manzanar shape the dailylives of internees?
“July
3, 19
42, M
anza
nar,
CA” b
y Dor
othea
Lang
e is l
icens
ed un
der C
C BY-N
C 2.0
Japanese Relocation and Internment 285
The list was endless. Homes and businesses had to be rented, sold, orentrusted to sympathetic friends, neighbors, church groups, and governmentagencies. Lovingly tended gardens and pets needed new caregivers. Children,infants, the aged, and the ill had to be reassured and prepared for the largelyunknown physical and emotional challenges ahead. Possessions accumulatedover many years, including family heirlooms, furniture, appliances, automo-biles, artwork, clothing, pianos, books, bicycles, and toys, had to be placed instorage or sold at a loss to “human vultures” willing to take advantage of theirneighbors’ misfortune. All of this and more needed to be accomplished in thecontext of uncertainty; no one knew how long the war would last, or whetherthey would ever be allowed to return to their homes. Families also sufferedserious financial loss, estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars forproperty alone. Added to this were the lost wages and earning power of theperiod in exile.
While the newly created War Relocation Authority (WRA) constructedpermanent camps in remote inland locations, the army converted racetracks,livestock exhibition halls, and fairgrounds into temporary assembly centers.Evacuees—exhausted, frightened, and humiliated by their recent ordeal—nowfaced a new challenge: living for one to six months in crowded, unsanitary bar-racks or renovated horse stalls. At racetracks like Santa Anita and Tanforan,each family occupied either a 20 � 9-foot or a 20 � 18-foot stall that wasonly partially partitioned off from neighboring units. A thin veneer of linoleumdid little to mask the odor of manure and urine-soaked floorboards, and horse-hair, hay, and other debris had been hastily whitewashed into the walls. Latrinesand shower facilities, located outside of the barracks and lacking doors or parti-tions, afforded little privacy and violated the women’s sense of modesty. Diar-rhea, caused by unsanitary conditions and poor-quality food, afflicted nearlyeveryone and compounded their embarrassment. Laundry, which had to bedone by hand with a limited supply of hot water, created an additional hardshipfor women, particularly those with babies and small children.
Between June and November of 1942, the army moved evacuees toguarded camps outside of the West Coast military zone. These camps, euphe-mistically called “relocation” or “resettlement” centers, were located onremote, desolate sites that were swelteringly hot in the summer and bitterlycold in the winter. Only two camps, built on Arkansas swampland, were notsited in the desert. Barracks containing six one-room units were flimsily con-structed of pine and covered with single-thickness tar paper. Wind and dustconstantly swirled in through the cracks and holes in walls and floor boards,making it impossible to keep the barracks warm and clean. Small familiescrowded into single 20 � 16-foot units, while larger families of up to sevenpersons were assigned 20 � 25-foot rooms. Each unit was furnished with asingle bare light bulb, an army cot for each occupant, and an oil or woodstove. Latrines, showers, and mess halls were depressingly similar to those inthe assembly centers.
286 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
Evacuees struggled to create a sense of normalcy in an inhospitable envi-ronment by improving their bleak dwellings, planting gardens, and organizing schools, clubs, athletic teams, and cultural events. Their hardships, however, were innumerable. White camp administrators and staff were notoriously unre-sponsive to the concerns of inmates. As a consequence, schools were under-staffed, poorly equipped, and uneven in quality. Camp kitchens were poorly provisioned and frequently pilfered by white staff. Diets were starch-laden, until evacuees took the initiative to raise vegetables and livestock.
Women, while relieved of some of their domestic responsibilities by com-munal living, continually struggled to keep dwellings clean, preserve domestic harmony in cramped quarters, and care for the young, sick, and aged under crude conditions. Poor medical facilities compounded their burden. Obstetric and gynecological care was woefully inadequate, and many women suffered complications during pregnancy and delivery. Despite crowded, unsanitary liv-ing conditions and constant exposure to cold weather, vaccines were in short supply or simply unavailable, as were very basic medical supplies like sutures, lab testing equipment, and sterile infant formula.
Men, normally breadwinners and authority figures, felt their status diminish within their families. Everyone—husbands, wives, sons, and daughters—earned
Volly
ball [
i.e. V
olley
ball]
, Man
zana
r Relo
catio
n Cen
ter, C
alif. B
y Ans
el Ad
ams i
s in t
he pu
blic d
omain
, no k
nown
re
strict
ions
Japanese Relocation and Internment 287
Shown here is a volleyball game at Manzanar. Compare this photograph to the one on page 285, and reflect on the ways that internees attempted to humanize camp life.
the same low wages for working at various jobs within the camps. And children,spending more time with their peer group in a communal setting, circumventedparental guidance and authority. The loss of jobs and businesses compoundedmen’s pain and humiliation and led to a high incidence of ulcers, depression,and other stress-related illness among male evacuees.
Nisei teenagers enjoyed greater independence from their more traditionalparents, but faced uncertain futures at a time when family stability and supportwas being undermined. Ties between the generations grew more tenuous whenthe WRA began to issue leave permits to Nisei who found sponsors outside ofthe military zone. Beginning in the fall of 1942, the American Friends ServiceCommittee and other church groups helped about 250 young people resumetheir studies at colleges and universities outside of California. Thousands ofother Nisei received permits to take jobs in urban centers like Denver, Chicago,and Salt Lake City; however, most remained in regular contact with their par-ents, sent money back to the camps, and returned to their families followingthe internment ordeal.
Nisei received another, more controversial, opportunity to leave in Januaryof 1943, when the War Department announced its intention to enlist recruitsfrom the camps. This decision, coupled with the WRA’s desire to relieve pres-sure in the camps by issuing more leave permits, led the army to prepare andadminister a loyalty questionnaire to all inmates over the age of 17. Issei andNisei, who had demonstrated their loyalty by complying with internmentorders, were now asked to “swear unqualified allegiance to the United Statesof America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack byforeign or domestic sources, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedienceto the Japanese emperor or any other foreign government, power, ororganization.” The Issei, who had been denied citizenship, were particularlydistressed by the oath. A “no” answer on their part was an admission of disloy-alty, while a “yes” could be interpreted as an admission of prior allegiance tothe “enemy.” Nisei, on the other hand, risked emotional and physical separa-tion from their families if they chose to answer differently from their parents.
Eventually the questionnaire was reworded, and a majority of both Isseiand Nisei answered in the affirmative. Subsequently, thousands of young menserved in the segregated 442nd Regimental Combat Team, suffering almost10,000 casualties, including some 600 deaths, in seven major Italian and Frenchcampaigns. As they fell in battle, and earned the distinction of belonging to themost decorated regiment in army history, their friends and relatives remainedbehind barbed wire. While the men of the 442nd pondered this contradiction,the army continued to insist that “military necessity” justified internment onthe home front.
When camps were closed at the end of the war, most evacuees graduallyreturned to the West Coast. Their ordeal, however, was far from over. ManyIssei, financially and emotionally broken by the internment experience, weretoo old to start over and had to rely on their children for support. The Nisei,
288 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
who before the war had struggled to blend in with their peers by being modelstudents and Americans, continued to be perceived as aliens on their nativesoil. Business owners posted signs announcing “No Japs Allowed” and refusedto sell goods and services to returnees. Property owners refused to rent or sellto Japanese Americans, and evacuees who returned to their own homes andbusinesses often found them stripped or damaged by looters, vandals, or care-less tenants. Employment discrimination was widespread, forcing many Niseifamilies to rely on more than one breadwinner, settle for menial jobs, or startbusinesses that required little initial capital, like gardening. Returnees also facedracial violence, often condoned and encouraged by civic leaders and lawenforcement. In the first six months of 1945, 70 acts of terrorism and 19 shoot-ings occurred in California alone. Angry whites in Placer County, for example,fired shots into the home and dynamited the packing shed of a returning Japa-nese American family. The perpetrators were caught and brought to trial, but alocal, all-white jury voted for acquittal.
The violence gradually subsided, but former internees continued to livewith deep emotional scars from their ordeal. After years of intense organizingand lobbying by Japanese American activists, organizations, and political lea-ders, camp survivors obtained a small measure of redress. The Civil LibertiesAct of 1988 mandated that each former internee receive $20,000, and that thegovernment issue a formal apology for the mass exclusion and detention ofJapanese Americans. Representative Robert Matsui, a California Democratwho had been active in the redress movement from its inception in 1970, char-acterized the victory as “a reaffirmation of the values this country was builton.” Though redress could never compensate for the financial and emotionalcost of internment, it began, for many, the slow and still-unfinished processof healing.
Population Growth and Diversity
World War II created opportunities as well as challenges for other Californians.Between 1940 and 1944, the defense industry boom attracted more than1.5 million newcomers, making California the fastest-growing state in thenation. Such growth was unprecedented, dwarfing even the Depression-eramigration and continuing well into the postwar years. San Diego’s population,for example, grew by 110.5 percent between 1940 and 1947. Los Angeles grewby 17.8 percent, and the San Francisco Bay area by nearly 40 percent. Rapidgrowth, concentrated around aircraft and shipbuilding facilities and militaryinstallations, placed heavy strains on surrounding communities. Richmond,home to the massive Kaiser shipyards, grew from 23,642 residents in 1940 tomore than 93,738 by 1943—a 296.5 percent increase. And like other Californiaboomtowns, Richmond experienced growing pains. Housing, with so many
Population Growth and Diversity 289
new arrivals, was in short supply, forcing many newcomers to live in trailers,tents, makeshift shanties, or share small units with two or more families. Manyof these dwellings, hastily constructed from salvaged materials or subdivided byunscrupulous landlords, lacked basic services like running water, heating, cook-ing facilities, and electricity. The resulting threat to public health and safetyprompted federal authorities to finance temporary war housing developmentsin Richmond and other defense centers across the state. By the end of the war,Richmond’s public housing program, the largest in the nation, sheltered morethan half of the city’s residents in prefabricated, multiunit developments.
Although still overcrowded, and often racially segregated, public warhousing offered several benefits to residents. Most projects were located neardefense jobs and public transportation lines. Common laundry and recreationfacilities brought newcomers together and fostered friendships, resource shar-ing, and the growth of permanent community institutions. The projects alsoprovided modern, though modest, amenities that earlier makeshift accommo-dations frequently lacked. War housing, however, did little to alleviate thestrain on municipal services, especially schools. Between 1940 and 1943,Richmond’s student body grew from 3000 to 35,000, forcing elementaryschools to conduct multiple sessions and pack an average of 75 pupils intoeach class. Parks, buses, trains, markets, theaters, and restaurants wereequally overcrowded and increasingly “frowzy” from excessive use. Wartimeshortages and rationing of essential goods such as gasoline, meat, sugar, andbutter added to the overall perception that too many people were crowdinginto the area.
Established residents, alarmed over deteriorating infrastructure inRichmond and other defense centers, blamed newcomers for “ruining”their cities. Migrants, according to popular stereotypes, were either illiterate,lazy “poor white trash,” or ignorant, uncouth “Southern Negroes.” Bothgroups were regarded as morally deficient, criminally inclined, and a threatto public decency. In reality, though, most newcomers came with the skills,education, and work ethic to succeed in an urban, industrial environment.In Richmond and other defense centers, such stereotypes led to municipallaw enforcement and moral reform campaigns designed to regulate migrantbehavior and access to public space. Tougher anti-vice ordinances andpolice sweeps of “trouble zones,” which not surprisingly netted both estab-lished residents and newcomers, did little to address the underlying problemof overtaxed, decaying urban infrastructure—a problem that would persistand deepen during the postwar years.
Black Migration
White newcomers gradually gained acceptance as permanent residents, but alarge percentage of the established population continued to view black migrantsas guest workers who could not be assimilated. Local residents, including many
290 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
civic leaders, hoped that black migrants would leave California at the end ofthe war. African Americans, however, came to the state for more than thejobs associated with the booming defense economy. The Wallers and thousandsof other black migrants from Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, andOklahoma sought freedom from the racial violence and discrimination thatcruelly dampened their dreams and expectations in the South. Seeking a betterlife for themselves and their families, most came to California to stay. Between1940 and 1950, the state’s African American population grew from 124,306 to462,172, with most of the increase concentrated in the defense centers of LosAngeles, Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco. In the Bay Area alone, theblack population increased 227 percent, from 19,759 in 1940 to 64,680 in1945. Some communities, with small prewar black populations, saw evenmore spectacular levels of growth. Richmond’s black population, for example,grew from 270 in 1940 to more than 10,000 by 1945.
The migration began slowly, but took off after Roosevelt signed ExecutiveOrder 8802 in 1941, banning racial discrimination by federal defense contrac-tors. Word of employment opportunities traveled quickly, spread by laborrecruiters, word of mouth, and black railroad workers whose jobs took themacross the country. The first wave of newcomers, once settled in jobs and hous-ing, encouraged friends and relatives to join them, creating a great chain ofmigration that continued even after the war ended. Most wartime migrantswere young, and contrary to white stereotypes, relatively skilled and well edu-cated. Moreover, they came with high expectations and a long history of bat-tling racial discrimination in the South. Once in California, they joined orformed civil rights organizations, registered to vote, and established churches,fraternal orders, social clubs, and other mutual aid associations.
The determination of the black newcomers to challenge racial barriers andtransplant their own cultural institutions alarmed established residents. Whites,who regarded the influx as an “invasion,” deeply resented the migrants’ senseof entitlement and willingness to violate existing racial boundaries. Establishedblack residents, vastly outnumbered by migrants, feared that hostile whiteswould reverse what little racial progress had been made, and lump all AfricanAmericans together as unwelcome outsiders. California, while not the JimCrow South, had serious racial problems of its own. Housing discrimination,enforced by restrictive covenants that prohibited property owners from rentingor selling to ethnic minorities, confined prewar black residents to specificneighborhoods. Racially biased real estate agents also reinforced residential seg-regation by steering black clients away from white neighborhoods. Whenmigrants arrived, they were forced into these existing black communities, plac-ing severe strain on already overcrowded, older housing stock. Others securedhousing in neighborhoods vacated by Japanese Americans, creating new blackenclaves in San Francisco’s Fillmore District and Los Angeles’s “Little Tokyo.”In Richmond and Vallejo, both without distinct prewar black communities,migrants settled in segregated war housing projects or on vacant land on the
Population Growth and Diversity 291
outskirts of town. In any case, housing discrimination limited their options andset the stage for the emergence of California’s postwar urban ghettos.
Despite Roosevelt’s executive order, newcomers also encountered wide-spread job discrimination. Many employers, including large defense contrac-tors, simply ignored the law and refused to hire African Americans. WhenBoeing, Consolidated Vultee, and North American Aviation faced wartimelabor shortages, they recruited white women to fill skilled and semiskilled air-craft jobs, rather than integrate their work force. Other employers hired blackworkers, but channeled them into less skilled, menial, or more strenuoustrades. Unions, which controlled access to better-paying, highly skilled defensejobs through closed-shop agreements, also created barriers to equal employ-ment. The Boilermakers and the International Association of Machinists, thetwo largest aviation and shipbuilding unions and both AFL affiliates, forcedblack workers into segregated auxiliaries where they had little voice in unionaffairs, or excluded them from membership altogether. As a consequence,black workers filled the lowest rungs of the occupational ladder, rarely heldsupervisory positions, and were among the last hired and first fired.
To make matters worse, white coworkers and supervisors subjected blacknewcomers to verbal abuse, physical violence, and intimidation. Instead ofintervening, unions and employers often justified their own discriminatory pol-icies as necessary to preserve racial harmony. Black workers had few places toturn for support. Even the Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC), cre-ated by Executive Order 8802 to monitor and curb job discrimination, was tooswamped with complaints to handle all of them adequately.
One of the most egregious cases of discrimination, occurring entirely out-side of the FEPC’s jurisdiction, involved black sailors stationed at Port Chicago,a munitions depot near Concord, California. Their ordeal, which underscoredthe contradiction between fighting a war for democracy and pervasive discrim-ination on the home front, compounded the sense of betrayal felt by otherblack workers. On July 17, 1944, 320 men were killed by a massive explosionwhile loading munitions aboard two naval vessels. Of the dead, 200 were blacksailors who served in segregated units under the command of white officers.
The survivors, reassigned to Mare Island Naval Depot after the blastdestroyed the Port Chicago facility, refused to resume loading ammunition, cit-ing inadequate training and dangerous working conditions. Charged withmutiny, all 50 black defendants were found guilty, sentenced to 15 years inprison, and dishonorably discharged. During their 23-day trial, the men testi-fied that their commanding officers held and placed bets on munitions loadingcontests between crews, punished losing teams, and created a racially hostileworking environment. In 1946, with help from the NAACP, most of the sailorsreturned to active duty with suspended sentences, but they were dischargedfrom the service “under conditions less than honorable,” and thus deprived ofveterans’ benefits; however, Thurgood Marshall, the lead NAACP attorney onthe case, linked the tragedy to the wider issue of segregation in the armed
292 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
forces. As a consequence, the disaster helped generate public and governmentsupport for integration of the military. In 1994, the surviving mutineers won arehearing of their case, but the navy upheld its original decision. In 1999,President Clinton pardoned one of the few remaining survivors, promptingan ongoing campaign for a presidential proclamation that would exonerateall others.
Finally, black servicemen, migrants, and established residents faced dis-crimination in public accommodations—discrimination that grew worse duringthe war years, as whites struggled to maintain and strengthen preexisting racialboundaries. The Oakland Observer, helping to draw the battle lines, commen-ted that “now we see Negroes all over the place,” and accused African Amer-icans of “butting into white civilization instead of keeping in the perfectlyorderly and convenient Negro civilization of Oakland.” Businesses posted“White Trade Only” signs in shop and restaurant windows, or simply refusedto serve black customers. Other businesses instituted various forms of segrega-tion. Ice rinks and nightclubs reserved certain days or hours for white patrons.Bowling alleys prohibited mixed teams and separated lanes by race. Even blackservicemen, enlisted in the war for democracy, faced a hostile reception andwere forced to seek recreation at segregated USOs.
Armed with the pro-democracy rhetoric of the war, black Californiansfought back. Defense workers took collective action against union andemployer discrimination by creating organizations such as the San FranciscoCommittee Against Segregation and Discrimination and the East Bay ShipyardWorkers’ Committee. Their effort paid off in 1945, when the state supremecourt banned the practice of forcing African Americans into separate JimCrow auxiliaries as a condition of employment.
Black newcomers swelled the membership of existing NAACP chaptersand established new branches in cities like Richmond. They reinvigoratedlocal and state-level campaigns against discrimination in housing, employment,and public accommodations. Newcomers also joined with established civilrights leaders and CIO-affiliated union activists to register voters and run pro-gressive candidates for office. These new “voter leagues” and enlivened NAACPchapters would create the foundation for several major postwar victories: fairemployment and housing legislation, a ban on restrictive covenants, and theelection of black representatives to state and local office.
Black migrants also asserted their right to remain in California by puttingdown cultural roots. Instead of turning away from their southern heritage, theyused it to build a positive sense of identity in their largely hostile surroundings.In their homes, churches, social organizations, and mutual aid associations,migrants cultivated their own religious practices, dietary preferences, speechpatterns, folklore and crafts, music, and tradition of hospitality, self-help, andreciprocity. Migrants, for example, established hundreds of new churches thatreflected and reinforced their black, southern religious beliefs. In some cases,clusters of migrants from the same southern town or region even encouraged
Population Growth and Diversity 293
their ministers to join them in California. Newcomers from the same southerntown or city also formed social and mutual aid organizations based on sharedgeographical ties. In the San Francisco East Bay, for example, migrants fromVicksburg, Mississippi, created a mutual aid and social organization that stillprovides services for its members. In the process of putting down culturalroots, migrants did more than assert their status as permanent residents.Their gospel and blues music, Creole and soul foods, figures of speech, folklore,modes of worship and recreation, and even celebrations like Juneteenth trans-formed and enlivened the state’s richly textured, ever-changing culturallandscape.
New Challenges and Opportunities
Mexican Americans, long regarded as outsiders who needed to be American-ized through assimilation campaigns, saw the war as an opportunity to provetheir loyalty, assert their rights as full-fledged citizens, and uphold their owncultural institutions. In California, more than 375,000 Latinos joined the mili-tary, choosing the more dangerous Paratroopers and Marine Corps over lessrisk-intensive branches of the service. Mexican Americans in Los Angeles, forexample, made up 10 percent of the city’s population, but accounted for 20percent of its total casualties. Patriotism was also evident on the home front.War ballads, composed in Spanish or translated from English, could be heardin every barrio or colonia. The Spanish-language press, including newspaperslike San Gabriel Valley’s El Espectador, Los Angeles’s La Opinión, and El Solde San Bernardino, not only highlighted Latino contributions to the war effort,but mobilized democratic rhetoric to protest segregation and discrimination intheir communities.
