by
Fred Glass
60
6. Sandlots and Silver Kings: The Workingmen’s Party of California
0
terms
10
notes
64
A handful of men made large fortunes through their positions atop the Comstock mining companies and its web of financial interests. The silver kings, as they were called, joined with the Big Four railroad owners to employ the most skilled building craftsmen to raise enormous mansions on Nob Hill. No costs were spared. Their ornate homes featured some of the finest furnishings pillaged from European cultural history. Charles Crocker’s 12,500 square foot house boasted a seventy-six foot tower and a theater. Mark Hopkins’s garish wooden castle included an oak-paneled dining room with seats for sixty. Silver mining engineer and capitalist George Hearst had a mansion built a block away from Crocker’s. His son, William Randolph, later to become owner of the nation’s most extensive media empire, drew inspiration for his San Simeon castle from memories of the neighborhood of his youth.
A handful of men made large fortunes through their positions atop the Comstock mining companies and its web of financial interests. The silver kings, as they were called, joined with the Big Four railroad owners to employ the most skilled building craftsmen to raise enormous mansions on Nob Hill. No costs were spared. Their ornate homes featured some of the finest furnishings pillaged from European cultural history. Charles Crocker’s 12,500 square foot house boasted a seventy-six foot tower and a theater. Mark Hopkins’s garish wooden castle included an oak-paneled dining room with seats for sixty. Silver mining engineer and capitalist George Hearst had a mansion built a block away from Crocker’s. His son, William Randolph, later to become owner of the nation’s most extensive media empire, drew inspiration for his San Simeon castle from memories of the neighborhood of his youth.
67
Most of the Chinese who journeyed to Gam Saan (Golden Mountain) in California were unskilled or semiskilled contract laborers. An American or Chinese company would pay for their transport in return for a number of years of work. Out of their earnings the ticket price would be deducted. (Despite charges that the Chinese immigrant workers were “coolies”—the term designates a slave trade in poor Chinese prevalent in other parts of the world—few if any Chinese workers in California came over by that method. The term literally meant “bitter strength.”)
The trip took eight or nine weeks across the Pacific, often under horrendous conditions. Shipwrecks were common, but greater problems were poor sanitation and overcrowding, and on occasion deliberate cruelty by the crew. Perhaps the most extreme voyage was that of the Libertad in 1854, which pulled into San Francisco with one-fifth of its five hundred passengers dead.
Initially the majority of Chinese passed through San Francisco and immediately went to the Sierras to mine gold. As the Chinese grew into the most numerous minority in the diggings, laws like the Foreign Miners’ Act of 1850 became merely part of a wide range of racist, exclusionary actions taken against them in the state. The law was repealed and reinstated a number of times, and finally declared unconstitutional in 1870.
By then better than one in eight workers in San Francisco were Chinese. Cloistered in the crowded Chinatown, their unfamiliar cultural behaviors became the basis for speculation and prejudice. [...]
Most of the Chinese who journeyed to Gam Saan (Golden Mountain) in California were unskilled or semiskilled contract laborers. An American or Chinese company would pay for their transport in return for a number of years of work. Out of their earnings the ticket price would be deducted. (Despite charges that the Chinese immigrant workers were “coolies”—the term designates a slave trade in poor Chinese prevalent in other parts of the world—few if any Chinese workers in California came over by that method. The term literally meant “bitter strength.”)
The trip took eight or nine weeks across the Pacific, often under horrendous conditions. Shipwrecks were common, but greater problems were poor sanitation and overcrowding, and on occasion deliberate cruelty by the crew. Perhaps the most extreme voyage was that of the Libertad in 1854, which pulled into San Francisco with one-fifth of its five hundred passengers dead.
Initially the majority of Chinese passed through San Francisco and immediately went to the Sierras to mine gold. As the Chinese grew into the most numerous minority in the diggings, laws like the Foreign Miners’ Act of 1850 became merely part of a wide range of racist, exclusionary actions taken against them in the state. The law was repealed and reinstated a number of times, and finally declared unconstitutional in 1870.
By then better than one in eight workers in San Francisco were Chinese. Cloistered in the crowded Chinatown, their unfamiliar cultural behaviors became the basis for speculation and prejudice. [...]