Relatives of Latino servicemen, including many who had been locked intolow-wage agricultural jobs, found new employment opportunities in the state’sdefense centers—particularly in southern California. For the first time, largenumbers of men moved into relatively high-paying, semiskilled or skilledindustrial jobs. Women also found employment in the defense industry andin the expanding clerical sector. As young men joined the service, and theirfamilies moved to urban centers for defense jobs, the state’s growers lobbiedfor the importation of Mexican workers to relieve agricultural labor shortages.The resulting “bracero program” led to a decline in wages and working condi-tions for domestic workers, and encouraged additional migration out of ruralareas well into the postwar years.
Wartime population growth and heightened competition for scarceresources fueled white hostility against perceived outsiders. Mexican Ameri-cans, like African Americans, became targets of this intensified animosity andencountered widespread discrimination in housing, employment, and publicaccommodations. Southern California’s cities, which received the bulk of therural Mexican American migrants, were the worst offenders. Newcomers,
294 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
forced into existing barrios, placed strain on already overcrowded and substan-dard housing and recreation facilities. Their children, even if they lived closer to a white school, were segregated into crowded, poorly equipped “Mexican” schools. Downtown businesses posted “White Trade Only” signs, or in the case of movie theaters, forced Latino patrons into segregated sections. Even public swimming pools operated on a segregated basis, setting aside one or two days a week for nonwhite users.
Two incidents, in particular, illustrate wartime racial prejudice against Mexican Americans: the Sleepy Lagoon case of 1942, and the 1943 Zoot Suit Riots. In August 1942, the Los Angeles police arrested 22 members of a Mexican American youth “gang” called the 38th Street Club for murder. The victim, Jose Diaz, had attended a party near an abandoned, water-filled quarry called Sleepy Lagoon—a swimming hole used by Latino youth who were excluded from public pools. Some club members crashed the party, and fight-ing broke out. The police reported that Diaz was killed during this altercation, but his body, found the following morning on a dirt road near the house, showed no signs of injury. A hit-and-run driver could have killed him. Despite the lack of evidence and witnesses, an all-white jury convicted 17 of the defen-dants on charges ranging from assault to first-degree murder.
“Zoot
Suite
rs lin
ed up
outsi
de Lo
s Ang
eles j
ail en
route
to co
urt a
fter f
eud w
ith sa
ilors”
by AC
ME N
ewsp
ictur
es In
c. Ne
w Yo
rk W
orld-
Teleg
ram
and t
he Su
n New
spap
er Ph
otogra
ph Co
llecti
on (L
ibrar
y of C
ongre
ss) is
licen
sed u
nder
CCO
(pub
lic D
omain
)
Population Growth and Diversity 295
This is a scene of Mexican American zoot suiters who were arrested after young sailors stationed at Los Angeles area bases engaged in unprovoked attacks against them. What does this image reveal about wartime race relations and the justice system?
Police Captain Ed Duran Ayers, whose “expert” opinion was widely cir-culated by the press, maintained that Mexican Americans had an inborn dis-regard for human life, and an innate desire to use knives and let blood.According to Ayers, they could not change their inborn lust for violence,and would regard lenience as a sign of weakness. Thus, he recommendedthat all gang members, not just those who belonged to the 38th Street Club,be imprisoned, and that all Latino youth either find jobs or enlist in the mili-tary. The defendants did obtain some outside support, especially from theSleepy Lagoon Defense Committee, which was chaired by noted journalistCarey McWilliams. Its membership included progressive labor leaders, Mexi-can American activists, and film stars such as Rita Hayworth and AnthonyQuinn. The committee helped the defendants secure a new trial. On October4, 1944, the Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned theconvictions, ruling that the trial had been conducted in a biased fashion, thedefendants’ constitutional rights had been violated, and no evidence linkedclub members to the murder.
Before the case was closed, distorted and inflammatory coverage of the trialfueled anti-Latino prejudice and violence across the state. Throughout thespring of 1943, from San Diego to Oakland, white servicemen invaded MexicanAmerican neighborhoods in search of “hoodlums.” Young Latinos, who hadadopted a distinctive style of dress called the zoot suit as an expression of cul-tural pride, were frequent targets. And the police, rather than restraining themarauding servicemen, arrested the victims for disturbing the peace. The“riots” reached a climax in early June, when sailors went on a seven-night ram-page through the streets of Los Angeles in search of zoot suiters. Police refusedto arrest the perpetrators, who by this time were attacking African Americansand Filipinos as well as Latinos. The press also encouraged the assaults, char-acterizing the sailors as solid citizens who acted in self-defense or took much-needed initiative against social undesirables.
The riots ended when military authorities, not the police, declared down-town Los Angeles off limits to servicemen. When federal officials, includingEleanor Roosevelt, expressed concern that the violence had been racially moti-vated, the Los Angeles Times came to the city’s defense, claiming that Angele-nos were proud of their colorful Mexican heritage and that “we like theMexicans and think they like us.” An investigative committee, formed byGovernor Earl Warren, however, called for punishment of the perpetrators, abetter-educated and better-trained police force, and greater restraint on thepart of the press. But these recommendations were virtually ignored, andpolice harassment, in particular, remained a serious problem within MexicanAmerican communities.
Latinos, like African Americans, fought back, using the pro-democracyrhetoric of the war to attack racial discrimination on the home front. A larger,more stable urban population base enlarged the membership of establishedorganizations like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC),
296 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
and led to the formation of new civil rights groups like the Unity Leagues,founded by returning veterans. These organizations registered voters, ranMexican American candidates for political office, and spearheaded legal cam-paigns against school segregation, housing and employment discrimination,and police brutality.
In 1946, for example, LULAC supported a class action suit against severalOrange County school districts, charging that their policy of segregatingMexican students violated the Fourteenth Amendment. One year later, theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, setting a precedent forthe historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling thatordered schools across the nation to implement integration plans. At thesame time, Unity Leagues in Chino and Ontario were registering voters andrunning Latino candidates for office. In Chino, Andres Morales won electionto the city council, and the Ontario candidate lost by only a small margin. ElEspectador, the region’s Mexican American newspaper, proudly announced:“For the first time in the history of these communities, candidates of Mexicandescent are competing for public office.” These small campaigns would laterinspire more serious electoral challenges like Edward Roybal’s successful 1949bid for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council.
These organizations and an expanding Mexican American press and radionetwork also served to transmit and preserve distinct cultural traditions. Latinmusic, novellas, films, sports, and social clubs created a strong sense of ethnicidentity among barrio residents, and added to the growing complexity andrichness of California culture. Like African American and white migrants,whose music, foods, humor, and other cultural belongings seeped into thebroader social landscape during the war, Mexican Americans exerted a growingcultural influence on their non-Hispanic neighbors. Increasingly, assimilationwas not a one-way process.
World War II was also a watershed for California’s Chinese Americanpopulation. Viewed as allies, rather than enemy aliens, women and menmoved from low-wage, menial jobs into industrial, clerical, professional, andcivil service occupations. Both aircraft plants and shipyards welcomed ChineseAmericans. By 1943, for example, they held 15 percent of all shipyard jobs inthe Bay Area. The Mariner, a Bay Area shipyard publication, foreshadowed theemergence of the model minority stereotype by extolling the virtues of ChineseAmerican defense workers: “We have learned that these Chinese Americans areamong the finest workmen. They are skillful, reliable—and inspired with adouble allegiance. They know that every blow they strike in building theseships is a blow of freedom for the land of their fathers as well as for the landof their homes.”
Chinese Americans, like Latinos, viewed military service as a way to estab-lish their patriotism and loyalty, and they enlisted in large numbers. They werealso more likely to be drafted than any other ethnic group. Exclusion acts hadcreated a predominantly male population with few dependents, and thus with
Population Growth and Diversity 297
one less exemption from military service. Those on the home front supportedthe troops by participating in War Bond, Red Cross, and Chinese War Reliefdrives. Organizations like San Francisco’s benevolent societies raised thousandsof dollars for the war effort, while women’s groups rolled bandages, hostedfundraising cultural events, and staffed servicemen’s clubs.
Their dedicated war service gave Chinese Americans the moral ammuni-tion to lobby against discriminatory exclusion laws. Congress responded in1943 by repealing exclusion acts and establishing a new annual quota forChinese immigrants. The law also allowed resident aliens and newcomers toapply for citizenship, a right long denied under the Naturalization Law of1790. After the war, new legislation, including the War Brides Act, allowedChinese wives to join their husbands without being counted under the annualquota. Slowly, the male to female ratio balanced out, and California’s ChineseAmerican communities became more family centered.
The state’s disproportionately male Filipino population also reaped benefitsfrom the war. Prior to 1934, Filipinos were classified as “American nationals”and allowed unrestricted entry into the United States. Most who came settledin California and took jobs in agriculture or domestic service, hoping to work afew years and return home with their savings. The majority were young andmale. In 1930, the male to female ratio in California was 14 to one. TheDepression intensified economic competition between white and Filipino work-ers and fueled anti-immigrant prejudice and violence. Congress responded in1934 by reclassifying all resident Filipinos as “aliens” and restricting immigra-tion to 50 persons annually. The same year, the Supreme Court ruled thatFilipinos, as non-whites, were ineligible for citizenship.
Men who returned to the Philippines to visit family or marry then fellunder the new quota on attempting reentry, and essentially forfeited their live-lihoods. Those who remained in the United States had neither the rights ofcitizens nor the support of family. California law prohibited racial intermar-riage, and the new immigration restrictions prevented wives and childrenfrom joining their husbands. Working in California’s fields or as “houseboys”in private homes, most Filipinos had little chance of escaping poverty. Labeledas “Malays,” “monkeys,” and “goo-goos,” they also faced discrimination inhousing, employment, and public accommodations.
World War II created an abrupt change in status. In 1942, when Rooseveltamended the draft law to include Filipinos, 40 percent of the state’s Filipinopopulation volunteered for military service. As members of the armed forces,they became eligible for citizenship. Moreover, their distinguished war recordin the Pacific prompted Congress to extend citizenship to all Filipinos in theUnited States, and to liberalize immigration laws. Additionally, the War BridesAct allowed Filipino veterans to bring their wives to the United States, includ-ing many who had endured 10 or more years of separation. The war also gen-erated new economic opportunities, allowing Filipinos to move out ofagricultural and domestic service occupations into industrial, clerical, and
298 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
technical jobs. For many, these gains would be temporary, but overall the warcreated an upward trend in occupational mobility.
During the war, hundreds of American Indians migrated to Californiafor defense jobs. Others, enlisting in the armed forces, were trained orstationed in the state, including a specialized group of Camp Pendletonmarines that developed a secret military code based on Navajo. After thewar, many of these newcomers opted for permanent residency. At thesame time, large numbers of California Indians left reservations and ruralcommunities for military and civilian jobs. As a result, the state’s Indianpopulation not only increased, it became more urban and culturally diverse.The Sherman Institute, a federal boarding school in Riverside, helpedadvance this trend. Recruiting students from reservations across the stateand nation, and coordinating its industrial training program with theneeds of regional defense contractors, Sherman channeled a steady streamof young, well-trained workers into the military and civilian labor force.Coming from rural areas and possessing multiple tribal affiliations,Indians—like African American migrants—came together to forge newidentities, communities, and mutual aid associations. During the postwarperiod, as the federal government adopted a policy of termination and relo-cation, thousands of additional newcomers would join them in claimingCalifornia’s urban centers as Indian Country.
Shifting Gender Relations
Wartime labor shortages allowed single, poor, and working-class women toexchange gender-specific service and clerical jobs for higher-paying, tradition-ally male occupations. Middle-class wives and mothers, previously discouragedfrom working outside the home, took over production jobs formerly reservedfor their husbands. Newspapers, films, magazines, radio, posters, and billboardsall glamorized “The Woman Behind the Man Behind the Gun” and “The JanesWho Make the Planes.” The Department of Labor and War Production Boardproclaimed that women could easily master industrial and technical skills—skills once characterized as too complex and physically demanding for all butthe most highly trained male workers.
Women readily responded to the call, filling roughly 25 percent of all ship-yard and 40 percent of all aircraft production jobs. Thousands of othersworked in the iron and steel industry, machine shops, food-processing plants,munitions factories, warehouses, and military supply depots. Many of thesejobs required specialized training, provided either on-site or at publicvocational schools. Women often took advantage of these courses beyondentry-level training in order to move into more highly skilled, better-payingpositions, or to enhance their postwar employment prospects.
Despite their competence, women met with a mixed reception in the work-place. Employers reserved supervisory and better-paying jobs for men, or
Population Growth and Diversity 299
reclassified positions and pay scales according to the worker’s gender. Maleworkers often viewed women as unwelcome competitors, or subjected them tosexual harassment. More conservative unions, like the Boilermakers, blamedwomen for the erosion of skilled trades—a process that actually grew out ofKaiser’s pioneering application of mass production and prefabrication techni-ques to shipbuilding and other large-scale production projects. Other unions,particularly those affiliated with the CIO, were less overtly hostile. They argued,often successfully, that women should earn men’s wages for doing men’s jobs,fearing that employers would resist returning to higher pay scales when maleworkers reclaimed their jobs at the end of the war. Thus, their primary concernwas to protect men’s jobs, rather than the female workers. Black women, bur-dened with both gender and racial discrimination, fared even worse. Sadly, thehostility of white female coworkers helped ensure that they would be the lasthired and the first fired.
Women’s increased labor force participation did little to alter traditionalgender roles. As “temporary” workers, filling in during a national emergency,women were expected to retain their femininity and primary commitment tohome and family. More than half of California’s working women were married,forcing many to juggle both workplace demands and domestic responsibilities.This “double burden,” largely ignored by employers, was aggravated by war-time food and housing shortages. Migrant women, who had to cook, clean,and do laundry in crowded, poorly equipped surroundings, found domesticduties particularly time consuming.
Shown here is a female defense worker. Why were women allowed to join the industrial labor force during World War II? If you entered the same workplace five years later, would you expect to see similar images? If not, where would you find women workers?
“Fem
ale la
the op
erato
r mac
hining
parts
for t
rans
port
plane
s, 19
42” b
y pen
nstat
enew
s is l
icens
ed un
der
CC BY
-NC 2
.0
300 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
Child care was a major concern. Some employers and public agencies,alarmed over high rates of female absenteeism and the growing number oflatchkey children, stepped in to help; however, demand exceeded supply, andmost women were forced to turn to friends and relatives for support. In LosAngeles, for example, the board of education had established 21 day care cen-ters, serving 2,000 children by 1943. By this point, more than 101,000 womenworked in aircraft plants alone, and the existing facilities served only a fractionof their 19,000 children.
As the war ended, women were barraged with propaganda that urgedthem to voluntarily leave their jobs and return to the home; however,surveys conducted near the end of the war revealed that 80 percent ofemployed women wished to keep working, most out of economic necessity.Their preferences and needs were largely ignored. As early as 1944, defenseindustries began to lay off women. Those who needed to work returned tolow-wage factory, service, retail, and clerical jobs that offered few opportu-nities for economic or professional advancement. Other women, willingly orreluctantly, returned to the domestic sphere and helped launch the postwarbaby boom.
World War II had a less ambiguous impact on California’s gay and lesbianpopulation. Thousands of young men and women from small towns and citiesacross the United States came to California’s defense centers for jobs and mili-tary duty. In sex-segregated rooming houses and military barracks, those whowere gay readily discovered others like themselves. Men and women who wereless certain of their sexual orientation found the freedom to explore same-sexrelationships.
Prewar gay communities, relatively small and unstable, benefited from thewartime influx of newcomers. In San Francisco and Los Angeles, gay-ownedbusinesses catered to an expanding clientele. In smaller cities, like San José,gay bars and nightclubs opened for the first time. Gradually, after years of iso-lation and invisibility, gays and lesbians began to forge a cohesive urban sub-culture, one that assumed a greater degree of permanence and stability ashundreds of newcomers decided to stay following the end of the war. Havingexperienced new sexual freedom and a sense of community, many simply couldnot go back to their small, insular hometowns.
This emerging subculture soon generated organizations dedicated to com-bating discrimination against lesbians and gays. The Mattachine Society andOne Inc. were established in Los Angeles in 1951 and 1953, respectively, andpatterned themselves after civil rights organizations like the NAACP. In 1955,two San Francisco lesbians formed the Daughters of Bilitis after hearing aboutthe Mattachine Society’s activities. This organization, soon generating newchapters across the country, pledged to improve the public image and self-image of lesbians. Together, these and other gay and lesbian organizationswould create the foundation for the much larger, more militant, gay liberationmovement of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Population Growth and Diversity 301
Daily Life and Culture
Wartime Challenges
World War II changed the patterns and rhythms of daily life in unpredictable,unsettling ways. Living in a major staging area for the war in the Pacific, Califor-nians witnessed firsthand the departure of thousands of young men and women.Moreover, the state served as a rest and relaxation (R&R) center for soldiers onleave or recuperating from injuries. Residents thus had intimate knowledge of thewar’s brutal toll. Closer to home, numerous Californians sent their own sons anddaughters off to war, earning the honor of placing blue stars in their windows. Asthe war took lives, gold stars, signifying the loss of family members, replaced theblue. Not surprisingly, most families, including children, intently followed radioand newspaper reports on the war’s progress, setbacks, and casualties.
The war also demanded greater caution and material sacrifice. Fear of enemyattack, fueled by Japanese submarine operations along the Pacific coast,prompted military and civil defense planners to institute nightly blackouts.These, however, interfered with round-the-clock defense production and led toa marked increase in traffic accidents when conscientious drivers turned offtheir headlights. Dim-outs replaced blackouts, except when all-too-frequent air-raid alerts (announced by sirens) demanded total darkness. Police and civildefense patrols enforced these security measures, which were not wholly unwar-ranted. On December 22, 1941, a Japanese submarine torpedoed an American oiltanker off the central coast. And on February 23, 1942, another submarineattacked a coastal oil storage facility north of Santa Barbara, in Ellwood. Theseattacks, accompanied by numerous false alarms, heightened public wariness andprompted thousands of residents to enlist as civilian defense volunteers.
Californians registered their cooperation with the war effort in numerousother ways. They purchased war bonds, participated in scrap metal drives, andcomplied with federal rationing orders. Gasoline, meat, sugar, and butter werestrictly rationed in order to provide more fuel and food for troops. Some com-modities, like silk stockings and metal toys, disappeared altogether from storeshelves. Silk was needed for parachutes, and metal for the manufacture of mili-tary hardware. To relieve food shortages and ensure that troops were the pri-mary beneficiaries of California’s agricultural bounty, many residents grew“victory gardens,” transforming backyards, empty lots, and schoolyards intovegetable plots. Residents also adapted to fuel shortages by using public trans-portation and cutting back on recreational travel.
Entertainment
The wartime emergency also had a brighter side. The influx of service person-nel and defense workers led to an explosive demand for entertainment.
302 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
Nightclubs, dance halls, servicemen’s clubs, and movie houses geared up tomeet the need, providing round-the-clock entertainment to temporary and per-manent residents alike. The young, in particular, enjoyed the new diversionsand lax supervision associated with rapid expansion. Unfortunately, prostitu-tion, gambling, and trade in black market goods also increased, alarming publichealth and law enforcement officers, but contributing to the overall excitementof the boomtown atmosphere.
Music, aired on the radio and performed live in clubs and auditoriums,was one of the more popular wartime diversions. Big-name musicians likeCount Basie, Tommy Dorsey, Glenn Miller, the Andrews Sisters, Frank Sinatra,and Bing Crosby thrilled California audiences with repertoires that reflected thepublic’s patriotic and nostalgic mood. At the same time, the state’s increasinglydiverse population broadened and enriched the musical landscape. Black jazz,blues, and bebop artists, arriving as part of the larger wartime migration,packed clubs along Central Avenue in Los Angeles, in West Oakland, and inNorth Richmond. Blues artists even created a distinct West Coast style, and aneven more distinct Oakland blues sound.
White Dust Bowl migrants, who had come a decade earlier, created a thriv-ing subculture with a taste for country or “hillbilly” music. By World War II,their music reached a broader audience through “victory barn dances,” radioshows, and concerts. Cowboy film stars like Tex Ritter, Roy Rogers, and GeneAutry helped enhance the general public’s enthusiasm for all things western.Finally, the growing Mexican American population, particularly in Los Angeles,helped expand the market for Latin music. Playing at smaller clubs as well aslarger venues like the Orpheum Theater and Shrine Auditorium, performersintroduced the tango, rumba, and Latin-infused swing to Californians. YoungMexican Americans, especially those belonging to the zoot suit subculture, cre-ated a unique fusion of jazz, rumba, and swing that later influenced more con-temporary artists such as Carlos Santana.
Even before World War II, motion pictures were an established and highlypopular diversion. The war, however, made the movies more attractive than ever.They were cheap, close to home, and offered instant escape from wartime cares.The plush seats and semiprivate darkness of theaters also provided weary servicepersonnel and defense workers with a convenient place to nap, and young loverswith an opportunity to escape adult supervision and scrutiny. But Hollywood didmore than provide a refuge or diversion; it actively supported the war effort.
Early in the war, the federal government enlisted industry support to pro-duce training and propaganda films, and to make movies that bolstered publicunity and patriotism. Content guidelines, issued by the Office of WartimeInformation (OWI), encouraged screenwriters to portray America as a harmo-nious, multiethnic democracy working to overcome the forces of evil and topreserve a unique way of life. Nowhere was this theme more apparent than inwar movies where men of different class and ethnic backgrounds pulledtogether to defeat the German or Japanese enemy. Bataan, for example,
Daily Life and Culture 303
produced by MGM in 1943, featured a rainbow battalion of Jewish, Anglo, Mexi-can, Polish, Irish, Italian, and African American characters who set aside personaldifferences for a common cause. Although it ignored the real segregation and dis-crimination in the military and on the home front, this and similar films helpedto promote a more democratic vision of American society and to erode some ofthe more offensive ethnic stereotypes that permeated popular culture.
Women, as depicted in wartime films, did not fare as well. Hollywood, fol-lowing OWI directives, made propaganda and major-release films that encour-aged women to take war jobs and courageously accept separation from lovedones. Geared toward middle-class homemakers, rather than the thousands ofother women who needed little prodding to enter higher-paying defensework, these films stressed the temporary nature of wartime employment andthe femininity of their characters. For example, Tender Comrade, released byRKO in 1943, depicted four women who took defense jobs while their hus-bands were away in the service. Rather than focusing on their wartime contri-butions, the film emphasized the pain of separation, fear for their husbands’lives, and their longing to return to domestic roles. In other films, stars likeBetty Grable and Rita Hayworth played sexy, but homespun, girls who gaveup glamorous careers or marriage opportunities for average, honest men.Their “cheesecake” photos decorated military barracks, planes, and tanks, andserved as a symbol of what awaited servicemen upon their return.
Political Transformation
The war’s population boom placed severe strains on California’s urban infra-structure and heightened competition for existing resources. Race relations dete-riorated as many white residents, attempting to retain control over housing, jobs,and public services, directed their hostility toward ethnic minorities. At the sametime, a growing number of Californians—both established residents andnewcomers—felt that racial discrimination was incompatible with the pro-democracy thrust of the war. Ethnic groups, they maintained, deserved all of therights and privileges of citizenship, particularly in light of their wartime service.Moreover, political leaders and governmental institutions had an obligation toensure that all residents benefited from the war’s economic boom and democraticpromise. If the state’s infrastructure and civic fabric were unraveling, it was thefault of shortsighted, ineffective leadership, not California’s newest residents.
Change from the Grassroots
A more liberal political vision took root in the early years of the war with theformation of multiethnic coalitions like the Bay Area Council Against Discrim-ination, and the Los Angeles–based Council for the Protection of Minority
304 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
Rights. These coalitions of minority activists, white liberals, and CIO unionleadership focused primarily on discrimination in the defense industry andhousing. Other coalitions soon followed. Throughout the state, CIO unions,whose membership now included large numbers of African American andMexican American activists, joined with white liberals to register voters andback pro-labor, liberal candidates for office. In the San Francisco East Bay, forexample, the CIO Political Action Committee (PAC) and Democratic Clubjoined forces to register thousands of new voters, including black migrants.On Election Day in 1944, the East Bay electorate weighed in for Rooseveltand the liberal congressional candidate, George Miller, and helped defeat aright-to-work ballot measure. The PAC then went on to select its own slate ofcandidates—pro-labor supporters of fair housing and employment legislation—for the municipal elections of 1945. Though its candidates were unsuccessful in1945, the PAC created a growing interracial alliance that enjoyed greater elec-toral success in the postwar period.
The efforts of these CIO-led voters leagues were complemented by the activ-ities of civic unity councils, which were multiethnic organizations devoted to end-ing discrimination through increased public education and political pressure. Forexample, in 1944, Mexican Americans, white liberals, and African Americansestablished the Los Angeles Council for Civic Unity, which attracted membershipfrom a number of labor unions, the NAACP, LULAC, the Church Federation ofLos Angeles, and the Women’s Division of the American Jewish Congress. TheLos Angeles Council, like the San Francisco Civic Unity Council established thesame year in the San Francisco Bay area, promoted racial tolerance, equality, andcooperation through public forums, children’s summer camps, and social events.
These and other liberal coalitions won small, local victories during the warbut, more importantly, their efforts helped create the foundation for the civilrights and liberal political advances of the postwar years. Working in concertwith various ethnic organizations, larger, more influential coalitions—growingout of this earlier institutional framework—would eventually mobilize largenumbers of minority voters, and secure fair employment and housing legisla-tion and the election of African American and Mexican American candidatesto local and state office.
Change at the Top
In 1942, state attorney general Earl Warren succeeded Culbert Olson as gover-nor of California. Although a lifelong Republican, Warren secured broad-based, bipartisan support by downplaying his party affiliation and crafting aprogressive, even liberal, political image. His pragmatic, nonideological leader-ship style, mastery of media-based campaign strategy, and exploitation ofCalifornia’s cross-filing system easily won him reelection in 1946 and 1950.Following in the progressive political tradition, Warren believed that govern-ment had an obligation to ensure the public good by directing the forces of
Political Transformation 305
social and economic change. Entering office during a period of unprecedentedgrowth and upheaval, he had ample opportunity to devise policies that wouldhelp the state meet its new challenges.
Warren’s first project was to use the tax revenue generated by the boomingeconomy to create a “rainy day fund” in anticipation of defense industry demo-bilization and mass unemployment at the end of the war. The fund, easing thetransition to a peacetime economy, put Californians to work rebuilding existinginfrastructure and constructing new schools, hospitals, and other state-runfacilities. His massive highway construction program, initiated in 1947, andfinanced by a gasoline tax that was bitterly opposed by the oil and truckinglobbies, also eased postwar unemployment and created the foundation forfuture economic and suburban expansion.
Warren’s efforts to upgrade the state’s infrastructure extended beyondhighway and school construction to the development of water resources. Hebelieved that the new Central Valley Project would not be sufficient to meetfuture demand. Instead, a comprehensive state-funded system was needed tomove water from northern California to the more arid agricultural and urbanareas in the south. Although Warren did obtain legislative approval to developthe plan, its implementation was blocked until 1959. For more than a decade,northern Californians, conservationists, and organized labor persuasivelyargued that a state-funded plan would primarily benefit large corporate farmersin the San Joaquin Valley. Indeed, the state, unlike the federal government,imposed no eligibility restrictions on access to subsidized water. If the projectwere federally funded, farmers cultivating more than 160 acres of land wouldlose their subsidy and pay higher rates for irrigating their excess acreage. Nosuch limits applied to state-funded projects, and growers would benefit at thetaxpayer’s expense.
Concerned for the health and welfare of the state’s growing population,Warren upgraded the Public Health Service, financed the construction of newmental health facilities, and increased welfare benefits, unemployment insur-ance, old age pensions, Aid to the Blind, and compensation for disabled work-ers. In 1945, Warren also proposed a comprehensive health coverage systemfor all California residents, to be financed by employee and employer contribu-tions. Inspired by an uncle’s preventable medical tragedy, Warren’s proposalwas defeated by the California Medical Association, which characterized theplan as socialized medicine. The powerful agricultural lobby similarly defeatedWarren’s proposal to include farm workers under the state’s unemploymentand worker compensation systems. These confrontations with corporate andspecial-interest groups prompted Warren’s vigorous backing of lobby controllegislation in 1949 and 1950.
Warren’s relationship with organized labor and the state’s ethnic groupswas more ambiguous. Although he increased worker benefits and opposedanti-picketing and right-to-work laws, Warren sided with his fellow Republi-cans in opposing a CIO-backed initiative to redraw state senate districts so
306 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
that ethnic and working-class voters would be more fairly represented. As stateattorney general and candidate for governor, Warren had helped fuel anti-Japanese hysteria and officially sanctioned relocation and internment. Only atthe end of his life did he express regret for his actions. As governor, however,Warren defended the right of internees to return to California and took strongaction against perpetrators of anti-Japanese hate crimes.
Throughout his administration, he also lobbied unsuccessfully for state fairemployment legislation and the creation of a state Fair Employment PracticeCommission. Such legislation would finally pass into law in 1959, duringEdmund G. (“Pat”) Brown’s first term in office. On another race-related issue,Warren was less of an advocate. Despite constant pressure from civil rightsgroups beginning at the end of World War II, Warren refused to integratethe California National Guard until 1949.
Warren, at times inconsistent and always enigmatic, was a transitionalpolitical figure. Despite being a lifelong Republican, he often faced challengeswith a decidedly liberal outlook—one that was shaped by the expansive opti-mism and pro-democracy sentiment that grew out of World War II. At manycrucial junctures, he failed to take moral or courageous action. At others, he ledwith remarkable insight and compassion. Over time, however, he would distin-guish himself as a leading figure in the civil rights movement and a championof the poor and disfranchised. In 1953, Warren left office to serve as chief jus-tice of the U.S. Supreme Court, where he wrote the majority opinion for theBrown desegregation case of 1954. This, and other decisions made by the“Warren Court,” cemented his reputation as one of the most “liberal” justicesin American history.
Summary
World War II, like the Gold Rush, was a major turning point in Californiahistory. The wartime defense boom lifted the state out of the Depressionand led to the growth of new industries that would ensure prosperity foryears to come. The war also fueled anti-Japanese hostility, resulting in therelocation and internment of California’s Japanese American population.Thousands of newcomers flocked to the state, increasing the size, diversity,and cultural richness of its population. At the same time, declining infrastruc-ture and increased competition for resources fueled racial tensions and inten-sified discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations.Ethnic groups and white liberals, pointing to the contradiction between fight-ing a war for democracy and racial discrimination on the home front, foughtback, creating the institutional framework for postwar civil rights strugglesand electoral contestations. Through it all, California’s enigmatic governor,Earl Warren, greatly expanded the state’s role in directing the forces of social
Summary 307
and economic change. Out of this momentous wartime transformation camecompeting visions of the California “dream” and renewed efforts to extend itspromise to all of the state’s citizens.
Suggested Readings
❚ Allen, Robert L., The Port Chicago Mutiny: The Story of the Largest MassMutiny Trial in U.S. Naval History (New York: Warner Books, 1989). Thisbook provides a detailed history of the Port Chicago mutiny in the contextof race relations in the military and society at large.
❚ Daniels, Roger, Concentration Camps U.S.A: Japanese Americans and WorldWar II (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1972) and From Relocationto Redress (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1986). These two booksprovide a comprehensive overview of Japanese relocation and internment,the redress movement, and the personal experiences of internees.
❚ Irons, Peter, Justice Delayed: The Record of the Japanese American Intern-ment Cases (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1989). This bookprovides an overview of the legal challenges to relocation and internment.
❚ Johnson, Marilyn, The Second Gold Rush: Oakland and the East Bay inWorld War II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). This bookis a regional study, focusing on the political, economic, cultural, and demo-graphic impact of the war on the San Francisco East Bay area.
❚ Lemke-Santangelo, Gretchen, Abiding Courage: African American MigrantWomen in the East Bay Community (Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press, 1996). This book, based on oral histories, examines AfricanAmerican migration from the South to the San Francisco East Bay areaduring World War II.
❚ Lotchin, Roger, ed., The Way We Really Were: The Golden State in theSecond Great War (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000). This collec-tion of essays details the war’s impact on California race relations, politics,industry (including Hollywood), and culture.
❚ Nash, Gerald D., The American West Transformed: The Impact of theSecond World War (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985) andWorld War II and the West (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990).These two books provide a good overview of the war’s impact on Californiaand the greater American West.
❚ Rosenthal, Nicolas, Re-Imagining Indian Country: American Indians andCities in Modern America (Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 2012). This book is one of the first to detail the experience of urban
308 CHAPTER 9 World War II and the Great Transformation
Indians in 20th-century America, and includes significant coverage ofCalifornia.
❚ Tateishi, John, And Justice for All: An Oral History of the Japanese AmericanDetention Camps (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1984). Thisbook, based on oral accounts of the internment experience, details thedaily lives of camp residents.
❚ Verge, Arthur C., Paradise Transformed: Los Angeles During the SecondWorld War (Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing, 1993). This book, anotherregional study, focuses on the war’s impact on Los Angeles.
❚ White, Edward G., Earl Warren: A Public Life (New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1982). This insightful biography of Earl Warren covers his yearsas California’s governor during and after World War II.
Suggested Readings 309
CHAP
TER 10
Postwar California:Prosperity andDiscontent in theGolden State:1946–1963Main Topics
❚ Unbridled Growth
❚ Postwar Politics
❚ Social and Cultural Dissent
❚ Summary
Catherine “Kay” Spaulding was born in Los Angeles in1911. Bright, independent, and longing to advanceCalifornia’s muckraking literary tradition, she majored
in journalism at Stanford University. While attending a youthpeace conference in 1934, she met and fell in love with ClarkKerr. After marrying him on Christmas Day of the same year,Kay channeled her formidable energy and talent into raisinga family and advancing her husband’s career. Clark, withKay’s support and advice, went on to draft California’s MasterPlan for Higher Education, serve as U.C. Berkeley’s chancellorfrom 1952 until 1958, and fill the office of U.C. presidentfrom 1958 until 1967.
Residing in a Berkeley home that overlooked the SanFrancisco bay, Kay was disturbed at the diminishing expanseof water. The bay, already one third smaller that it was 100years earlier, was being filled at an alarming pace by develo-pers and landfill operators. Just as troubling, most Bay Arearesidents were seemingly unaware that their vast, sparkling
310
jewel was disappearing. By 1960, the public had access toonly four miles of shoreline.
In 1961, one year before Rachel Carson published SilentSpring and nine years before the first Earth Day celebration,Kay and two other “university wives” founded Save the SanFrancisco Bay Association. Coming up against powerful cor-porate and political opponents, the three women successfullylobbied for the 1965 McAteer Petris Act, which placed a mor-atorium on filling the bay and created the Bay Conservationand Development Commission, the first state agency in thenation devoted to coastal protection. The group also advo-cated for public access, helping to establish the Don EdwardsNational Wildlife Refuge, and a network of shoreline parksand trails.
CHAPTER 10Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent
in the Golden State: 1946–1963
1947 Hollywood anti-Communist investigations begin
1949 University of California Regents mandate loyalty oath forfaculty
1950 State legislature adopts loyalty oath for state employees
1951 Stanford Research Park, foundation of Silicon Valley,established
1952 Lawrence Livermore Lab established
1953 Goodwin F. Knight takes office as governor after Earl Warrenis appointed chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
1955 Merger of the AFL and CIO
1956 Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” is published
1957 Students at U.C. Berkeley form SLATE
1958 Edmund G. Brown elected governor
1959 State legislature approves the Fair Employment and UnruhCivil Rights Acts
1960
Anti-HUAC protests in San FranciscoLegislature approves Master Plan for Higher Education andCalifornia Water PlanFederal Clean Water Act passed
1961 Association of Bay Area Governments formedSave San Francisco Bay Association founded
1962 Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring publishedCalifornia becomes most populous state in the nation
1963 Federal Clean Air Act passedState legislature adopts the Rumford Fair Housing Act
1964 State Commission on the Status of Women established
311
Catherine Kerr’s story illustrates the spirit of optimismthat prevailed during the postwar period. Coming out of theDepression and war, many Californians viewed government inpositive terms, calling on their elected officials to balanceprivate interests and the public good. Moreover, the state’seconomy was booming, bolstered by Cold War military spend-ing, the growth of new industries, an expanding population,and government investment in transportation, housing, edu-cation, and resource development. Established residents andnewcomers, enjoying an unprecedented level of prosperity,were more willing than ever to support environmental pro-tection, social welfare spending, and fair housing andemployment legislation—measures designed to preserve andextend the California dream. By the early 1960s, however,California was still a long way from solving its most pressingproblems. Environmental degradation outpaced conservationefforts. Housing and employment discrimination continuedto reinforce existing social and economic inequalities,leading to growing frustration and anger within inner-cityminority communities. Even middle-class suburbs harboreddiscontent. Many women and youth, anxious to escape thestifling conformity and isolation of these homogeneousenclaves, launched a quiet protest that soon erupted intomore overt forms of rebellion.
Questions to Consider
❚ How did federal and state government policies contrib-ute to postwar economic expansion and suburbangrowth?
❚ How would you define liberalism? Which liberal policiesor reforms had the most significant impact on Califor-nians during the postwar period?
❚ How did California’s Red Scare affect the state’s political,social, and cultural landscapes?
❚ Did all Californians benefit from postwar economicexpansion and the suburban boom? Why or why not?
Unbridled Growth
After a brief lull immediately following the war, the state entered one of thelongest periods of economic expansion in American history. The war increasedindustrial capacity, stimulated the growth of new industries, and devastated the
312 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
economies of our European and Asian competitors. More significantly, thefederal government increased defense spending, funneling billions of dollarsto private industry in order to wage the Cold War. Federal and state invest-ment in education, transportation, housing, and the development of waterresources also helped sustain high levels of economic and population growth;however, growth came with a cost. Industrial expansion and suburbanizationtook a frightening toll on the state’s natural resource base, leading to a gradualawakening of environmental consciousness and tentative efforts to regulate thepace and impact of development.
Industrial Growth and Organized Labor
In northern California, shipbuilding declined only to be replaced with abooming electronics industry. In 1951, Stanford University created a high-technology research park by leasing unused land to private entrepreneurs.Originally intended to generate revenue for the college, the park eventuallybecame a means of translating campus-based research into product develop-ment, and attracting star-quality faculty to the university. By 1955, sevencompanies, including Hewlett Packard and Varian Associates, had signedleases. By 1960, the park had attracted 25 more companies and was drawingnumerous other high-tech firms, including Fairchild Semiconductor, to thesurrounding region. “Silicon Valley,” named after the silicon chips that soonrevolutionized the electronics industry, was taking shape (see Map 9.1 onp. 281). Across the bay, Berkeley’s nuclear research was also creating spinoffs.Lawrence Livermore Lab, established in 1952, employed thousands of workersin weapons-related research, while helping, along with the electronicsindustry, to attract mammoth defense contractors to the Bay Area, includingLockheed, IBM, Westinghouse, and General Electric.
Southern California’s industrial growth was no less impressive. Its aircraftmanufacturers, diversifying into the production of jet engines, radar, super-sonic aircraft, rockets, satellites, and missiles, dominated the nation’s aerospaceindustry and employed the majority of the manufacturing work force in LosAngeles, Orange, and San Diego counties by the 1950s. These firms alsoenjoyed a close partnership with regional research institutions. UCLA, the JetPropulsion Lab at the California Institute of Technology, and the Rand Corpo-ration received government funding for research and development and trans-ferred their products to the private aerospace industry.
The expansion of the aerospace and electronics industries was largely aproduct of the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. To win thiscompetition, the government transferred billions of dollars to universities andprivate industry, creating a vast, interlocking university-military-industrialcomplex. By 1960, California was receiving more than 25 percent of thenation’s total defense expenditures and 42 percent of the Defense Department’sresearch contracts.
Unbridled Growth 313
Other sectors of the state’s economy also prospered during the postwaryears. Municipal, county, state, and federal government, adjusting to popula-tion growth and new demands on infrastructure and public services, generatednew bureaucracies and hired scores of additional workers. Minorities, in partic-ular, benefited from the expansion of the public sector. Government, whichadopted nondiscriminatory hiring policies more readily than private industry,helped create a growing black and Mexican American middle class. InOakland, for example, 30 percent of the city’s black civilian labor force workedfor various branches of government by the early 1960s.
California’s apparel, footwear, scientific instruments, frozen foods, cos-metic, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, benefiting from increasednational demand, reached beyond local markets to broaden their consumerbase. On a local level, real estate, retail, and financial institutions expandedtheir services to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly prosperous pop-ulation. The construction industry, however, received an even more significantboost. Thousands of new residents, many starting families for the first time,demanded housing. The GI Bill, passed by Congress in 1944 to provide benefitsfor veterans, included the provision of low-interest home loans to veterans.This made home ownership an affordable option for many first-time buyers.Developers met demand by applying mass production and prefabrication tech-niques to homebuilding and by locating new housing “tracts” on cheaper landsurrounding the urban core. Across the state, postwar suburban housing tracts,consisting of row upon row of nearly identical dwellings, replaced orchards,truck farms, and open fields.
In contrast, Southern California’s film industry faced serious challenges inthe postwar period, but it emerged as a stronger, more influential cultural insti-tution. Until 1948, major studios not only produced films, but also monopo-lized box office profits by screening their movies at their own theater chains.As a result of federal antitrust lawsuits initiated by smaller, independent thea-ters, the studios had to sell their chains. This seriously eroded profits at a timewhen production costs and stars’ salaries were rising. Simultaneously, studiosfaced increasing competition both from foreign and independent filmmakersand from the emerging New York–based television industry. Hollywoodadapted by producing more films on location, rather than relying on the costlyand elaborate studio sets and lots of the past. It also diversified into recordingand television production, reestablishing its dominance in the entertainmentindustry by the early 1960s.