68
Such prejudices were curious, given the parallels between Chinese and Irish immigrant histories: flight from persecution or famine in their home countries; bad treatment when they arrived in the United States; suffering ridicule for their curious languages or accents, clothing, and cultural customs; and taking unskilled jobs. Despite these similarities there was one crucial difference: the Irish were white and the Chinese were not. In American culture of the nineteenth century, this difference cannot be overstated. Racism and economics had been at the center of the recently fought Civil War. Despite the emancipation of the slaves, the relationship between these issues had not been resolved. What happened to the California Indians after statehood was one illustration of how exploitation of people of color was conveniently perceived as part of the “natural order of things.”
Such prejudices were curious, given the parallels between Chinese and Irish immigrant histories: flight from persecution or famine in their home countries; bad treatment when they arrived in the United States; suffering ridicule for their curious languages or accents, clothing, and cultural customs; and taking unskilled jobs. Despite these similarities there was one crucial difference: the Irish were white and the Chinese were not. In American culture of the nineteenth century, this difference cannot be overstated. Racism and economics had been at the center of the recently fought Civil War. Despite the emancipation of the slaves, the relationship between these issues had not been resolved. What happened to the California Indians after statehood was one illustration of how exploitation of people of color was conveniently perceived as part of the “natural order of things.”
68
As early as 1869 Chinese workers were hired as strikebreakers by San Francisco shoe manufacturers Buckingham, Hecht and Company when white workers at the company put down their tools. By the mid-1870s Chinese workers comprised slightly over half of the boot and shoe industry, and a larger majority of cigar makers. Yet unions in these industries refused to include Chinese workers. Instead they created “white workers labels” to distinguish their goods from those produced by Chinese labor. The Knights of Saint Crispin, a union representing shoemakers, in 1870 had two locals in San Francisco, one for men and one for women. It called for and enforced boycotts against Chinese-produced goods. (A “boycott” means refusing to patronize a business or its products. The term came from the landlord’s name in a famous rent strike in Ireland, although the practice predated the word.)
As early as 1869 Chinese workers were hired as strikebreakers by San Francisco shoe manufacturers Buckingham, Hecht and Company when white workers at the company put down their tools. By the mid-1870s Chinese workers comprised slightly over half of the boot and shoe industry, and a larger majority of cigar makers. Yet unions in these industries refused to include Chinese workers. Instead they created “white workers labels” to distinguish their goods from those produced by Chinese labor. The Knights of Saint Crispin, a union representing shoemakers, in 1870 had two locals in San Francisco, one for men and one for women. It called for and enforced boycotts against Chinese-produced goods. (A “boycott” means refusing to patronize a business or its products. The term came from the landlord’s name in a famous rent strike in Ireland, although the practice predated the word.)
69
In 1876, the U.S. Congress established a Joint Special Committee to Investigate Chinese Immigration. It held hearings in San Francisco, interviewing workers and business owners. One of those who testified was Anna Ferry Smith, who described herself as “a general working woman.” Smith, like Frank Roney, had arrived in San Francisco in 1875.
Born in New York in 1833, Smith went to work while still a child in domestic service. Moving slowly west, she worked in a succession of jobs and industries: in a shoe factory, as a janitor in girls’ schools, as a nurse for the Union Army during the Civil War, as a washerwoman, and ironing in laundries. She married a disabled war veteran, who was fired from his job with the Pennsylvania Railroad because of his disability. He died in Missouri. Anna with his child went to Denver.
Although she never received any formal education, part of her compensation while employed as a janitor was permission to attend classes. Apparently she did so and became an enthusiastic reader.
In California, at first she cooked and kept house on ranches. At last she arrived in San Francisco, putting a roof over her head as a seamstress, broken up by periods of unemployment. Her young son worked more than she did.
Smith was reported in a San Francisco newspaper as “well informed on matters connected with the labor question.” Her testimony on Chinese immigration before the congressional committee backed up that opinion; the transcripts show her to be intelligent, articulate, and able to hold her own in exchanges with U.S. senators. When one senator tried to get her to say that Chinese workers were the cause of the wretched condition of working women in San Francisco, she responded with a question of her own. She politely inquired as to “why the condition of the working people in the East, where there are no Chinamen, is worse than it is here?”
In 1876, the U.S. Congress established a Joint Special Committee to Investigate Chinese Immigration. It held hearings in San Francisco, interviewing workers and business owners. One of those who testified was Anna Ferry Smith, who described herself as “a general working woman.” Smith, like Frank Roney, had arrived in San Francisco in 1875.