California’s labor unions, enjoying unprecedented power during the post-war years, helped ensure that the benefits of a booming economy were widelydistributed. Having taken a “no-strike” pledge during the war, unions—particularly those affiliated with the CIO—focused on expanding their mem-bership, forming political action committees, and creating coalitions withliberal and progressive community organizations. When the war ended, theyhad not only the numeric strength to obtain wage and benefit concessions
314 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
from management, but the political clout to influence local and state elections.The anti-Communist crusade, leading to the expulsion of left-wing union lead-ership, and the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which limited the effectiveness of strikesand protected open shops, somewhat muted their new power. But laborrebounded in 1955, when the AFL merged with its more progressive rival, theCIO. Together, the two represented more than 90 percent of the state’s unionmembers. Largely as a result of the decade’s rabid anti-Communism, this newentity de-emphasized liberal social activism and rank-and-file participation.Nevertheless, its mostly blue-collar membership obtained substantial materialbenefits, swelling the state’s middle class to a historic high.
Large growers consolidated their dominant position in California agricul-ture during the postwar years, reaping enormous profits and political influ-ence in the process. Their increasing power partly derived from the“agricultural-industrial complex,” a partnership forged by farmers, publicresearch institutions, and private manufacturers of chemicals and farmmachinery. For example, the University of California at Davis, the state’s pre-mier agricultural institution, obtained private industry funding to developnew high-yield plant varieties, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, and farmequipment tailored to the needs of large-scale producers. Industry thensecured the patents and sold their product to large growers. As a conse-quence, small farmers, unable to afford the new technology or apply it on areduced scale, fell behind their larger, more competitive counterparts.
Although this partnership predated the war, it grew stronger and moreinfluential in the 1950s and 1960s. Wartime chemical research led to the crea-tion of a new generation of synthetic compounds that could be endlessly com-bined and modified for agricultural use, even tailored to specific crops, soils,insect pests, and climatic conditions. Plant genetics and farm equipment tech-nology also advanced rapidly during the postwar years.
Postwar agricultural growth, despite this new technology, continued todepend on cheap agricultural labor. Using their considerable political influence,large growers successfully lobbied for the continuation and expansion of thebracero program, ensuring a captive, subsidized labor supply throughout the1950s. Several hundred thousand undocumented workers and foreigners withtemporary work permits also helped keep wages low by maintaining a surpluslabor supply. In addition to its labor subsidy, agribusiness received amplecheap water from both state and federally funded sources. The Central ValleyProject (CVP), completed in the postwar years with federal funds and sup-ported by large growers like J. G. Boswell, diverted water from the Sacramentoand San Joaquin Rivers to the drier San Joaquin Valley. In accordance with theReclamation Act of 1902, growers with more than 160 acres of land were notentitled to subsidized water from federally funded projects. Agribusiness usedits political influence to obtain significant concessions in the law: additional160-acre allowances for each child, spouse, joint tenant, and corporate partner;reclassification of some CVP water as “natural flow,” which was exempt from
Unbridled Growth 315
Education
Postwar economic growth and Cold War anxieties precipitated changes in thestate’s educational system. Private industry, government officials, and the scien-tific community all warned that California’s booming economy, increasinglycentered on high technology, demanded a more educated, specialized workforce. They also argued that the United States would compromise its ability to
the federal acreage limit; and suspension of the limitation if local irrigation dis-tricts, managed by grower-elected boards, repaid their share of CVP construc-tion costs in a timely fashion. Finally, farmers who leased, rather than owned, land avoided the limit altogether.
The legal costs involved in circumventing federal law prompted growers to back the new state-funded California Water Plan that promised to deliver sub-sidized, limit-free water from northern California to growers in the San Joaquin Valley and southern California. Blocked for several years, the plan was finally approved between 1959 and 1960, removing yet another obstacle to agricultural consolidation and corporatization.
“Cali
fornia
Aque
duct”
by bi
ghor
nplat
eau i
s lice
nsed
unde
r CC B
Y 2.0
316 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
Aerial view of the California Aqueduct. Consider the massive scale of the state’s water delivery system. Did the benefits to agriculture, industry, and growing urban and suburban areas outweigh its environmental costs?
wage the Cold War unless it provided the younger generation with adequatescientific and technical training.
At the same time, rapid population growth placed strains on existingeducational facilities. Wartime migration, coupled with the postwar babyboom, filled elementary and secondary classrooms beyond capacity. The state’scolleges and universities, crowded with veterans who took advantage of the GIBill’s generous education benefits, experienced similar strains. These strainscontinued as the first baby boomers, attending college at higher rates thanany other generation in history, came of age in the 1960s.
With these concerns in mind and with ample support from taxpayers,education policymakers embarked on an ambitious program of schoolconstruction, curricular reform, and reformulation of teacher preparationrequirements. In keeping with the new curricular emphasis on traditional dis-ciplines, particularly math and science, future elementary and secondary schoolteachers could no longer major in education. The 1961 Fisher Act insteadrequired teachers to possess a four-year academic degree and a fifth year ofprofessional education training.
Higher education, suffering from uneven academic standards and unneces-sary duplication of institutional missions and programs, also needed attention.In 1960, the legislature approved the Master Plan, which created a new three-tiered structure: university, state college, and junior college tiers. Under theplan, the University of California was given sole authority to award doctoraldegrees and given exclusive jurisdiction over graduate-level training in law,medicine, dentistry, and veterinary studies. As the premier research andprofessional institution, the university was to admit students from the top12.5 percent of the state’s high school graduates. Similarly, candidates foradvanced degrees were chosen on the basis of high academic and professionalpromise. State colleges, under the Master Plan, were to provide a liberal artseducation to students from the top one-third of high school graduates. Gradu-ate training, with special exceptions, was limited to the master’s degree level.Junior colleges, open to all high school graduates, offered a two-year liberalarts curriculum designed to prepare students for transfer to the state collegeor university system, as well as technical and vocational programs of studyleading directly to employment. This system, offering tuition-free education toCalifornia’s college students, became a model for the rest of the nation.
Population and Suburban Growth
California’s population increased dramatically during the war and continued toexpand throughout the 1950s and 1960s. From 1951 to 1963, the state’s annualgrowth rate fluctuated between 3.3 and 4.6 percent, with more than a millionpeople added every two years. In 1962, California became the most populousstate in the nation. During this period, the state’s population increasinglyspilled outside of the urban core into the suburban fringe as developers rushed
Unbridled Growth 317
to meet the demand for new housing. Citrus groves in the Los Angeles basinand orchards and truck farms in the San Francisco Bay area were converted tosuburban communities at an astonishing rate. From the early 1950s to the early1960s, between 60,000 and 90,000 acres of prime agricultural land werereplaced with tract homes, freeways, and shopping centers. Industry, attractedto ample, cheap land and a less heavily unionized labor force, relocated to thesuburbs as well, contributing to the massive, largely unregulated redistributionof the state’s population and tax base.
New suburbanites, longing for normalcy after the dislocations of the waryears, focused on pursuing the “California lifestyle.” Ranch-style homes, andhouses built by innovative developer Joseph Eichler with their characteristicflat roofs and open, glass-enclosed interiors, reduced barriers between indoorand outdoor space. Patios, barbecues, outdoor furniture, swimming pools, andcasual dinnerware further reduced this separation by facilitating outside enter-taining and family activity. Hollywood, television, advertising agencies, and thepopular press not only popularized this lifestyle among Californians—they alsocreated a new national trend.
Recreation patterns also shifted. Suburban shopping centers, forerunners oftoday’s malls, framed consumption as a leisure activity. Suburb-based themeparks, following the Disneyland prototype, provided “wholesome” entertain-ment for the entire family as an alternative to urban, adult-centered culturalinstitutions. New sports facilities, such as Dodger Stadium and CandlestickPark, built on the urban fringe, also catered to suburban families. Finally, thenew emphasis on outdoor living extended to the state’s beaches and mountains.Campgrounds, ski lodges, vacation rentals, and summer home developmentsburgeoned during the 1950s and 1960s, intruding on once-pristine or sparselypopulated scenic areas.
The carefree suburban lifestyle came with a price. Its housing tracts, shop-ping centers, and decentralized industry not only despoiled open space, butalso stripped inner cities of their much-needed jobs and tax base. Beginningin the late 1940s, and continuing through the 1960s, white residents left innercities for the suburbs. Industry soon followed. Black and Mexican Americanresidents, locked out of the suburban exodus because of discriminatory realestate and housing practices, remained behind in the older, decaying urbancore. Even after the state adopted fair housing legislation in the mid-1960s,discriminatory lending institutions, homeowners, and real estate agenciescontinued to block equal access to affordable suburban housing. This process,reinforcing social separation and economic inequality, was repeated in virtuallyevery metropolitan region of the state, setting the stage for the urban revoltsof the ’60s.
Although idealized in postwar popular culture as safe, untroubled enclaves,suburbs came under criticism in the mid-1960s by a new generation of femin-ists. The suburb, according to pioneering feminist Betty Friedan, was littlemore than a “comfortable concentration camp” that fostered depression, a
318 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
growing sense of isolation, loneliness, and quiet desperation among its femaleinhabitants.
Many suburban wives, whether they felt trapped or not, did indeed con-form to the postwar ideal of the stay-at-home mom. But thousands of othersjoined the paid labor force in the ’50s and ’60s. Ironically, the financialdemands of maintaining the “California lifestyle” often necessitated morethan one wage earner per family and began to erode the long-held tabooagainst married women’s participation in the labor force. At the same time,increasing numbers of women were attending college—some in search of hus-bands, but many in preparation for rewarding careers. Young careerists, alongwith an older generation of professional women, rarely obtained jobs thatmatched their education and skill levels. Locked into clerical and sales jobs,and a limited number of professional occupations like nursing and teaching,working women earned only 60 cents for every dollar made by their malecounterparts.
These inequities, combined with suburban isolation, prompted female acti-vists to press for change. In 1964, after three years of intense lobbying fromwomen’s organizations, the California legislature finally agreed to create astate Commission on the Status of Women. The commission’s findings onemployment discrimination and male/female wage differentials reinvigoratedthe women’s movement and created the foundation for the more radicalfeminist critiques of the late 1960s and 1970s.
Transportation, Energy, Water Resources,and Environmental Pollution
A massive, postwar freeway construction program, funded with a mix of stateand federal dollars, helped facilitate white and industrial flight to the suburbs.In 1947, the state legislature passed the Collier-Burns Act, which approvedapproximately 12,500 miles of new roads, connecting suburbs to surroundingurban centers and funded with a seven cent per gallon gasoline tax. By themid-1950s, the federal government augmented this expanding network byhelping to fund an interstate freeway system that created linkages betweeneach major metropolitan center. Growing dependence on the automobile wasfurther encouraged by the decline of prewar electric rail systems that hadconnected residential neighborhoods to downtown areas. From San Diego toSan Francisco, local governments replaced energy-efficient electric trains andtrolleys with diesel-fueled buses. By the late 1950s, only isolated remnants ofthese regional rail systems survived. The automobile—increasingly a symbolof personal freedom and status—reigned supreme.
The new freeway system had several unanticipated drawbacks. Itfrequently bisected poor, inner-city neighborhoods, cutting them off fromsurrounding services, wiping out small business districts and large tracts ofaffordable housing, and contributing to the spatial isolation and
Unbridled Growth 319
“ghettoization” of residents. Declining air quality was yet another problemassociated with the postwar transportation boom. By the late 1940s, LosAngeles residents faced a human-made atmospheric threat: automobile-generated smog. The city first responded by imposing restrictions on factoryemissions and backyard waste burning, but failed to address the primarycause—the transportation boom. Part of the problem was that smog camefrom multiple jurisdictions. Even if city officials imposed regulations intheir municipality, pollution from neighboring areas knew no boundaries.By the early 1950s, the problem had worsened. Los Angeles Countyresponded by establishing an Air Pollution Control District, which began tomonitor air quality and introduce pollution control measures.
Soon after, in 1955, nine counties in the San Francisco Bay area joinedforces to create a regional air quality control district, empowered to set emis-sion standards and regulate polluting industries. Although these districts did
Reflect on the social, political, and demographic pressures that led to urban sprawl in Los Angeles County, and evaluate the costs and benefits of such rapid growth. How did the uniform nature of postwar subdivisions affect residents’ quality of life?
“Urb
an Sp
rawl
” by A
TIS54
7 is l
icens
ed un
der C
C BY-N
C-SA
2.0
320 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
little to curtail auto emissions, the main source of pollution, they created animportant model of regional cooperation that was later adopted by othermunicipalities. When the federal government passed the Clean Air Act in1963, regional air quality districts, along with the newly created state AirResources Board, provided the institutional framework to enforce the act’sauto emission standards.
By the early 1960s, declining air quality and increasing traffic congestionon the already overtaxed highway system prompted some cities to reconsiderelectric transit systems. The Bay Area took the lead in 1962, receiving approvalfrom voters in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties to build aregional rapid transit system; however, it took another two decades for LosAngeles, Sacramento, San José, and San Diego to follow suit. And even withthese systems in place, most Californians continue to prefer private transporta-tion to the cleaner, more fuel-efficient alternatives.
From World War II on, population and economic growth rapidly movedthe state from energy self-sufficiency to dependence on imported energy.California’s plastics, chemical, and defense-based industries, and its suburban,automobile-centered lifestyle, were fuel intensive, demanding more energy thanthe state produced. By the early 1960s, hydroelectric resources had beenexploited to about 80 percent of capacity. And the new California WaterPlan, with its extensive network of pumping stations and cross-terrain aque-ducts, was expected to use much of the energy it generated. Onshore oilreserves were also limited, leading petroleum companies to search offshore fornew deposits during and after World War II, and to supplement domestic sup-plies with imports. Utility companies followed suit, tapping electricity, gas, andoil from elsewhere in the West, and ultimately turning to foreign suppliers. By1962, for example, two-thirds of California’s natural gas, which was used togenerate electricity, heat homes, and produce chemicals and plastics, camefrom Texas, New Mexico, and Canada.
Long before the energy crisis of the 1970s awakened consumers to theirdependence on imported fuel, the state’s utility companies searched for alterna-tive sources to meet increasing demand. In 1960, Pacific Gas and Electric(PG&E) became the first private utility in the nation to tap geothermal energyat its Geyserville plant in Sonoma County. Other geothermal plants soon fol-lowed, providing a clean, but modest addition to the state’s energy mix. Morecontroversially, nuclear power, promoted by the Atomic Energy Commissionas a safe, environmentally friendly energy source, was first produced in 1957on an experimental basis at the Vallecitos plant outside of Livermore. PG&Ebegan operating a commercial facility in 1963 near Eureka, spearheading a10-year plant construction boom that failed to anticipate growing publicconcern over seismic hazards, safe disposal of radioactive wastes, and thepotentially lethal consequences of human error or reactor malfunction.
By 1964, when PG&E proposed another facility at earthquake-proneBodega Bay, the public grew more skeptical of industry safety claims and
Unbridled Growth 321
mounted a successful campaign to block the plan. This protest, slowing but notstopping the plant construction boom, set the stage for the more vocal andmilitant anti-nuclear protests of the 1970s and 1980s and helped broaden thefocus of older environmental organizations. In the meantime, even nuclearenergy could not keep pace with demand, and California’s utility companiesand petroleum industry drew ever more heavily on imported fuel.
Unbridled growth also took its toll on the state’s water resources. TheCentral Valley Project, which became fully operational in the 1950s, divertedvast quantities of water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to farm-land in the San Joaquin Valley. The initial phase of the project, which includedconstruction of the Shasta, Keswick and Friant dams and their water deliverycanals, allowed growers to bring more than 700,000 acres of San Joaquinfarmland into production. Although it benefited wealthy landowners likeJ. G. Boswell, the project decimated wild fisheries, destroyed thousands ofacres of waterfowl habitat, and prevented natural flow from reaching andrecharging underground aquifers. The most serious impact of the CVP wasthe decline of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta water quality. As freshwater was pumped southward, particularly during the dry summer months, saltwater from the San Francisco Bay intruded into the delta, damaging fragileecosystems and reducing freshwater flow into the bay. Salty water, occasionallydrawn into canals and used to irrigate farmland, also contributed to the salini-zation of soils in the San Joaquin Valley. Indeed, California’s second largestriver, the San Joaquin, was soon reduced to a drainage ditch for pesticide andsalt-laden agricultural runoff.
The California Water Plan, initiated in 1960, eventually diverted additionalwater from the north to the San Joaquin Valley and up over the Tehachapi Moun-tains to thirsty southern California residents. The system tapped the tributaries ofthe Sacramento River, further compromising delta ecology, intensifying north-south competition for water resources, and sparking angry opposition from envir-onmentalists to proposed dams on California’s remaining wild rivers.
Postwar growth did more than place strains on the state’s water and energyresources; it generated increasing amounts of toxic wastes that poured, virtuallyunregulated, into the air, water, and soil. New chemical compounds, added tothe older mix of heavy metals, solvents, corrosives, paints, and dyes, created anunprecedented threat to California’s environment and public health. Producedin increasing quantities by the petrochemical industry following World War II,new substances like DDT, PCBs, and dioxin not only persisted in the environ-ment for long periods of time, but also became more concentrated as theymoved up the food chain. By the early 1960s, wildlife biologists began tosound the alarm. More careful study also revealed their potential threat tohuman health. Despite mounting public concern, mobilized by Rachel Carson’s1962 condemnation of the chemical industry in Silent Spring, and by environ-mental organizations like the Audubon Society and California Tomorrow,effective regulation of toxic chemicals did not occur until the 1970s and
322 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
1980s. The federal Clean Water Act of 1960 prompted the state to adopt morestringent sewage treatment standards, but synthetic chemicals and other toxicsubstances could not be removed by normal processing methods. And the pro-ducers and consumers of these compounds, including the state’s powerful pet-rochemical and agricultural industries, vigorously opposed regulation ofchemical production, use, and disposal.
As Californians awakened to the growing threat of toxic pollution, a smallgroup of environmental activists launched a path-breaking movement to saveone of the state’s natural wonders from industrial and suburban development.During the postwar years, the San Francisco Bay lost 2,300 acres each year toaccommodate shoreline construction of garbage dumps, airports, housing tracts,and industrial parks. Already reduced by 40 percent of its size from a centuryearlier, it was in danger of becoming little more than a shipping channel by theyear 2000. In an era when limits to growth were inconceivable to most of thestate’s residents, Catherine Kerr and her fellow “university wives” vocally assertedthat the public good should prevail over the interests of municipal and privatedevelopers. Save San Francisco Bay Association, founded in 1961, attractedenough public support over the next four years to secure legislative approvalfor both a temporary halt to bay fill and the formation of the San FranciscoBay Conservation and Development Commission. This agency, empowered bythe state legislature to grant or deny permission for all shoreline construction,established the precedent for government regulation of development. Other com-missions, including the California Coastal Commission and the Tahoe RegionalPlanning Agency, soon followed, along with a host of municipal-level no-growthand controlled growth ordinances and measures.
Smog in Los Angeles. Examine the relationship between this photograph and the Los Angeles sprawl image. What were the connections between suburban growth and declining air quality?
“Los A
ngele
s” by
M M
cbey
is lic
ense
d und
er CC
BY 2.
Unbridled Growth 323
Postwar Politics
The rapid economic and demographic growth of the postwar period created ahost of problems that defied individual and even municipal-level solution.Increasingly, Californians turned to government to regulate and guide the pro-cess of change. On the state level, Governor Warren’s two successors continuedhis legacy of support for education, social services, resource development, andhighway construction, and enlarged the state’s role in protecting environmentalquality. On a local level, city governments responded to the negative impact ofunbridled growth by forming regional partnerships with their neighbors.Growing numbers of Californians also demanded that local government takea more active role in protecting the rights of working people and ethnic minor-ities and in bringing the disadvantaged into the economic mainstream throughincreased social spending. The democratic ideals that fueled support for thewar effort, they argued, must now be applied at home.
These general political currents, however, were overshadowed by the anti-Communist hysteria of the early Cold War years. In California and the nationas a whole, fear of internal subversion temporarily limited the pace and extentof political change. Conservative Republicans were alarmed by liberal inroadsinto state and local politics, the growing power of organized labor, and the newpolitical clout of ethnic minorities. In response, they mounted a counteroffen-sive by mobilizing the anti-Communist rhetoric of the late 1940s and early1950s. Accusing their mostly Democratic opponents of being “soft on Commu-nism,” they created a political atmosphere charged with fear, intolerance,suspicion, and opportunism. Their attacks not only had a devastating impacton organized labor, civil rights organizations, higher education, and Holly-wood, but also convinced many ordinary Californians that “a liberal is only ahop, skip, and a jump from a Communist.”
Democrats, however, gradually recovered their political credibility bypromoting “responsible liberalism,” creating a more effective party structure,and highlighting the excessive conservatism of their opponents. In 1958,Californians elected a Democratic governor, and a Democratic majority toboth houses of the state legislature. Locally, liberals also made significant prog-ress in removing Republicans from city office and electing leadership thatsupported a stronger regulatory and planning role for government. Liberalism,rather than radicalism or conservatism, ultimately prevailed.
California’s Red Scare
Although Californians voted overwhelmingly for a liberal Democraticagenda in 1958, many citizens—perhaps a majority—spent the early postwarperiod suspecting that liberalism amounted to Communism. Governor EarlWarren and his immediate successor, Goodwin Knight, were both
324 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
Republicans. And although they supported liberal policies that angered theirparty’s conservatives, they escaped direct attack. Democratic candidates,progressive organizations, and any individual or institution supporting lib-eral causes were not as fortunate.