Born in New York in 1833, Smith went to work while still a child in domestic service. Moving slowly west, she worked in a succession of jobs and industries: in a shoe factory, as a janitor in girls’ schools, as a nurse for the Union Army during the Civil War, as a washerwoman, and ironing in laundries. She married a disabled war veteran, who was fired from his job with the Pennsylvania Railroad because of his disability. He died in Missouri. Anna with his child went to Denver.
Although she never received any formal education, part of her compensation while employed as a janitor was permission to attend classes. Apparently she did so and became an enthusiastic reader.
In California, at first she cooked and kept house on ranches. At last she arrived in San Francisco, putting a roof over her head as a seamstress, broken up by periods of unemployment. Her young son worked more than she did.
Smith was reported in a San Francisco newspaper as “well informed on matters connected with the labor question.” Her testimony on Chinese immigration before the congressional committee backed up that opinion; the transcripts show her to be intelligent, articulate, and able to hold her own in exchanges with U.S. senators. When one senator tried to get her to say that Chinese workers were the cause of the wretched condition of working women in San Francisco, she responded with a question of her own. She politely inquired as to “why the condition of the working people in the East, where there are no Chinamen, is worse than it is here?”
71
The Workingmen’s Party speakers called for an end to government subsidies of the railroads and for an eight-hour day for all workers. But at the end of the rally, the crowd was joined by members of an “anti-coolie” club. The anti-Chinese agitators found ready listeners when they blamed the Chinese for high levels of unemployment among white workers. Despite efforts of the Workingmen’s Party to stop them, a portion of the crowd marched to Chinatown and burnt down two dozen Chinese laundries, a few other Chinese-owned businesses, and a church.
The Workingmen’s Party speakers called for an end to government subsidies of the railroads and for an eight-hour day for all workers. But at the end of the rally, the crowd was joined by members of an “anti-coolie” club. The anti-Chinese agitators found ready listeners when they blamed the Chinese for high levels of unemployment among white workers. Despite efforts of the Workingmen’s Party to stop them, a portion of the crowd marched to Chinatown and burnt down two dozen Chinese laundries, a few other Chinese-owned businesses, and a church.
72
Ten weeks later appeared a new organization, the Workingmen’s Party of California (WPC). It is probable that at least some of its activists came from the ranks of the rioters, and certainly a great many of its supporters were unemployed. A large percentage were Irish immigrants. It was dedicated to the belief that the democratic traditions of the American Revolution had been subverted by great wealth amassed in the hands of the robber barons, who respected no laws, particularly laws that protected common people. Despite its name, it was open to small businesspeople as well as workers. In that respect the party’s ideas resembled those of other late nineteenth-century workers’ movements, which tended to define Americans as either useful “producers” or parasitical “exploiters.”
Ten weeks later appeared a new organization, the Workingmen’s Party of California (WPC). It is probable that at least some of its activists came from the ranks of the rioters, and certainly a great many of its supporters were unemployed. A large percentage were Irish immigrants. It was dedicated to the belief that the democratic traditions of the American Revolution had been subverted by great wealth amassed in the hands of the robber barons, who respected no laws, particularly laws that protected common people. Despite its name, it was open to small businesspeople as well as workers. In that respect the party’s ideas resembled those of other late nineteenth-century workers’ movements, which tended to define Americans as either useful “producers” or parasitical “exploiters.”
73
WPC leaders told white workers they were being squeezed on two sides: by the very wealthy and by their tool, Chinese workers, who took the available jobs. Thus the racism practiced by the Workingmen’s Party of California was rooted in economic fear. Like all racism, however, it went beyond rational calculation and slid quickly into the shadows of the irrational.
Not all members of the WPC blamed the Chinese for their troubles. Frank Roney argued that the measures being proposed against the Chinese were “brutal and such as no self-respecting people would dream of imposing on any race within their midst.” Despite his experiences with unemployment, he didn’t consider the Chinese the source of his personal misery. He felt that the Chinese workers, if left alone, would gradually improve their economic position like other immigrant groups and cease to undercut the wages of other workers.
But more San Franciscans were swayed by another Irish immigrant. Denis Kearney had arrived in the city in 1868. Within a few years he had saved enough money to buy a small drayage firm. He became a naturalized citizen in 1876. A convincing, if crude, orator, Kearney articulated the resentments of white workers at the decaying economic conditions facing them, even though he had become an employer. He also reflected the fears of small business and property owners that only a thin, weak barrier separated them from financial ruin.