In 1938, the U.S. Congress established the House Un-American ActivitiesCommittee (HUAC) to root out subversives on a national level. After the war,HUAC’s first major target was the Hollywood film industry, whose writers,directors, and actors were accused of harboring left-wing sympathies. Not coin-cidentally, industry workers had just concluded a major studio strike, under-scoring the growing power of organized labor in the state. Starting in 1947,HUAC held hearings on the “Red Menace in Hollywood” with the full cooper-ation of many industry leaders, including Ronald Reagan, president of theScreen Actors Guild, and studio owners Louis B. Mayer, Jack Warner, andWalt Disney.
In the course of the hearings, several prominent screenwriters, known asthe Hollywood Ten, refused to provide testimony about their political beliefsand affiliations, citing their constitutional rights under the First Amendment.The Committee for the First Amendment—whose membership includedLauren Bacall, Humphrey Bogart, John Huston, and Frank Sinatra—attempted to come to their defense and challenge the constitutionality ofthe hearings. But its efforts were unsuccessful. All 10 were sentenced toprison for contempt of Congress, and nine were permanently banned fromindustry employment. HUAC then went on to compile a list of 324 presentand former Hollywood employees with alleged Communist ties. A majorityof those on this “blacklist,” many with well-established careers, lost theirjobs. Equally damaging, those who remained in the industry approachedtheir craft with more caution, avoiding content that might attract negativeattention from in-house and external censors. For more than a decade,Hollywood films mirrored the conservatism and moral rigidity that charac-terized American culture as a whole.
The California Legislative Fact-Finding Committee on Un-AmericanActivities, headed by Senator Jack B. Tenney and emboldened by HUAC’shigh-profile Hollywood investigation, claimed that it had uncovered evidenceof Communist subversion in the state government and educational system. In1949, fearing a disruptive investigation of its own employees, the University ofCalifornia, with approval from the Board of Regents, required professors tosign a loyalty oath. The state legislature approved a similar and more exactingoath for all state employees in 1950 when it adopted the Levering Act.
Within the university, the oath generated widespread protest and legalaction. Maintaining that the policy violated their constitutional rights andacademic freedom, numerous professors refused to sign and were fired forinsubordination. Still others resigned in protest, or refused job offers from theuniversity because the oath offended their principles. In 1951, the ThirdCalifornia District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the dissenting professors,
Postwar Politics 325
arguing that the oath violated both tenure agreements and the state constitu-tion. The Board of Regents, angered over faculty “insubordination,” decided to appeal the decision. After considering the appeal in 1952, the California Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed professors and inva-lidated the university’s oath on the grounds that the state, through the Levering Act, had sole authority to determine employee loyalty. The court, in other words, failed to consider the constitutionality of loyalty tests, and simply ruled that the power to require them belonged to the legislature. The state’s loyalty oath, covering all government employees, including professors, was not declared unconstitutional until 1967.
The Tenney Commission and its parent organization, HUAC, also launched investigations into subversive infiltration of labor unions and civil rights organizations. Reeling from the negative publicity generated by HUAC allegations and lacking the financial resources to mount a credible defense, numerous organizations expelled leaders and members who fell under suspi-cion, backed away from more militant strategies and tactics, and avoided build-ing alliances with “subversive” groups. California’s liberal politicians came under attack as well. In a 1946 U.S. congressional race, a young World War II veteran named Richard Nixon defeated his Democratic opponent, Jerry Voorhis, by using Red Scare tactics. Although Nixon later admitted that he
“Holl
ywoo
d Blac
klist
Prote
st” by
WBH
Mor
ning S
tories
: Holl
ywoo
d on T
rial is
licen
sed u
nder
CC
BY-N
C-SA
2.0
326 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
Protest against the Hollywood HUAC investigation. Why did some members of the film industry, including many high-profile stars, speak out against HUAC’s Hollywood investigation? Why did others, including future governor Ronald Reagan, cooperate with efforts to purge the industry of the “Red Menace”?
knew “Voorhis wasn’t a Communist,” he fell short of an apology for his smeartactics. “Nice guys and sissies,” he maintained, “didn’t win elections.” Once inCongress, Nixon advanced his political career by joining HUAC and vigorouslypursuing the conviction of Alger Hiss, a State Department official who wasaccused of spying for the Soviet Union. Although the allegation was neverproved, Hiss was convicted of perjury for denying the charges against him.And Nixon received credit for uncovering subversion at high levels of the fed-eral government under the Democrats’ watch. On both the state and nationallevel, Republicans used the Hiss case and other allegations of subversion fromwithin to paint the Democrats as either “soft on Communism” or guilty ofactual conspiracy.
In the 1950 U.S. Senate race, Nixon again turned to red baiting. Mischar-acterizing his Democratic opponent, Helen Gahagan Douglas, as “the PinkLady” with a Communist-like voting record in the U.S. House of Representa-tives, he handily won the contest. Douglas, like Voorhis, was merely aDemocrat with a liberal voting record. Meanwhile, Nixon’s political fortunesadvanced. Just a year after defeating Douglas, he was rewarded with the vicepresidency—a clear indication that the American political process had beendeeply influenced by postwar anti-Communist hysteria.
Warren and Knight
Earl Warren and his successor Goodwin J. Knight, both Republicans, heldoffice during the height of California’s Red Scare, but, unlike Nixon, theyrefrained from exploiting fear to advance their political careers. Moreover,both men adopted liberal policies that greatly expanded the power of govern-ment “over the lives of the people”—policies that were heartily criticized bytheir more conservative colleagues. Their party affiliation, however, largely pro-tected them from charges of subversion or softness on Communism. Warren,who characterized himself as a progressive, expanded governmental services,upgraded California’s infrastructure, and invested heavily in health, welfare,and public education. He also took a principled position on his party’s anti-Communist crusade. In 1948, Warren criticized HUAC’s Hollywood investiga-tion and refused to support a loyalty oath for state employees. As an ex-officioregent, he attempted to convince his fellow board members that the university’sloyalty oath was ineffective and unconstitutional. He also opposed the 1950Levering Act, which had been drafted by one of his critics, a right-wing Repub-lican assemblyman from Los Angeles. By 1953, when Warren was named chiefjustice of the U.S. Supreme Court, his foes were heartened that the lieutenantgovernor, Goodwin J. Knight, a conservative critic of Warren’s liberal policies,would take over the office. Knight, having the incumbent’s advantage and hisparty’s blessing, then won the governorship in his own right in 1954.
Once firmly in office, however, Knight followed in Warren’s footsteps bysupporting increased spending on infrastructure, water resource development,
Postwar Politics 327
workers’ benefits, social services, and mental health. Even more troubling to hisparty’s conservatives, Knight expanded the regulatory role of governmentby endorsing clean air standards, and he established himself as a friend oforganized labor by opposing “right-to-work” legislation (discussed on the nextpage). As the next election approached, Knight faced serious opposition. Twoconservative rivals, Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator William Know-land, saw his office as a step toward the presidency. With proven right-wingcredentials, either one could count on the financial backing of the state andnational Republican Party in the 1958 election.
In 1957, Knight’s fears materialized when Knowland announced that hewould run for governor. Making matters worse, Nixon supporters, angry overKnight’s refusal to endorse Nixon’s 1956 vice-presidential nomination, weresure to back Knowland. Knight’s chances of winning the primary were alsoundercut by a 1952 voter referendum that forced candidates to identify theirparty affiliation on primary ballots. The old ballot had listed incumbents atthe top without revealing their party membership. Knight, as an incumbentwith broad, nonpartisan appeal, would have had an advantage over rivalRepublicans and Democrats under the old system. Cognizant of these liabilities,Knight withdrew from the race and left the field to Knowland.
The state’s Democrats, in the meantime, regrouped. Twenty years earlier,Republicans had created an efficient, tightly knit organization to raise moneyand coordinate their campaigns. Having a disproportionate number of incum-bents, they were also the primary beneficiaries of the old cross-filing system.And the postwar anti-Communist hysteria provided the Republicans with yetanother political advantage. By the election of 1958, however, conditions hadchanged. The Red Scare tapered off, and many Californians now viewed itsmain architects as political opportunists and extremists. Moreover, the liberalpolicies of two Republican governors, although roundly criticized by conserva-tives, had visibly improved the state’s infrastructure, strengthened its economy,and improved the health and welfare of its citizens.
At the same time, election reform gave Democrats a more equal playingfield in primary elections and prompted them to create a vigorous new partyorganization, the California Democratic Council (CDC), to advance their polit-ical agenda. By 1956, the Democrats had ample reason to be hopeful that thetide had turned in their favor. In that year’s elections, they eroded the Republi-can majority in the assembly from 53–27 to 42–38, and in the senate from29–11 to 20–20. As the 1958 election approached, their prospects seemedeven brighter; the Republican incumbent had dropped out of the governor’srace, and his replacement had a reputation as a right-wing extremist.
Edmund G. Brown
In 1958, Democrats chose Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, a native San Franciscanand state attorney general, to run for governor. Brown, a New Deal Democrat
328 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
and active member of the CDC, had impeccable liberal credentials. During the1940s, as district attorney for San Francisco, Brown transformed a corrupt andinefficient department into a modern, aggressive, crime-fighting unit. Whilewaging legal battles against prostitution, gambling, juvenile delinquency, andpolitical corruption, Brown attacked civil rights violations with equal zeal.Resisting popular opinion, he vocally condemned Japanese relocation andinternment, and opposed the anti-Communist crusade against Harry Bridges,the militant leader of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’sUnion (ILWU). In 1950, with Governor Warren’s endorsement, Brown waselected as state attorney general. When pro-business conservatives succeededin placing a “right-to-work” initiative on the 1958 ballot, Attorney GeneralBrown forced them to change the proposition’s title to “Employer andEmployee Relations” to avoid misleading voters. This decision bolsteredBrown’s liberal, pro-labor reputation and gave him a decisive edge in theupcoming governor’s race.
The “right-to-work” initiative, which unions branded as the “right to workfor less and less and less,” became a major issue of the 1958 campaign. In manyworkplaces, unions secured “closed-shop” agreements from management thatmade union membership a condition of employment. The “right-to-work” ini-tiative would have prohibited such restrictions, allowing employees to choosewhether to join an existing union upon accepting a job. Organized labor fearedthat the initiative was part of a broader campaign to erode the membership andpolitical power of unions. Knowland, determined to repudiate Warren’s andKnight’s liberal policies and to secure conservative support for the 1960 Repub-lican presidential nomination, adopted a largely negative, anti-labor platformthat highlighted his support of the right-to-work initiative. As a consequence,labor united behind Brown, exercising an unprecedented degree of organiza-tional and political muscle. Brown, assured of union support, moved beyondthis single issue to promote a broader, more optimistic agenda that consoli-dated support within his own party, attracted thousands of new voters, andconvinced many independents and moderate Republicans to opt for his“responsible liberalism.”
Framing his opposition to the right-to-work initiative as part of a prag-matic, forward-looking plan of action, Brown succeeded in casting Knowlandas an ultraconservative, overly pessimistic throwback to a bygone era. With thesupport of a broad new constituency, Brown won in 54 of the state’s 56 coun-ties and secured nearly 60 percent of the total vote. Just as significantly, Brownentered office with a Democratic majority in the state senate and assembly.California voters had delivered a strong mandate in favor of governmentaladvocacy and activism.
Once in office, Brown moved quickly to enact his liberal agenda. Several ofhis proposals simply expanded existing programs. For example, Brownstrengthened the state’s social safety net by increasing workers’ compensationand unemployment benefits, old age pensions, and welfare entitlements. He
Postwar Politics 329
also continued government support for mental health benefits, education, andhighway construction, and he financed programs through tax increases, muchas Warren had done in creating his “rainy-day fund.”
Brown, however, was a bold innovator. He overcame opposition to theCalifornia Water Plan by stressing that it would create thousands of new jobs,benefit the state as a whole, and include adequate environmental safeguards. Ina 1960 special election, preceded by an aggressive media campaign designed toconvince voters of the plan’s merits, Californians approved a $1.7 billion bondmeasure to fund this unprecedented expansion of the state’s water infrastruc-ture. Although Brown backed policies that accommodated economic and urbandevelopment, he strengthened government’s role in moderating the impact ofrapid growth. Under his leadership, the legislature enacted consumer protec-tion and air quality standards and created the Office of Consumer Affairs andan Air Quality Control Board to enforce the new regulations. These agencies,soon followed by others, greatly expanded the state’s regulatory framework,and reflected growing public concern over quality-of-life issues.
Brown acted with a similar degree of boldness in reorganizing the state’ssystem of higher education, supporting both the Master Plan and Fisher Act.He also secured legislative support for a series of political reforms proposed bya fellow Democrat, Assemblyman Jesse Unruh. The cross-filing system,modified in 1952, was abolished completely in 1959, generating more spiritedelectoral contests and partisan debate. Unruh, with Brown’s backing, went onto introduce a series of reforms that greatly improved legislative performanceand fairness. In 1965, the legislature abandoned the antiquated system ofapportioning senators by county and adopted the more equitable practice ofallocating representatives by population-based districts. Finally, Unruh andBrown obtained legislative approval to create a Constitutional Revision Com-mission, charged with increasing the efficiency and upgrading the quality ofstate government. Commission reforms and supporting legislative measuresstreamlined executive and legislative bureaucracies and procedures, increasedlegislators’ salaries and staff, established year-round legislative sessions,enhanced city and county control over local affairs, reduced the qualificationrequirements for ballot initiatives, and afforded greater constitutional protec-tions to California citizens. By the end of Brown’s second term, the state hada national reputation for efficient, professional government—a reputation thatprompted the American Good Government Society to honor Jesse Unruh withits George Washington Award in 1967.
Brown, acknowledging the support that he received from the state’sgrowing African American population, placed civil rights at the top of hisgubernatorial agenda and lobbied tirelessly for legislative approval. His effortspaid off in 1959, when the legislature banned discrimination in the workplaceand created a new regulatory agency, the Division of Fair Employment Prac-tices, to enforce the law. The same year, Brown obtained support for anUnruh-sponsored measure that prohibited racial discrimination in public
330 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
accommodations, business and real estate transactions, and government-funded housing projects. Brown also supported fair housing legislationintroduced by William Byron Rumford, a black assemblyman who was firstelected in 1948 by a newly enlarged African American constituency in theSan Francisco East Bay. In 1963, with Brown’s backing, the legislatureapproved the Rumford Act, a measure banning racial discrimination in thesale and rental of housing.
Although Brown had succeeded in advancing most of his liberal agenda bythe end of his first term, he was exhausted by his own high standards andsomewhat dispirited by his few failures. He had repeatedly pushed for anincrease in the state’s minimum wage, only to meet stubborn and effectiveresistance from agriculture and private industry. He had also lobbied unsuc-cessfully against California’s death penalty and received negative publicity fordelaying the execution of a violent sex offender, Caryl Chessman. Finally,Brown failed to unite his party’s delegation behind John F. Kennedy at the1960 Democratic National Convention. Although Kennedy won the presiden-tial nomination, California Democrats, still divided on Election Day, could notdeliver the necessary votes. Kennedy lost in the state by 36,000 votes, which,much to Brown’s embarrassment, almost cost Kennedy the presidency.
Brown decided to run for a second term only after Nixon, who had lost the1960 presidential race, announced his candidacy for governor in 1962. Nixonrevived his old Red Scare tactics and accused Brown of being “soft onCommunism.” Brown countered by arguing that Nixon, obviously out oftouch with the state’s major issues, was intent on using the governorship as a“stepping stone to the presidency.” Californians, unmoved by Nixon’s tiredrhetoric, delivered a second mandate for Brown, returning him to office andpreserving the Democratic majority in the legislature. Brown’s second term,however, presented greater challenges. By the mid-1960s, Californians, eitheralarmed by the scope of reform or impatient with the slow pace of change,undermined liberalism’s fragile foundation.
Liberalism at the Municipal Level
On a municipal level, the problems associated with rapid economic anddemographic expansion generated a new level of civic activism. In manycommunities, citizens elected candidates who promised to increase the profes-sionalism and efficiency of city government and actively direct growth inpositive directions. At the same time, minority activists joined with organizedlabor and progressive whites to forge a broader liberal agenda that called onlocal government to protect and advance civil rights through fair housing andemployment legislation, and increased social spending.
In Berkeley, for example, small businessmen, whose primary objective wasto keep taxes at a minimum by limiting the expansion of municipal services,dominated the government. By the late 1940s, liberal Democrats, concerned
Postwar Politics 331
that the city was failing to meet the needs of its growing population—includinglarge numbers of African American newcomers—began to run their own can-didates for office. The conservative incumbents fought back by urging voters to“Keep the Communists and Campus Carpet-Baggers Out of City Hall.” Work-ing hard to build a broad-based, multiethnic coalition during the next decade,liberals finally secured a majority on the city council and school board in 1961.Even more significantly, two of their winning candidates were black. Wastingno time, the new city government began to fulfill its platform. In early 1963,the council passed a fair housing ordinance, predating the state-level RumfordFair Housing Act. The same year, the city became the first in the state to adopta school integration plan. The council also improved recreation facilitiesin poorer sections of the city and rezoned the flatlands, which containedBerkeley’s largest black neighborhoods, to protect low-income housing fromspeculation and uncontrolled development.
Just to the south, in Oakland, a labor-initiated coalition mounted a simi-lar, although less successful, attack against the city’s conservative leadership.In 1947, the Oakland Voters League (OVL), uniting left-wing unions, middle-class white liberals, and black migrants, ran candidates for five seats on thecity council. Their platform struck a chord with voters. It called for the con-struction of public housing and schools; increased funding for recreationfacilities, public health, and street improvements; the creation of a fairemployment commission; the repeal of anti-labor ordinances; and a moreequitable tax structure. Four of their five candidates won, giving the OVLjust one seat short of a majority on the nine-member council. But conserva-tive forces mounted a successful campaign against their liberal challengers. Inthe next two elections, three OVL representatives were ousted from officeafter being smeared as pro-Communist. Soon after, the OVL also collapsedand Oakland’s conservative leaders enjoyed the political advantage for severalyears to come.
In Los Angeles, yet another liberal coalition won a modest but more per-manent victory. In 1947 Edward Roybal, a Mexican American army veteranand public health worker, ran unsuccessfully for the city council. Followinghis defeat, Roybal and his supporters formed the Community ServiceOrganization (CSO) to register Mexican American voters and advocate forcommunity improvements. Soon the CSO attracted the attention of theChicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation, a group that supported grassrootscommunity organizing efforts across the country. The foundation provided theCSO with financial support and the assistance of Fred Ross, one of its seasonedorganizers. In 1949, the CSO supported Roybal’s second bid for the ninth-district council seat, a district that housed a growing Mexican American popu-lation, but also pockets of Jewish, Asian, African American, and Anglo voters.By focusing on issues that directly impacted all ethnic minorities and appealedto liberal whites—particularly the progressive Jewish community—CSO organi-zers secured Roybal’s victory over the incumbent councilman by a vote of
332 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
20,472 to 11,956. Once in office, he not only championed fair housing, employ-ment, and educational opportunities, but also risked his political career byopposing a bill requiring city employees to take a loyalty oath. Roybal, thefirst Mexican American to serve on the council, remained in office until electedto the U.S. House of Representatives in 1962.
Liberal challenges, like those that took place in Berkeley, Oakland, and LosAngeles, permanently altered municipal politics in other cities throughout thestate. In some cases, liberal coalitions achieved dramatic results, completelyupsetting the local balance of power. But even minor victories produced signif-icant changes. Roybal’s campaign, for example, emboldened thousands of newvoters to demand the respect of elected officials, and encouraged communityorganizations to pursue their liberal agendas more aggressively. Despite post-war anti-Communist hysteria, changing demographics, postwar prosperityand optimism, and the problems associated with rapid growth generated anunstoppable tide of popular support for visionary, proactive leadership. Begin-ning close to home, where the impact of change was more immediate, this tidespread outward, sweeping Pat Brown into office in 1958 and handing him asolid mandate for change.
Social and Cultural Dissent
The postwar period, although an era of relative economic prosperity, socialharmony, and political stability, contained the seeds of conflict. While the mid-dle class expanded, largely because of state and federal investment in housing,education, and the military-industrial complex, poverty and racial discrimina-tion remained serious problems. The suburban boom, a symbol of the era’sprosperity and stability, bypassed ethnic minorities and the poor, and took—as many were beginning to recognize—a tremendous toll on the environment.Even gender roles were in flux, as increasing numbers of married womenentered the work force or confronted the isolation, boredom, and lack of statusassociated with suburban domestic roles. The political arena was also chargedwith tension, roiling with anti-Communist hysteria, blatant opportunism, andbitter contests between liberal and conservative forces. Only in 1958 did thestate approach anything remotely resembling a political consensus.
White Flight and Ghettoization
The state’s black population continued to expand during the postwar period,fueled by the baby boom and a steady stream of opportunity-seeking migrants.By the mid-1960s, reflecting a decade of gradual progress, African Americansheld four state assembly seats, representing the 17th District in Alameda County,the 18th District in San Francisco County, and the 53rd and 55th Districts in
Social and Cultural Dissent 333
Los Angeles County. Augustus Hawkins, who had served in the assemblysince 1934, became California’s first black congressman in 1962. Local gainswere also impressive, with African Americans obtaining city council seats inLos Angeles, Compton, and Berkeley; school board seats in Oakland, San Fran-cisco, Los Angeles, and Berkeley; and one seat on the San Francisco Board ofSupervisors.
These political advances translated into important civil rights victories,particularly on the state level. In 1959, the legislature banned employment dis-crimination and created the Division of Fair Employment Practices to enforcethe new law. It also passed the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimina-tion in public accommodations, business transactions (including real estate),and public housing. Fair housing legislation, although meeting with greaterwhite resistance, followed in 1963. Finally, several municipalities adopted civilrights measures of their own. San Francisco, for example, created a FairEmployment Practices Commission in 1958, and Berkeley enacted a fair hous-ing law and school integration plan in 1963.
Fair employment legislation, combined with political pressure from civilrights groups, produced the most immediate results. State, county, and localgovernment, which expanded rapidly during the postwar period, adoptednondiscriminatory hiring policies in advance of private industry. As a conse-quence, increasing numbers of African Americans gained access to civil serviceemployment—jobs that offered relatively high wages and occupational securityand contributed to the growth of California’s black middle class.
The political progress that produced such gains, however, was partly aproduct of black ghettoization. African Americans won representation not inthe booming, prosperous suburbs, but in the urban core and within the con-fines of well-defined black districts or neighborhoods. Fair employment legisla-tion, all too easily circumvented by private employers, did even less to preventindustry from following whites to the suburbs. And fair housing legislation,which should have allowed minorities to participate in the suburban boom,met with bitter opposition and organized resistance. Even after the courtsupheld the law, homeowners and lending and real estate agencies continuedto ignore its directives. Most African Americans, regardless of their economicstatus, were trapped.
As white and industrial flight to the suburbs stripped California’s innercities of their tax and employment base, those who remained behind facedincreasingly bleak futures. By the mid-1950s, the postwar ghetto had takenshape, characterized by high levels of joblessness, dilapidated housing, inade-quate police and fire protection, poor recreation facilities, and limited medicaland shopping establishments. The spatial and economic marginalization ofghettos was compounded by government-financed freeway projects thatdestroyed entire black neighborhoods and business districts, and cut residentsoff from the rest of the city. By 1960, for example, the Watts section of LosAngeles was effectively Balkanized by the very transportation networks that
334 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
facilitated white and industrial flight to the suburbs. Although 60 percent of itspopulation was young and full of promise, astonishingly high levels of unem-ployment created a climate of frustration and despair. More than 40 percent ofyoung adults were unemployed, and most of those who were fortunate enoughto find jobs worked part time and for low wages.
De facto school segregation also emerged as a serious problem. Most blackchildren attended predominantly black schools, reflecting their increasingspatial isolation from other inner-city neighborhoods and the surrounding sub-urbs. Although a few cities adopted school integration plans in the early 1960s,most, including Los Angeles, resisted efforts to ensure educational equity wellinto the 1970s. Even then, citywide desegregation programs were only partiallyeffective. Many white urbanites either placed their children in private schoolsor relocated to the suburbs. And predominantly white suburban districts, witha surplus of resources, continued to afford richer academic environments thantheir urban counterparts.
As conditions in ghettos deteriorated, many municipalities adopted urbanrenewal plans. These efforts to reclaim “blighted” sections of the inner cityfrequently entailed the wholesale destruction of entire neighborhoods. At best,older single-family homes were replaced with low-income housing projects thatconfined the poor to even smaller, more isolated enclaves. At worst, as was saidat the time, urban renewal amounted to “Negro removal.” In West Oakland,for example, city officials razed block upon block of affordable housing withoutconstructing an equivalent number of low-income units.
Despite the shrinking opportunity structure in California’s black ghettos,a majority of black activists embraced a civil rights–oriented agenda. Blackadvancement, they believed, hinged on full integration into the whitemainstream—integration that could be achieved through laws that guaranteedequal access to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. By 1963, however, anew generation of activists realized that legislation alone would not eliminateracial discrimination. Some, retaining the liberal optimism of the older genera-tion, turned to nonviolent protest to force compliance with the law. Others,particularly those who had been raised in the inner city, had less faith thatwhites would willingly relinquish their power, or that civil rights legislationwould address the deeper, more tangled form of racism so keenly felt by ghettoresidents. Postwar California, despite its booming economy and legislativecommitment to racial equality, had fostered and ignored the ghettoization ofblack citizens. Soon the resulting rage and frustration, fueled by voter repealof the Rumford Fair Housing Act, dispelled any lingering fantasies of socialharmony and political stability.
Poverty in the Barrios and Fields
The state’s Mexican Americans experienced a similar mixture of hope anddespair. During the postwar years, the Hispanic population not only increased,
Social and Cultural Dissent 335
but also continued to cluster in urban areas. While most of this growth wasconcentrated in southern California, newcomers, mostly Mexican Americansfrom other southwestern states, settled in northern cities as well. Between1950 and 1960, the Spanish-surnamed population more than doubled in LosAngeles, San Diego, and San José, and increased by almost 90 percent inFresno and the San Francisco Bay area. Undocumented immigrants, sharplyincreasing in number following the war, also contributed to this growth andcreated a painful dilemma for Mexican American activists.
On one hand, undocumented immigrants exacerbated the problems cre-ated by the bracero program. They displaced domestic workers in agricultureand industry, depressed wages, undercut unionization efforts, and were per-ceived as undermining the efforts of long-term residents to combat negativestereotypes and enter the Anglo American mainstream. Moreover, immigrationofficials frequently violated the rights of citizens and noncitizens alike duringneighborhood and workplace “sweeps” for undocumented residents. TheseCold War–era roundups, termed “Operation Wetback” by the federal govern-ment, resulted in almost two million deportations between 1953 and 1955 andwere partly intended to root out alien dissidents. On the other hand, newimmigrants and Mexican Americans shared cultural, linguistic, and often fam-ily ties. If unified rather than divided by anti-immigrant hysteria, there was apotential for effective political action against prejudice and discrimination.
Regardless of their nationality, both groups did, in fact, have common con-cerns. By the mid-1960s, 85 percent of the state’s Spanish-surnamed populationlived in cities, mostly within segregated enclaves or barrios. Like black ghettos,barrios were products of housing discrimination. And like ghettos, they wereincreasingly isolated from surrounding areas by freeways, and characterizedby older, dilapidated housing, overcrowded and underfunded schools, inade-quate recreation facilities, declining infrastructure, and high levels of underem-ployment and unemployment. Residents who found jobs were limited tolow-paying, unskilled occupations by discriminatory hiring practices. Even thepublic sector, while providing new employment opportunities to other ethnicminorities, extended comparatively few jobs to Mexican Americans. LosAngeles County government, for example, employed 28,584 Anglos and10,807 African Americans in 1964, but only 1,973 Mexican Americans. As aconsequence, one in every five families fell below the poverty line, and a major-ity earned significantly less than the median white income.
Many city officials, rather than addressing these problems, seemed moreintent on harassing residents for petty legal violations, keeping them withinthe confines of the communities, or erasing barrios altogether through urbanrenewal. In 1957, for example, Mexican American residents were forced outof Chavez Ravine to make room for the new Los Angeles Dodgers Stadium.Residents rightly suspected that their removal was part of a broader, ColdWar–inspired effort to curb the growing political and social power of theMexican American community. Councilman Edward Roybal, objecting to the
336 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
treatment of a family that resisted displacement, commented: “The eviction isthe kind of thing you might expect in Nazi Germany or during the SpanishInquisition.” Even in communities not threatened by urban renewal, residentslived in a chronic state of insecurity. Immigration sweeps and high levels ofpolice brutality and harassment convinced many that the government was anenemy rather than a friend.
In rural areas, conditions were even worse, particularly for migrant farmfamilies. Agricultural workers, lacking the protection of minimum wage laws,earned between 40 and 70 cents an hour during the 1950s. Even if a workerwas employed for 50 hours a week, 35 weeks out of the year, earnings still fellwell below the official poverty level. And most workers, given fluctuations inthe weather and harvest cycle, averaged fewer than 35 weeks of annual labor.To survive, entire families, including children, worked together in the fieldsand moved repeatedly to find as much employment as possible during theyear. Housing, if provided at all by growers, frequently lacked heat, runningwater, and proper sanitation. Although the state established minimum stan-dards for housing and sanitation, most farm labor camps were not inspectedon a regular basis, and many growers simply ignored the regulations.
Farm workers also suffered from lack of health care. Even those who couldafford medical services often had to travel long distances to the nearest clinic orhospital. As a consequence, they had significantly higher infant mortality ratesand lower life expectancies than the general population. The 1962 MigrantHealth Act, which provided federal funding for state and local health services,provided some relief, but failed to appropriate sufficient resources to meet eventhe basic needs of most farm workers. Education was yet another problem.Frequent moves interfered with regular school attendance and forced childrento adjust to an ever-changing series of teachers, academic expectations, andlearning environments. Rural schools, like those in the barrios, were typicallysegregated, overcrowded, and underfunded. Spanish-speaking students facedeven greater difficulties. Not only was English the language of instruction, butstudents were often punished or ridiculed for speaking Spanish. Moreover,those who failed to keep up were frequently labeled as slow or retarded, andheld back or placed on vocational tracks.
Community activists adopted a variety of strategies to address theseproblems. In urban areas, organizations like LULAC and the CSO attackeddiscrimination, lobbied for community improvements, and encouraged activepolitical participation. Unlike LULAC, however, the CSO attempted to promoteunity among Mexican Americans and immigrants by encouraging noncitizensto join and by helping newcomers obtain U.S. citizenship. Indeed, the CSO’sbylaws stated that “residents of the community who are not citizens of theUnited States shall be encouraged to become citizens and to actively participatein community programs and activities that are for the purpose of improvingthe general welfare.” As the CSO spread from Los Angeles to other cities acrossthe state, its inclusive philosophy produced concrete results. By 1955, the
Social and Cultural Dissent 337
organization operated more than 450 citizenship-training classes, which by1960 had helped more than 40,000 immigrants obtain citizenship.
The Asociación Nacional Mexico-Americana (ANMA), formed in 1950,was even more determined to break down the barriers that divided immigrantsand Mexican Americans. Like the CSO, ANMA emphasized citizenship andpolitical participation; however, it also recognized that political and economicrights were interconnected. To counter economic exploitation, ANMAadvocated unionization, building coalitions with other minority groups, anddeveloping stronger connections with underpaid laborers in Mexico and LatinAmerica. ANMA was also one of the earliest Mexican American organizationsto emphasize the beauty and richness of Mexican culture and vigorously attacknegative stereotypes. In 1952, for example, it organized a national boycottagainst the Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company, the sponsor of a radio showthat contained offensive references to Mexican Americans. In Los Angeles,ANMA criticized Weber’s Bread Company for using unflattering caricaturesin its advertising and mounted a similar campaign against Hollywood’sexploitation of popular stereotypes. Finally, ANMA, like the CSO, gave itssupport to the Los Angeles Committee for the Protection of the ForeignBorn (LACPFB), founded in 1950 to protest an increasingly aggressive federalimmigration policy. ANMA was also an outspoken critic of police brutalityagainst barrio residents.
By 1954, ANMA collapsed after its members and leadership were“identified” as Communists or Communist sympathizers by the FBI, and theU.S. attorney general branded it as a “subversive” organization; however, bothANMA and the CSO had succeeded in building electoral interest and activismamong the state’s Spanish-speaking population. Just as significantly, bothorganizations helped foster a more positive sense of ethnic identity based oncultural pride and unity, rather than assimilation into the Anglo mainstream.The Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), founded in 1959, usedthis foundation to demand entry into the state’s Democratic Party structure.MAPA, which militantly promoted ethnic solidarity among Mexican Ameri-cans and de-emphasized cultural assimilation, devoted itself almost entirely torunning candidates for office, voter registration drives, political lobbying, andget-out-the-vote campaigns.
Unlike ANMA, however, which weathered the postwar anti-Communisthysteria, neither MAPA nor the CSO spoke directly to the needs of the state’sfarm workers. The National Farm Workers Labor Union, crippled by the bra-cero program and lack of funding, made little progress in organizing agricul-tural workers during the 1950s. Life in California’s fields remained one of sharpcontrasts: between worker and employer, the poor and the wealthy, Mexicansand Anglos, the powerless and the powerful. At the CSO’s annual conventionin 1962, Cesar Chavez, the organization’s national director, presented a plan tocreate a farm workers’ union and was voted down. Chavez, resigning from hispost, returned to his farm worker roots in Delano and began to pursue his
338 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
dream. In a few short years, his efforts would shake the nation’s conscience andinspire a new level of activism among the state’s Mexican Americans.
Asian Pacific Immigration and Activism
The postwar baby boom and somewhat more liberal immigration laws contrib-uted to the growth of California’s Asian American population between 1950and 1960. While new immigrants tended to cluster in older ethnic neighbor-hoods, established residents were more widely dispersed. This was particularlythe case with Japanese Americans, whose prewar communities had often beenappropriated by other ethnic groups during the war. The Japanese Americanpopulation grew from 84,956 to 157,317 between 1950 and 1960, ChineseAmericans from 58,324 to 95,600, and Filipinos from 40,424 to 65,459. TheKorean population, while significantly smaller, almost quadrupled duringthe same period. Much of this increase grew out of U.S. foreign policy duringthe Cold War. Chinese immigrants, for example, benefited from the DisplacedPersons Act of 1948, which granted entry to political refugees of the CommunistRevolution. The Refugee Acts of 1953, 1957, and 1958, passed in the wake of theKorean conflict, extended asylum to both Chinese and Korean dissidents. TheWalter McCarren Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, supported byAsian American organizations like the Japanese American Citizens League(JACL), had an even greater impact. This act modestly expanded immigrationquotas for Asian countries and granted the right of naturalization to Japanese,Chinese, and Korean immigrants. The law, by allowing aliens to apply for citi-zenship, also invalidated the California Alien Land Act, which had prohibitedAsian noncitizens from owning property in the state. To remove any remainingambiguity, California voters formally repealed the Alien Land Act in 1956.
The Walter McCarren Act, while dismantling many anti-Asian policies,contained some troubling provisions. It not only called for the detention anddeportation of noncitizens suspected of “acts of espionage or sabotage” but alsoimposed tougher restrictions on illegal immigration. The postwar sweeps andraids of Mexican American barrios and the systematic deportation of outspo-ken community activists and union organizers were products of this act.Japanese Americans were particularly alarmed over the provision that autho-rized the creation of detention camps for suspected subversives and mounted a20-year campaign to repeal that section of the law.
The postwar anti-Communist hysteria exerted a chilling influence on someAsian American political activity. On one hand, the government welcomedrefugees from Communist countries. On the other, it mounted an aggressiveattack against “subversives” from within. Citizens and noncitizens of Chineseand Korean ancestry were understandably reluctant to engage in political activ-ity that might arouse suspicion of disloyalty. Japanese Americans, still trauma-tized by the ordeal of internment and struggling to reestablish their livelihoods,were also cautious, but less likely to be confused with the new Communist
Social and Cultural Dissent 339
“enemy.” This small measure of immunity emboldened Nisei activists to lobbyfor Issei citizenship rights and the repeal of the McCarren Act’s detentionclause.
As the anti-Communist hysteria tapered off in the late 1950s, there was asmall but notable increase in Asian American political activism. The JACLjoined forces with other civil rights groups to protest housing and employmentdiscrimination and to lobby for equal rights legislation. At the same time, polit-ical organizations, including the Los Angeles–based West Jefferson DemocraticClub, the Nisei Republican Assembly, and the Chinatown Democratic Club,and San Francisco’s Chinese Young Democrats and Nisei Voters League,claimed a role in local and state government. Nonpartisan civic organizations,which promoted mutual aid and community service, also expanded to meet theneeds of a growing Asian population. The Chinese American Citizens Alliance,the American-Korean Civic Association, and the Filipino Community allhelped to foster interest in civic affairs, maintain cultural traditions, and pro-vide services to their respective ethnic groups.
Opportunities and Challenges for California Indians
For California’s Indian population, the postwar period brought both newopportunities and new challenges. Having made substantial contributions tothe war effort on the battlefield and home front, Indians joined other minori-ties in securing their rights and seeking more equitable treatment. In 1944,after decades of lobbying and litigation, California Indians won an award of$5 million for the illegal seizure of tribal land. This award would have beengreater if the federal government had not deducted funds that it had spent onreservation supplies and the administration of the Bureau of Indian Affairs inCalifornia. Indians immediately protested these deductions by filing suit againstthe federal government under the Jurisdictional Act of 1928. In response, thegovernment established the Indian Land Claims Commission in 1946, a federalagency empowered to investigate and settle land claims. The following year,in 1947, Indians established a new organization, the Federated Tribes ofCalifornia, to press the commission for a more just award than the 1944 ruling.Their efforts failed, and in 1951 the original settlement was distributed in percapita payments of $150 per Indian.
Indians, however, continued to file additional claims. Several claims seek-ing compensation for land west of the Sierra Nevadas were consolidated into asingle case. In 1964, the Indian Land Claims Commission approved a settle-ment of $29,100,000 for 64,425,000 acres of lost territory in this region. Afterattorney fees were deducted, the award amounted to about 47 cents per acre, or$600 per eligible claimant. This settlement, like the one issued in 1951, leftmany Indians bitter and disillusioned.
In the middle of these contentious land claim disputes, the federalgovernment adopted a policy of termination that was designed to abolish
340 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
government oversight and administration of reservations. In California, termi-nation began in earnest with the 1958 California Ranchería Act. Under this act,the federal government identified 44 Indian rancherías as candidates for termi-nation. In exchange for dividing up tribal landholdings among individualmembers, giving up their status as federally recognized tribes, and relinquish-ing all claim to all previously provided federal government services, tribes werepromised various improvements to housing, schools, roads, sanitation systems,and water supplies. Over the next 12 years, 23 rancherías and reservations wereterminated. As the policy was implemented, the federal government failed toprovide the promised improvements to infrastructure. Many Indians, disgustedwith poor living conditions or too impoverished to pay taxes on their individ-ual allotments, sold their land. Those who remained often faced serious healththreats from poor sanitation, contaminated water, and substandard housing.Finally, in some cases, tribal members did not receive allotments at all. As aresult of these problems, most “terminated” tribes filed lawsuits against thegovernment and won reinstatement as rancherías or reservations, but this pro-cess would take decades.
While termination was being implemented, the Bureau of Indian Affairsadopted a national program that had an indirect impact on California Indians.In 1951, the bureau instituted a voluntary relocation program designed toentice Indians off reservations and into urban areas with the promise of jobtraining programs and other transitional services. This program drew nearly100,000 non-California Indians—Sioux, Navajo, Chippewa, Apache, Mohawk,Shoshone—to Los Angeles and the Bay Area between 1952 and 1968. ManyIndians who made the move arrived without the education, work experience,or life skills to survive in an urban environment. Although they received helpfinding employment, the federal government provided few other support ser-vices. Widely dispersed and far from home, these newcomers faced isolation,loneliness, and alienation.
In time, however, California Indians and these newcomers came togetherto establish new organizations that addressed their common concerns. In 1961,with the help of the American Friends Service Committee, Indians of bothgroups established the Intertribal Friendship House in Oakland. The followingyear, Friendship House activists formed the United Bay Area Council ofAmerican Indians. In Los Angeles, in 1958, urban California Indians and new-comers founded the Federated Indian Tribes to promote social events and pre-serve traditional customs and values. These and other organizations provided afoundation for the increased intertribal activism of the late 1960s and 1970s.
Student Activism
During the prosperous postwar period, attending college became the normfor middle-class youth. And a college education, although narrowly conceivedby campus administrators as training a new generation of technicians and
Social and Cultural Dissent 341
managers, introduced students to a broad spectrum of issues and problemsoutside of the comfortable confines of suburban communities. Students’ veryaffluence, far from reinforcing the economic or political status quo, providedthe freedom to reflect critically on social values and institutions, and pondertheir responsibility to “make a difference” in the world. Raised to believe thatcapitalism and democracy had created a society free of the poverty, inequal-ity, and political repression that plagued other nations, students soon discov-ered another, deeply flawed America. This awakening, rather than producingcynicism and despair, gave students a sense of purpose. As the “best and thebrightest,” they could be instruments of social transformation, forcing Amer-ica to live up to its values.