Kearney coined the WPC’s slogan, “The Chinese must go!” He was jailed a number of times for his inflammatory sandlot speeches. In fall of 1877 he led a meeting of several thousand on Nob Hill, across the street from Mark Hopkins’s mansion. He delighted the crowd by promising to lead them “to the City Hall, clean out the police force, hang the Prosecuting Attorney, burn every book that has a particle of law in it, and then enact new laws for the workingmen.” He also said, “If I give an order to hang Crocker, it will be done.”
WPC leaders told white workers they were being squeezed on two sides: by the very wealthy and by their tool, Chinese workers, who took the available jobs. Thus the racism practiced by the Workingmen’s Party of California was rooted in economic fear. Like all racism, however, it went beyond rational calculation and slid quickly into the shadows of the irrational.
Not all members of the WPC blamed the Chinese for their troubles. Frank Roney argued that the measures being proposed against the Chinese were “brutal and such as no self-respecting people would dream of imposing on any race within their midst.” Despite his experiences with unemployment, he didn’t consider the Chinese the source of his personal misery. He felt that the Chinese workers, if left alone, would gradually improve their economic position like other immigrant groups and cease to undercut the wages of other workers.
But more San Franciscans were swayed by another Irish immigrant. Denis Kearney had arrived in the city in 1868. Within a few years he had saved enough money to buy a small drayage firm. He became a naturalized citizen in 1876. A convincing, if crude, orator, Kearney articulated the resentments of white workers at the decaying economic conditions facing them, even though he had become an employer. He also reflected the fears of small business and property owners that only a thin, weak barrier separated them from financial ruin.
Kearney coined the WPC’s slogan, “The Chinese must go!” He was jailed a number of times for his inflammatory sandlot speeches. In fall of 1877 he led a meeting of several thousand on Nob Hill, across the street from Mark Hopkins’s mansion. He delighted the crowd by promising to lead them “to the City Hall, clean out the police force, hang the Prosecuting Attorney, burn every book that has a particle of law in it, and then enact new laws for the workingmen.” He also said, “If I give an order to hang Crocker, it will be done.”
75
The WPC’s success in passing racist exclusion laws did not result in any real gains for workers. This simplistic solution did not challenge the power of the railroad monopoly and landowners over working people’s lives. It failed to address the great changes created by the industrial revolution. By focusing its attention on the divisive side issue of Chinese exclusion, an opportunity to build alliances among all groups of working people was lost.
Chinese workers were often willing to serve as strikebreakers, if that was the only work they could get. But they were also open to collective action, as they demonstrated in the Sierras in 1867, and again in March 1876, when hundreds struck two San Francisco shoe manufacturers. Most of them wanted what most white workers wanted: to pursue the American Dream of economic advancement. Unfortunately, racial prejudices and economic fears blinded white workers to the possibility of unity.
The WPC’s success in passing racist exclusion laws did not result in any real gains for workers. This simplistic solution did not challenge the power of the railroad monopoly and landowners over working people’s lives. It failed to address the great changes created by the industrial revolution. By focusing its attention on the divisive side issue of Chinese exclusion, an opportunity to build alliances among all groups of working people was lost.
Chinese workers were often willing to serve as strikebreakers, if that was the only work they could get. But they were also open to collective action, as they demonstrated in the Sierras in 1867, and again in March 1876, when hundreds struck two San Francisco shoe manufacturers. Most of them wanted what most white workers wanted: to pursue the American Dream of economic advancement. Unfortunately, racial prejudices and economic fears blinded white workers to the possibility of unity.
75
Railroad magnate Crocker was not alone in seeking to curb the power of white workers and their unions by hiring Chinese laborers. When the first California miners’ union went on strike in 1869 in Grass Valley over the risk to miners’ safety posed by new explosives, the mine owners threatened to replace them with Chinese workers. However, when Chinese railroad workers went on strike in 1867, Crocker investigated replacing them with black workers before realizing it would be simpler and cheaper to starve them out. These complex issues in the background of the Chinese question would not be taken care of by banning Chinese immigration.
Railroad magnate Crocker was not alone in seeking to curb the power of white workers and their unions by hiring Chinese laborers. When the first California miners’ union went on strike in 1869 in Grass Valley over the risk to miners’ safety posed by new explosives, the mine owners threatened to replace them with Chinese workers. However, when Chinese railroad workers went on strike in 1867, Crocker investigated replacing them with black workers before realizing it would be simpler and cheaper to starve them out. These complex issues in the background of the Chinese question would not be taken care of by banning Chinese immigration.