Student dissent began in 1957 on the Berkeley campus, when a small groupof activists formed an organization called SLATE. Its members, impatient withthe trivial issues that had long dominated student politics, campaigned againstcompulsory participation in ROTC and against racial discrimination in sorori-ties, fraternities, and other campus organizations. They also pressed for the crea-tion of a cooperative bookstore and a stronger university policy against housingdiscrimination within the city of Berkeley. While expanding their influence instudent government, SLATE members became increasingly active in the sur-rounding community. In 1959, the group planned an on-campus rally in supportof a citywide fair housing initiative sponsored by a local socialist organization.University administrators, invoking a regulation that prohibited campus groupsfrom supporting outside political causes, ordered SLATE to cancel its demonstra-tion. SLATE refused, and more than 300 students attended the rally.
In 1960, SLATE moved beyond the Berkeley community to organize a pro-test against the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings in SanFrancisco. Incensed over HUAC’s violation of civil liberties in the “defense”of democracy, students were determined to voice their opposition to its hypoc-risy. On Thursday, May 12, Berkeley protestors, joined by San Francisco StateCollege students and faculty, gathered for a rally and picket at Union Square,and then marched to city hall to observe the hearings. Once there, however,students were denied entry passes. On Friday, hundreds of other studentsjoined the original contingent in demanding admission to the proceedings.Barred again from the hearing room, the protestors staged a peaceful sit-in atcity hall. As they sang “We Shall Not Be Moved,” armed police officers forciblyejected them from the building with clubs and high-powered water hoses.Demonstrators and bystanders alike were shocked by the violence of the policeresponse, watching in horror as the “best and the brightest” were “dragged bytheir hair, dragged by their arms and legs down the stairs so that their headswere bouncing off the stairs.” This show of force, however, only strengthenedthe students’ resolve. The next day, 5000 protestors gathered at city hall topicket the hearings.
Although SLATE was prohibited from using university facilities and deniedon-campus status following the HUAC demonstrations, activism continued to
342 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
Cultural Developments
During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the San Francisco Bay area provided ahaven for radical writers, artists, playwrights, and actors, many of whom hadspent the war in prison or in Civilian Public Service camps for refusing militaryservice. Some, influenced by Gandhian nonviolent philosophy, believed thatthere were moral alternatives to war. Others, influenced by socialist or anar-chist beliefs, saw World War II as a struggle between expansionist nations forglobal dominance—a struggle that imposed suffering on millions of innocentcivilians in the service of corporate and state interests. Their views, highlyunpopular during the “Good War,” met with equal hostility in the Cold Warperiod. By creating an intellectual community in San Francisco, however, theynot only escaped isolation and ostracism but also produced a literary and artis-tic renaissance that stood in stark contrast to the generally barren culturallandscape of the 1950s.
The poets and writers of the San Francisco Renaissance, including WilliamEverson and Kenneth Rexroth, broke new literary ground through theirconscious “repudiation of received forms” of composition and their pointedcritiques of militarism, consumer culture, corporate greed, government corrup-tion, and social conformity. Renaissance actors and playwrights, lacking a
flower on the Berkeley campus. By 1963, students would find yet another cause to champion—the national and local struggle for civil rights.
“Hote
l Boh
eme B
eat P
oet’s
portr
ait” b
y Dom
inusV
obisc
um is
licen
sed u
nder
CC BY
2.0
Social and Cultural Dissent 343
Bob Donlin, Neal Cassidy, Allen Ginsberg, Robert La Vinge, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti (left to right) outside of Ferlinghetti’s City Lights Bookstore in San Francisco. Contrast this image with popular depictions of American life during the 1950s. Does anything in the photograph suggest that its subjects are part of a rebellion against conventional norms and values?
venue to perform works that “were significant and avant-avant-garde,” estab-lished the Interplayers, one of San Francisco’s first repertory theaters. Others,like Roy Kepler and the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti, opened bookstores thatsold controversial literature, hosted poetry readings, and served as social cen-ters for artists and writers. KPFA, the nation’s first listener-supported radiostation, also emerged out of this cultural ferment, creating an opening on theairwaves for radical, dissenting voices.
By the mid-1950s, this flourishing subculture helped nourish a new liter-ary and artistic movement. In October 1955, San Francisco’s Six Galleryhosted a poetry reading that attracted about 150 participants, including thenovelist Jack Kerouac and a young, aspiring poet named Allen Ginsberg.Ginsberg’s poem entitled “Howl” attacked the spiritual and emotional sterilityof postwar culture and captured the longing of American youth for morethan the “ample rewards” of conforming to “the conventions of the contem-porary business society.”
The critical edge in “Howl” was made even sharper by its strong lan-guage and generated a backlash that propelled the “Beat” poets into thenational spotlight. In 1956, Lawrence Ferlinghetti published Howl andOther Poems out of City Lights, his North Beach bookstore. The police,charging that the volume was “obscene and indecent,” confiscated copies ofthe book. Ferlinghetti fought back in court, obtaining a much publicized andpositive verdict that “Howl” was literature, not pornography. Jack Kerouac’sOn the Road, which celebrated the intentional rejection of the work ethic,material success, emotional reserve, and sexual inhibition, was published inthe wake of the “Howl” publicity, and added further stimulus to the move-ment. By the late 1950s, the Bay Area became a mecca for new writers,including Denise Levertov, Philip Whalen, Gary Snyder, Peter Orlovsky,and Ken Kesey. Artists, including Jay “The Rose” DeFeo and Joan Brown,boldly experimented with color, texture, and new materials, adding to thisrich cultural environment.
Alan Watts, a scholar and practitioner of Zen Buddhism, influenced thisnew literary subculture by introducing Beat writers to Eastern religious tra-ditions that emphasized harmony with nature, renunciation of material pos-sessions, voluntary simplicity, pacifism, and faith in internal rather thanexternal sources of authority. By exalting these values, Beat writers movedbeyond mere criticism to create an alternative vision of society that sparkedthe idealism of young Americans and confirmed their faith that they couldmake a difference in the world. Just as significantly, the Beats’ philosophicalorientation helped inform the much broader countercultural movement ofthe 1960s.
After the war, southern California became a cultural center of national,even international, importance. This transformation began in the 1940s, ashundreds of European refugees, including prominent writers, actors, artists,art collectors, and musicians, found a safe haven in the Los Angeles area.
344 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
Previously recognized for its Hollywood productions, Los Angeles emerged as aserious contender in theater, symphony, and classical and modern art. Acrossthe state, popular culture also flourished. Country music, brought to Californiaby white migrants during the Depression and war years, established Bakersfieldas the “Nashville of the West” by the early 1960s. Similarly, black migrantstransplanted and later adapted their blues tradition, creating a distinct“California” style of playing. In the suburbs of Los Angeles, the Beach Boysput a southland spin on rock music. Their “California sound,” celebratingsurf, beaches, sunshine, and young love, introduced the nation’s youth to the“California Dream.” Finally, Disneyland, McDonald’s, and Hollywood’s newtelevision industry changed family recreation patterns and placed southernCalifornia at the forefront of consumer culture.
Summary
During the postwar years, California’s booming economy and population pro-pelled the state into the national spotlight. Its industrial base, benefiting fromfederal defense expenditures, not only broke new technological ground, butalso attracted thousands of newcomers with the promise of prosperity. Growth,however, placed severe strains on existing infrastructure and prompted stateand local government to invest heavily in education, social services, transporta-tion, recreation, community health, and public works. At the same time, thou-sands of Californians abandoned the older urban core for new suburbandevelopments. Industry soon followed. This population shift destroyed millionsof acres of open space and valuable agricultural land and transferred urbanproblems like air and water pollution to relatively unspoiled areas. It also rein-forced social and economic inequalities. Non-whites, shut out of the suburbanboom by discriminatory housing practices, were left with a declining urbaninfrastructure, diminishing tax base, and shrinking job prospects. Despitetheir “ghettoization,” ethnic minorities still had cause for optimism. Many Cali-fornians, recalling the democratic rhetoric of the war, were concerned aboutcivil rights. Anti-Communist hysteria, while damaging and distracting, failedto extinguish popular support for liberal reform. Moreover, urban ghettos, byconcentrating ethnic groups in specific districts, enhanced minority politicalpower. Thus, by the end of the postwar era, African Americans and MexicanAmericans achieved significant legislative and political victories on the stateand local levels. By the early 1960s, however, serious questions remained. Wascivil rights legislation enough to solve the state’s “racial dilemma”? Weremiddle-class values and the suburban lifestyle stifling women and the young?Was postwar expansion extracting too heavy a toll on the environment? Thesequestions, which arose during the 1950s, would find vocal expression duringthe tumultuous ’60s.
Summary 345
Suggested Readings
❚ Broussard, Albert, Black San Francisco: The Struggle for Racial Equality inthe West, 1900–1954 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993). Thisbook, while covering a broad span of time, provides good coverage of post-war black activism in the San Francisco Bay area.
❚ Dassman, Raymond F., The Destruction of California (Tappan, NJ:Macmillan, 1966). This book, a classic primary source, documents theenvironmental damage that resulted from rapid growth and developmentduring the postwar period.
❚ Davidson, Michael, The San Francisco Renaissance (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1989). This book examines the origins, impact, and legacyof the San Francisco Renaissance, culminating with the rise of the BeatGeneration.
❚ Douglas, John A., The California Idea and American Higher Education,1850 to the 1960 Master Plan (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000).This book provides a historical overview of higher education in California,including a detailed account of the Master Plan.
❚ Galarza, Ernesto, Farm Workers and Agri-Business in California, 1947–1960(Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978). This bookexposes the human costs associated with agricultural production, includinga thorough critique of the bracero program.
❚ Hundley, Jr., Norris, The Great Thirst: Californians and Water—A History(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001). This book provides anoverview of the state’s water resources, water exploitation, and local, state,and federal water policy.
❚ Lipset, Seymour, and Wolin, Sheldon S., eds., The Berkeley Student Revolt(New York: Doubleday-Anchor, 1965). A classic collection of writings onthe Berkeley Free Speech Movement and student activism, more generally.
❚ Nash, Gerald D., The American West Transformed: The Impact of the Sec-ond World War (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990). This bookdetails the lasting impact that World War II had on California’s economy,including a discussion of the state’s emerging electronics and aerospaceindustries.
❚ Navasky, Victor, Naming Names (Hill and Wang, 2003). This book placesHollywood’s Red Scare within a larger historical context, describes itshuman costs, and details its lasting impact on the industry.
❚ Pincetl, Stephanie, Transforming California: A Political History of Land Useand Development (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). This
346 CHAPTER 10 Postwar California: Prosperity and Discontent in the Golden State: 1946–1963
book provides a comprehensive history of land use, development, and envi-ronmental degradation in California.
❚ Schiesl, Martin, ed., Responsible Liberalism: Edmund G. “Pat” Brown andReform Government in California, 1958–1967 (Los Angeles: CaliforniaState University, Los Angeles, Institute of Public Affairs, 2003). This recentcollection of essays provides a good overview of Brown’s political philoso-phy, agenda, and major accomplishments during his two terms as governor.
❚ Schiesl, Martin and Dodge, Mark, eds., City of Promise: Race and HistoricalChange in Los Angeles (Claremont: Regina Books, 2006). This recent collec-tion of essays documents the experience and struggles of the city’s Latino,African American, and Asian Pacific communities before and after WorldWar II.
❚ Williams, James C., Energy and the Making of Modern California (Akron:University of Akron Press, 1997). This book provides a comprehensiveoverview of the state’s energy resources, use patterns, regulatory framework,and policy.
Suggested Readings 347
CHAP
TER 11
Divided We Stand:Activism and Politics,1964–1970
Main Topics
❚ Seeds of Change
❚ The Movement Expands
❚ Politics in the Age of Dissent
❚ Summary
In the fall of 1964, Margot Adler left her home in New YorkCity to attend college at U.C. Berkeley. Raised by left-wingparents during the McCarthy era, Margot was no stranger
to political activism. While still in high school she joined theCongress of Racial Equality (CORE), participated in civil rightsdemonstrations, and helped organize protests against civildefense drills. Berkeley, with its outstanding academic reputa-tion and “rich history of student activism,” was a logical choicefor this bright, idealistic young woman. But just as important,it provided Adler with the opportunity “to find a rich and inter-esting life” of her own.
When she arrived at Berkeley, administrators had just pro-hibited on- and off-campus organizations from setting uptables at the south entrance of the campus, an area that hadlong been used by various groups to distribute their literature,recruit members, and engage in spirited political debate anddiscussion. The ban came during the national struggle for civilrights, when many Berkeley students joined protests against
348
discriminatory hiring practices of local businesses such as Mel’sDrive-In, the Sheraton Palace Hotel, and the Lucky supermarketchain. Other students had recently returned from Mississippi,where they had spent the summer volunteering with civil rightsorganizations like CORE and the Student Non-Violent Coordinat-ing Committee to register black voters. For local activists andMississippi volunteers, the tables on Bancroft and Telegraph—mistakenly thought by university administrators to be on cam-pus property—were the primary means of attracting support forthe growing civil rights movement.
Not surprisingly, student activists, including some fromconservative organizations like the Young Republicans,responded to the ban with anger. The university, theycharged, cared more about maintaining good relations withlocal businesses by controlling campus political activitythan about the constitutional right of free speech. The banalso brought other issues to the surface. Many felt that itwas a paternalistic policy, designed to shelter students fromunwholesome or “subversive” ideas—a policy that reflectedthe administration’s assumption that students were incapa-ble of making informed, independent judgments. To others,the prohibition underscored the university’s lack of moraldirection. Its officials, students maintained, were mainlyinterested in “turning out corporate drones for industry”
CHAPTER 11Divided We Stand: Activism and
Politics, 1964–1970
1962Edmund G. Brown reelected as governorNational Farm Workers Association (later renamed UFW)formed
1964 Rumford Act repealed by Proposition 14U.C. Berkeley Free Speech Movement
1965Delano Grape Strike launchedWatts RiotImmigration Act abolishes race-based immigration quotas
1966 Black Panther Party establishedRonald Reagan elected governor
1967 The Summer of LoveBrown Berets established
1968–1969 Third World Strikes at San Francisco State and U.C. Berkeley
1969 Indians of All Tribes occupy Alcatraz IslandActivists create People’s Park
1970
Chicano Moratorium march and rally against the war inVietnam; Ruben Salazar killed by Los Angeles PoliceDepartmentReagan elected to second term as governor
349
rather than in cultivating critical thought, social responsibil-ity, and civic virtue.
These concerns were broad enough to capture the atten-tion of several thousand students, who, like Adler, believedthat “the right to political advocacy seemed obvious.” Evenconservative student groups, usually at odds with “radical”campus activists, joined the emerging Free Speech Movement(FSM). After a semester-long series of protests, arrests, andfruitless negotiations with the administration, student acti-vists obtained the support of the faculty senate. A weeklater, the Board of Regents struck down all prohibitionsagainst political activity, affirming that students, like allother citizens, were entitled to the protections of the Firstand Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. ForAdler and other FSM activists, the victory struck a deepchord: “We’d done something to transform the world aroundus, and we were forever marked by the belief that changewas possible,” she said. “It would affect us for life, makingus deep optimists about human possibility and influencingevery choice from then on.”
In the summer of 1965, Adler went to Mississippi to workon a voter registration project sponsored by the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. Returning to Berkeley as amore seasoned activist, Adler joined the movement againstthe war in Vietnam—a movement that soon spread acrossthe state, generated often-violent confrontations betweenpolice and demonstrators, disrupted “business as usual” oncollege campuses and in surrounding communities, and deeplypolarized Californians.
After graduating from Berkeley in 1968 with a degree injournalism, Adler’s desire to change the world—to create asociety more rooted in cooperation, spiritual values, and mean-ingful work—continued to shape her life journey. Reflectingback on her experiences, Adler observed: “For all the limitationsof my generation—our unconscious actions, our unexaminedideas, our often silly phrases—we were alive to the deepestspiritual values. We believed that exploration was life-long,that one’s life work had to be honorable, creative, and transfor-mative. We seldom thought about consumption, or the eventualneed to live the good life.... We believed that anything waspossible and that everything was open to reexamination.”
This “ecstatic sense of possibility” was shared by anentire generation of young Californians during the 1960s,and created the foundation for a broad range of social move-ments that altered the state’s cultural, political, and economicfabric. As the decade progressed, heady optimism was
350 CHAPTER 11 Divided We Stand: Activism and Politics, 1964–1970
replaced with frustration over the slow pace of change, gen-erating more militant activism. But to many Californians,particularly those outside the process of change, the stateand nation as a whole appeared to be coming apart at theseams. In the presidential election of 1968, Richard Nixonadopted the successful strategy of claiming to speak for“the great majority of Americans, the non-shouters, thenon-demonstrators … those who do not break the law, peo-ple who pay their taxes and go to work, who send their chil-dren to school, who go to their churches … people who lovethis country [and] cry out ... ‘that is enough, let’s get somenew leadership.’ ”
Just as California led the way for so many of the decade’ssocial movements, it also generated a conservative backlashagainst “disorder and chaos.” Two years before Nixon’s presiden-tial campaign, Ronald Reagan, the state’s Republican candidatefor governor, foreshadowed Nixon’s conservative appeal by blam-ing the “mess at Berkeley,” urban unrest, and moral decline onPat Brown’s liberal administration. He also promised to cuttaxes by reducing government spending on social programs“dreamed up for our supposed betterment,” and he attacked theRumford Fair Housing Act for betraying “sacred” propertyrights. All of these positions appealed to the “forgotten” voterswho believed that government should uphold traditional moralvalues and exercise economic restraint instead of “coddling” avocal, disruptive minority at taxpayer expense. Although Reaganfailed to reduce taxes, quell social unrest, or curb the growth ofstate government, his conservative rhetoric and his apparentsincerity carried him through two terms as governor, revitalizedhis party on the state and national level, and eventually wonhim the presidency.
The ’60s, perhaps more than any other era, underscoredCalifornia’s national influence and role as a bellwether state.The period’s social movements helped extend the democraticpromise to a broader cross section of the population, createda greater appreciation of cultural diversity, and enhancedthe state’s reputation for tolerance, openness, and innova-tion. They also fractured the postwar liberal consensus andprecipitated a conservative reaction that reshaped nationaland state politics.
Questions to Consider
❚ What caused the shift from nonviolent civil rights pro-test to Black Power? How did the Black Power move-ment differ from earlier struggles for civil rights?
CHAPTER 11 Divided We Stand: Activism and Politics, 1964–1970 351
❚ Was the formation of the United Farm Workers union awatershed for California’s Mexican Americans? Why orwhy not?
❚ How did the youth movements of the 1960s, includingthe countercultural rebellion, affect California’s cultural,social, and political institutions?
❚ What factors contributed to Ronald Reagan’s 1966 elec-toral victory and his subsequent popularity as governor?
Seeds of Change
The decade’s social movements began with the African American and farmworker struggles for social, economic, and political equality; growing opposi-tion to the war in Vietnam; and the emergence of the counterculture. Thesemovements, unfolding almost simultaneously, created the foundation for othersthat occurred later in the decade, as well as a conservative backlash againstperceived chaos and disorder.
From Civil Rights to Civil Unrest
During the early 1960s, California’s civil rights activists had reason to beoptimistic. In 1959, the state legislature passed laws prohibiting discrimina-tion in employment, public accommodations, and business transactions. TheRumford Fair Housing Act, passed in 1963, banned racial discrimination inhousing. Moreover, a few cities had started to address the problem of defacto school segregation by adopting various integration plans like busingstudents to schools outside of their mostly all-white or all-black neighbor-hoods. Not all Californians, however, complied with the new legislation orapproved of school integration. In response, black activists, white liberals,and idealistic youths joined forces to combat persistent patterns of racialdiscrimination.
The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), which had a long history ofcivil rights activism in the Northeast and South, contributed to the leadershipof California’s emerging struggle for racial equality. Like their parent organi-zation, the state’s first CORE chapters adopted the philosophy and tactics ofGandhian nonviolence and worked closely with older civil rights organiza-tions like the NAACP. In 1963, for example, CORE activists joined theNAACP in a series of protests against housing discrimination and de factoschool segregation in Los Angeles. To the north, in the Bay Area, COREand its supporters focused on employment discrimination, organizing picketsand sit-ins at businesses that refused to hire black workers. Mel’s Drive-Inchain, the target of an extensive picket campaign in 1963, was forced to revise
352 CHAPTER 11 Divided We Stand: Activism and Politics, 1964–1970
its hiring policies. The following year, CORE organized protests against Lucky supermarkets, Bank of America, the Sheraton Palace Hotel, and automobile dealerships with similar results.
These modest and often token victories convinced movement participants that America’s democratic promise might soon be extended to all citizens. National events contributed to their euphoria and sense of possibility. The civil rights movement in the South was forcing an entire nation to confront its history of racial discrimination and violence, and generating an unprece-dented level of unity among white and black activists. And a new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, not only responded with federal civil rights legislation, but also promised to wage an all-out “War on Poverty.” For the thousands of ghetto residents trapped in poverty, Johnson’s economic opportunity bill raised hope that their government had not forgotten them. The Economic Opportu-nity Act, passed in August of 1964, established the Job Corps to train youths for gainful employment, VISTA (a domestic version of the Peace Corps), and a Community Action Program that provided millions of dollars in federal aid to impoverished areas. To be eligible for Community Action funding, cities had to comply with a “maximum feasible participation” mandate that involved the poor in the allocation and administration of anti-poverty monies. This, too, helped convince activists and ghetto residents that change was possible.
“ap6
4120
9046
” by s
am_c
hurch
ill is
licen
sed u
nder
CC BY
2.0
Seeds of Change 353
Berkeley Free Speech demonstration. The 1964 Free Speech Movement on the U.C. Berkeley campus ushered in a decade of political and cultural activism among young Californians. How do you think older residents reacted to images of young, relatively privileged college students challenging the authority of university administrators and the Board of Regents?
By late 1964, however, optimism began to fade. In November, California’svoters repealed the Rumford Fair Housing Act by approving Proposition 14, aballot initiative sponsored by the state’s real estate industry. The proponents ofthe proposition claimed that government had violated the sacred right of citi-zens to do what they wished with their own property. In reality, however, theinitiative’s backers wanted to preserve all-white neighborhoods from blackencroachment and the perceived threat of declining property values. For civilrights activists and ghetto residents, the message was clear: Californians, by atwo-to-one margin, had registered—in Pat Brown’s words—a “vote forbigotry.” Although the state supreme court reinstated the Rumford Act in1966, a decision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, the damage hadbeen done.
At the same time, the War on Poverty, which had promised relief to thestate’s ghetto residents, was off to a rocky start. In Oakland, one of the firstcities in the nation to receive federal anti-poverty funds, the mayor handpickedmembers of the Economic Development Council, the agency responsible fordeciding how federal monies would be allocated. As a consequence, federalfunding was diverted into large-scale capital improvement projects that had lit-tle impact on living conditions in poor neighborhoods. Even job training pro-grams generated disillusionment. Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, two youngparticipants in the city’s War on Poverty program, soon concluded, “employ-ment training programs have become an acknowledged hustle, since few jobsare available at the end of the training program.” Like others of their genera-tion, they had observed the negative impact of white and capital flight fromtheir community, and they recognized that jobs, rather than job training,were crucial to their survival.
Nevertheless, Oakland’s share of federal funding did provide some relief.This was not the case in Los Angeles, where War on Poverty funds were heldup because city officials refused to comply with the maximum feasible partici-pation mandate of the federal government. By the long, hot summer of 1965,residents of Watts had ample reason to be angry and frustrated. Freeways sep-arated their community from the rest of the city. Urban renewal programs haddestroyed black businesses and affordable housing. Jobs and white residentshad fled to the suburbs, leaving ghetto residents with few employment oppor-tunities, underfunded all-black schools, deteriorating public facilities, and over-crowded, dilapidated housing stock. Housing discrimination, recently upheldby Proposition 14, and a woefully inadequate public transportation system cutoff all avenues of escape. City officials, by failing to obtain federal relief monies,contributed to the growing sense of isolation and despair felt by many Wattsresidents. Finally, the Los Angeles police department was more intent on con-taining black residents in the ghetto than in protecting their lives and property.African American citizens repeatedly accused officers of ignoring due process,excessive use of force, and being “disrespectful and abusive in their language ormanner.” Viewed as a brutal, occupying army, the mostly white police
354 CHAPTER 11 Divided We Stand: Activism and Politics, 1964–1970
department served as a catalyst for mounting anger. Although city officialsinitially blamed the ensuing uprising on “riff raff,” it was clearly rooted inchronic, systemic neglect of black neighborhoods.
On Wednesday, August 11, 1965, police patrolling Watts arrestedMarquette Frye and his brother for drunken driving. Frye’s mother, whoarrived at the scene with several other observers, was handcuffed when sheprotested the arrests. Bystanders reported that the police hit Marquette onthe head, placed a gun to his temple, and roughly tossed all three familymembers into an officer’s car. The crowd was further inflamed by a rumorthat police had attacked an innocent onlooker. More residents soon gatheredas charges of police brutality circulated through the neighborhood. Alarmedofficers radioed for backup, but the increased police presence and overreac-tion provoked the crowd. That evening, violence broke out but was containedwithin a small area and largely limited to attacks on police officers, whitedrivers, and television crews. The following day, African American commu-nity leaders, fearing the worst, appealed to police to replace white patrols withAfrican American plainclothes officers and convinced the media to allow arespected minister to make a televised plea for peace. Both measures failed.The Los Angeles Police Department refused to assign African American offi-cers to Watts, and the minister’s appeal aired before most viewers had tunedin for the evening.
Beginning on Thursday night and lasting until Monday morning, theWatts uprising took a heavy toll. Crowds moved into the vicinity of the initialaltercation, spread out into central Watts, and then moved outward, towarddowntown Los Angeles. Venting years of anger and frustration, nearly 10,000participants looted and burned hundreds of mostly white-owned businesses,resulting in $40 million in property damage. After order was restored by theNational Guard, at least 34 had died, 31 of them black. Hundreds of otherswere seriously injured, and almost 4000 had been arrested. Although manyparticipants claimed that the riot had forced whites to take note of ghetto con-ditions, the uprising produced few concrete changes. City officials created aboard to administer anti-poverty funds immediately after the riot, providingshort-term relief to residents; however, little was done to address chronicunemployment, de facto school segregation, housing discrimination, and policebrutality. Watts, like the state’s other black ghettos, stood in stark contrast tothe burgeoning, prosperous suburbs.
The riot, however, marked a transition from nonviolent civil rights activ-ism to more militant assertions of Black Power. Proposition 14, whichrepealed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, was identified as a contributingcause of the uprising, and it provided tangible evidence of white hostility toracial equality and integration. Moreover, the riot exposed conditions inWatts that clearly defied liberal solutions. African Americans, raised in impo-verished inner cities, derived little comfort from Lucky’s promise to hire moreblack workers. Not only did ghettos lack supermarkets where residents could
Seeds of Change 355
buy fresh, affordable food; they also lacked the public transportation systemsthat linked workers to jobs. As one black leader observed toward the end ofthe ’60s, the earlier generation of activists “retained their profound faith inAmerica, her institutions, her ideals, and her ability to achieve someday asociety reflecting those ideals.” Increasingly, however, “there is a growingand seriously held view among some militant Negroes that white peoplehave embedded their own personal flaws so deeply in the institutions thatthose institutions are beyond redemption.”
Black Power
Throughout the nation, from California’s inner cities to the Mississippi Delta,young activists embraced more radical solutions to persistent patterns of racialdiscrimination—solutions that turned on the slogan “Black Power” andincluded militant assertions of cultural pride, community self-defense anddetermination, solidarity with Third World peoples, and socialist critiques ofcapitalism. The shift away from nonviolent civil rights activism to black self-determination alienated many formerly sympathetic whites and liberal blackleaders from the emerging movement. For years, white and black activists hadworked together toward the goal of creating an integrated, color-blind society.Now a new generation of black youths insisted on “the right for black people todefine their own terms, define themselves as they see fit.”
In the fall of 1966, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, two young MerrittCollege students, founded the Black Panther Party in Oakland, California, andarticulated this new agenda. The Panthers’ platform demanded full employ-ment, decent housing, an end to police brutality, the “power to determine thedestiny of our community,” and education that “teaches us our true history andour role in the present-day society.” It also called on the government to releaseblack people from prison “because they have not received a fair and impartialtrial,” and demanded exemption from military service because “we will notfight and kill other people of color in the world who, like black people, arebeing victimized by the white racist government of America.” What shockedmore moderate citizens, however, was the organization’s position on self-defense. Citing the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the Panthersasserted their right to bear arms in defense of “our black community from rac-ist police oppression and brutality.”
Upon forming the party, Newton and Seale recruited residents ofOakland’s ghetto to trail police and ensure that officers did not violate the con-stitutional rights of those they questioned or arrested. These citizen patrols,armed with guns and legal statutes, captured the media’s attention and over-shadowed the party’s less controversial after-school and free-breakfast pro-grams for children, community clinics, voter registration drives, and concernfor education and prison reform—programs that contributed to its positiveimage in black communities. The Panthers, however, often encouraged
356 CHAPTER 11 Divided We Stand: Activism and Politics, 1964–1970
publicity that emphasized their militancy. In 1967, as the state legislaturedebated a new gun control measure aimed at curbing their activism, armedparty members converged on the state capitol and demanded access to the pro-ceedings. The confrontation, aired on the national news, contributed to theorganization’s growing popularity with radical youth, but fueled white fears ofblack insurrection. The police, sharing this fear, intensified their efforts to sup-press the party, leading to a series of violent confrontations where the distinc-tion between victim and perpetrator was often blurred. In 1967, Huey Newton,the party’s minister of defense, was arrested following an altercation with theOakland police that left one officer dead and Newton and another officerinjured. Charged and convicted of manslaughter, Newton later won releasebecause of ambiguities in police evidence and testimony. In 1968, the party’sminister of education, Eldridge Cleaver, was arrested following another con-frontation with the Oakland police in which two officers were wounded and aPanther killed. Cleaver, free on bail, ran as the Peace and Freedom Party’s pres-idential candidate in 1968, but later fled the country to avoid what many acti-vists believed would be a politically charged trial.
As the Black Panther Party spread across the nation, federal, state, andlocal governments took extreme and sometimes illegal measures to curb mili-tant activity. The FBI, which regarded the Panthers as a threat to internal secu-rity, used paid informants both to supply detailed intelligence and to instigateviolence where police use of excessive force could be justified. In 1968 alone,
Black Panther demonstration. Photographs like this one, often underscored the anger and assertiveness of Black Power activists. How do you think white Californians reacted to such images?
“Blac
k Pan
ther d
emon
strati
on” b
y CIRo
nline
is lic
ense
d und
er CC
BY 2.
Seeds of Change 357
local police across the nation killed 28 Panthers and arrested hundreds ofothers. By the mid-1970s, the party was in disarray, torn apart by bloody con-frontations with law enforcement, internal divisions, and the deaths or impris-onment of its leadership.
The Black Panther Party, while relatively short-lived, left a lasting imprint onCalifornia politics. The party’s emphasis on community empowerment encour-aged the black electorate to demand a greater share of political power in thenation’s inner cities. In Oakland, for example, the party encouraged residents tochallenge the mayor’s policy of hand-picking the Economic Development Coun-cil, the agency that allocated War on Poverty funds. By 1967, citizens gainedcontrol of the Council and began redirecting money to neighborhood-baseddevelopment projects. Emboldened by this victory, the party moved on to elec-toral organizing, registering 30,000 new voters for the 1972 mayoral election.Stunning the city’s political establishment, Bobby Seale, the Panthers’ candidatefor mayor, came in second, drawing 43,749 votes to the Republican incumbent’s77,634. The Panthers went on to help organize voter support for John George,who became Alameda County’s first black supervisor in 1976, and LionelWilson, who became Oakland’s first black mayor in 1977. Gains on the federaland state levels were equally impressive. In 1970, the black vote sent RonaldDellums to Congress and seated Wilson Riles as State Superintendent of PublicInstruction. In 1972, Yvonne Burke followed Dellums to Washington, andMervyn Dymally, seated as lieutenant governor, joined a growing contingent ofblack legislators in Sacramento. Just as significantly, the Panthers’ demand for“an educational system that will give our people a knowledge of self” helpedignite the student movement for black and ethnic studies programs and a moregeneral assertion of cultural pride and identity. Finally, the Panthers’ anti-policebrutality campaign led to the establishment of citizen review boards and affirma-tive hiring policies in local law enforcement agencies.
Municipal power, however, raised a thorny question—one that is still unre-solved. According to one observer, cities like Oakland had merely fulfilled“a cynical prediction of the central cities of the future; that as blacks andother minorities gain political office and a voice in governmental affairs,whites exodus out to the suburbs, and most importantly the major industrieswhich carry a large load of the tax burden follow them. Non-whites gain officeto control, but they in effect control nothing because there are no industriesand no money. The city becomes yet a larger ghetto, controlled and dependentupon forces from outside.” As the Black Power movement waned, California’sAfrican American population turned elsewhere for solutions to the state’scontinuing racial dilemma.
The Grassroots War on Poverty
Poverty in California’s inner cities generated yet another movement ofnational significance, one that united women of all ethnicities. The welfare
358 CHAPTER 11 Divided We Stand: Activism and Politics, 1964–1970
rights movement began in Alameda County in 1962 when fire struck thehouse of a welfare recipient. The welfare office withheld the woman’smonthly check because “she was living in unfit housing.” With seven youngchildren in her care, the woman desperately turned to other recipients whothen began to share similar stories of callous and disrespectful treatment. Apermanent organization soon took root, spreading to inner cities throughoutCalifornia. One of their earliest battles took place in Alameda County. In1964, the state ended the bracero program, which had transported morethan five million Mexicans to work in California’s fields. Strawberry growersin the northern part of the state complained of labor shortages. Shortly there-after, the county sent notice to welfare recipients that they would lose theirbenefits if they failed to take field jobs; however, if recipients took such work,they would be identified as “gainfully employed” and would still lose theirbenefits. Simultaneously, the county began withholding public assistancefrom new welfare applicants, claiming that agricultural jobs were readilyavailable. The new Welfare Rights Organization (WRO) responded by statingthat recipients, many of whom were skilled and semiskilled workers displacedby capital flight to the suburbs, would not be able to find substitute, higher-paying jobs in manufacturing if forced to work in the fields. The WRO thenstaged a sit-in at the county welfare office and threatened to take similaraction in front of the state welfare department in San Francisco. As a conse-quence, the state allowed those who took agricultural jobs to retain their ben-efits, but still failed to address the more serious problem of forcing displacedworkers into low-wage farm labor.
Emboldened by their partial victory, the WRO went on to lobby success-fully for increases in general assistance, an end to waiting periods or resi-dency requirements for benefits, and a complete ban on mandatory farmlabor during all but the summer months. Even more significantly, welfarerecipients began to challenge the authority of social service providers andthe mythology that poor people are responsible for their own condition. Asone WRO activist stated, “We are human beings just like everybody else… .We don’t get the taxpayers’ money free. We play the lowest games to get thatmoney. You have to be harassed the whole month to get $200 from thewelfare.” She went on to enumerate the obstacles women faced in findinggainful employment, including lack of funds for transportation and childcare. For her and other welfare recipients, however, the bottom line was thelack of decent-paying employment within inner cities. As the WRO spreadacross the nation, attracting thousands of members and support from pro-gressive organizations, it successfully lobbied for increased aid and the liber-alization of eligibility requirements. While this provided immediate relief tomany impoverished families, it failed to stem the continuing economicdecline of urban ghettos. By the mid-1970s, the movement and its hard-wongains fell victim to the recession and fiscal conservatism of a new federaladministration.
Seeds of Change 359
Justice in the Fields
In the midst of growing urban unrest, Cesar Chavez launched a revolution inCalifornia’s fields. After serving in the Navy during World War II, Chavezrejoined his family in Delano, married, and started a family. Seeking a wayout of the grinding poverty and unrelenting toil that circumscribed the livesof California’s farm workers, he moved his growing family to the San Jose bar-rio of Sal Si Puedos, found work at a lumber mill, and joined a newly formedchapter of the Community Service Organization (CSO). Initially, Chavezworked as a CSO volunteer, registering Mexican American voters in San Jose.His tireless dedication, however, soon led to a paid position as a statewideorganizer, and ultimately to appointment as CSO’s national director.
As he rose through CSO’s ranks, focusing primarily on increasing the elec-toral power of urban Latino voters, Chavez became more and more convincedthat political and economic justice were entwined—particularly in the state’srural agricultural communities. There, growers used braceros and undocu-mented immigrants to undercut the wages, working conditions, and bargainingpower of domestic workers. In the process, all three groups suffered. In 1962, atthe annual CSO convention, Chavez presented a plan to create a farm workers’union and was voted down. With only $900 in savings, eight children, and thesupport of his wife, Helen, Chavez resigned from the CSO and moved back toDelano. When he returned to Delano in April of 1962, farm workers’ livingand working conditions were much the same as they had been two decadesearlier. Federal and state laws that granted other workers a minimum wage,social security, unemployment insurance, and the right to organize and bargaincollectively did not apply to agricultural labor. And the bracero program, pro-viding growers with an unlimited, subsidized work force, kept wages fordomestic workers artificially low and made unionization virtually impossible.Against these odds, Chavez began to build a grassroots union that was philo-sophically committed to participatory democracy, dignity for the common per-son, nonviolence, and multiethnic unity and cooperation.
With a small team of talented organizers, including Dolores Huerta,Gilbert Padilla, Julio Hernandez, and Jim Drake, Chavez slowly built theorganization’s membership by going from door to door and town to town,and providing practical services to farm worker families. By September of1962, the union had built a strong enough base to hold its founding conven-tion. There, delegates voted to name the organization the National Farm Work-ers Association (NFWA), adopt the black eagle against a white and redbackground as its emblem, and accept “Viva la Causa” as the union’s motto.Delegates also approved monthly membership dues of $3.50 and electedChavez as president, and Huerta and Padilla as vice presidents.
The new organization, while attracting additional members and volunteers,barely survived the next two years. By 1965, however, the tide had turned. Thegovernment finally terminated the bracero program, making it more difficult
360 CHAPTER 11 Divided We Stand: Activism and Politics, 1964–1970
for growers to use an imported labor force to break strikes and block unioniza-tion efforts. The nonviolent civil rights movement in the South had also cap-tured national attention and created a groundswell of public concern over social and economic inequalities. Liberal Protestant and Catholic clergy and student activists who had championed racial justice in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi now had a compelling cause much closer to home.
The catalyst for liberal support was the Delano Grape Strike, initiated by Filipino farm workers on September 8, 1965. Growers in the San Joaquin Valley, determined to keep wages low, continued to pay domestic workers less than what braceros had received. In response, Filipino members of the Agricul-tural Workers’ Organizing Committee (AWOC), an AFL-CIO affiliate, voted to strike. Their demand was wage parity with braceros, or a modest $1.40 an hour. The growers, including agribusiness giants like the Di Giorgio Corpora-tion, not only refused to meet their demands, but also evicted Filipino workers from labor camps and called in the local police to intimidate strikers. Larry Itliong, the leader of the strike, turned to the fledgling National Farm Workers
“Lead
ers o
f the U
FW” b
y Ken
nysch
ang i
s lice
nsed
unde
r CC B
Y-NC-
SA 2.
Seeds of Change 361
Shown here is a contemporary mural depicting Larry Itliong, Cesar Chavez, and other key figures in the 1965 Grape Strike. What does this image convey about the people who participated in this struggle?
Association for support. Chavez, in a rousing appeal to his membership, stated:“The strike was begun by Filipinos, but it is not exclusively for them. Tonightwe must decide if we are to join our fellow workers in this great labor struggle.”
The strike soon gained national attention and support. Student volunteersand clergy flocked to Delano to offer their assistance and helped raise money incollege communities and among their congregations. Unions, including the for-midable United Auto Workers, pledged their financial support and generatedsympathy for “la Causa” among urban blue-collar workers. Luis Valdez, amember of the San Francisco Mime Troupe, returned to his roots in Delanoand organized El Teatro Campesino (the farm worker theater) to dramatizethe unfair treatment of farm labor. El Teatro, which performed to migrantaudiences in the fields, helped recruit union members. Its actors, all campesi-nos, also toured college campuses, urban barrios, and various towns and citiesto raise funds for the strike. Finally, Chavez called on the public to support anational boycott of products produced by Delano’s largest growers.
Additional support flooded in during and after the union’s 25-day proces-sion from Delano to Sacramento in the spring of 1966. Carrying union ban-ners, images of the Virgin of Guadalupe, and Mexican and American flags,striking workers and their supporters made the 250-mile journey in the spiritof a religious pilgrimage, as “an excellent way of training ourselves to endurethe long, long struggle.” Many who witnessed the march as it aired on theevening news or passed through local communities were deeply moved by thespiritual discipline, humility, and poverty of the participants. The farm workerswho made the journey had indeed drawn strength from their Catholic religioustraditions to endure the economic hardship of a prolonged strike. Many hadlost their homes and were forced to rely on the union’s meager resources forfood, clothing, and shelter.
The march touched America’s moral conscience and placed additionalpressure on growers to meet the strikers’ demands. Even before the processionreached Sacramento, Schenley Corporation, a producer of wine grapes, gaveformal recognition to the union by signing a contract. A rumor thatNew York bartenders were planning to boycott Schenley products, and theTeamsters’ Union’s refusal to cross picket lines at the company’s San Franciscowarehouse, helped convince Schenley to enter into the agreement. Soon after,other major winemakers, including the Christian Brothers, Almaden, PaulMasson, Gallo, Franzia, and Novitiate, signed contracts. Di Giorgio, whose pro-ducts were marketed under the S&W and Tree Sweet labels, agreed to allow itsworkers to vote on whether they wanted union representation.
The Teamsters’ Union, which had backed the strike, became increasinglyconcerned that the NFWA’s organizing efforts would disrupt the work sche-dules of its packers and truckers and place a drain on union resources. Thus,the Teamsters, in collusion with Di Giorgio, announced that it would competewith the NFWA to represent workers in the upcoming election. Worried that aTeamsters victory might result in a “sweetheart” contract that would fail to
36