San Francisco at the Turn of the Century
by Nicole N.
Turn of the century San Francisco was a busy and ever evolving place. The population of California at the time of the 1900 census was 1.5 million (1). At that time, California was the nation’s 21st most populous state. In 1900, the City of San Francisco was populated by a majority of Whites (325,378) followed by 13594 Chinese, 1781 Japanese, 1654 African Americans and 15 Indians. The majority of these whites were Irish, German and Italian. In 1900, the percentage of San Francisco’s foreign-born population was 34%. This population totaled 116,885, about 35,000 were from Germany. There were 53323 dwellings in San Francisco at the time. In 1900, the number of farms in San Francisco was 304. These farms were spread across 8,219 acres. There were 4,002 manufacturing establishments existed in San Francisco in 1900. (2)
As a result of this large unskilled labor force, labor issues were at the forefront of the large numbers of working class citizens of San Francisco as they were with most other places in the country. However, in San Francisco, unlike in other places, the labor issues plagued the growth and progress of the city. The eight-hour working day had been established in San Francisco in 1865 and at that point many unions supporting the 8-hour workday sprung up around the city. In addition, to the 8-hour unions, many others also came to be including the workingmen’s union, office workers union and longshoremen union. In February of 1901, a new union formed, known as the City Front Federation, and united the Sailor's Union of the Pacific, the longshoremen's unions, and the Teamsters' Local 85. Many companies locked out their workers. Soon hundreds of locked out workers found themselves among others who had already been on strike: restaurant cooks and waiters, bakers and bakery wagon drivers, metal polishers, and all fourteen unions of the Iron Trades Council, who were part of a national strike. City Front Federation voted to stage a waterfront strike, which began on July 30 and lasted until October 2, 1901. Father Peter York, an Irish Catholic priest in the Mission at St. Peter's, made a name for himself with many strongly pro-labor speeches and editorials which appealed to the large Roman Catholic population of the City.
An Employers' Association was founded two months after the City Front Federation began. Association rules restricted any member from settling with a union without permission from the executive committee. “The Employers' Association was the real power, and ignored attempts to mediate and enlisted Mayor Phelan and his police force in their efforts” (3). Their goal was to eliminate the unions completely. Strikebreakers were brought in and city police rode with them. The police beat people but made no arrests. After two months on strike the Governor intervened and within an hour an agreement was reached. The Union Labor Party came to power in the city of San Francisco. The strike toll left 5 dead and 300 injured. (3)
Another noteworthy event in San Francisco’s turn of the century history was the development of the Presidio in the 1890’s. After the Presidio had been built, there were many moves to keep the area natural and forested with the native Eucalyptus trees. However, in the early 20th century, the Army realized that it needed to develop a systematic and permanent plan of improvement for the Presidio landscape rather than the haphazard approach that had characterized previous efforts. The Army asked for expert advice from the U.S. Forest Service. They thought that the acres of plantings were too crowded. The Army agreed that plantings had been carried out without a plan in the past and made the decision to manage the forest more intensively. “Although there were numerous initiatives and plans by various Army officers, the Presidio forest developed haphazardly and without a concrete plan for this development” (3). Various agencies and officials recommended the removal of thousands of trees, but only a small portion had been thinned. However it developed, the Presidio forest had become a dominant feature of the Presidio landscape. To many San Franciscans, the mature tree plantings had considerable aesthetic and scenic value.(3)
It is evident that the Northern Californians of San Francisco had already established themselves as people who stood up for what they believed in and voiced their opinions as protesters, ecologists and environmentalists. These stereotypes, to some extent, remain today of people in San Francisco, people who are willing to challenge the status quo.
Works Cited
1. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-1-1.pdf
2.http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/006580.html
3. http://www.shapingsf.org/tour.html
Turn of the century San Francisco was a busy and ever evolving place. The population of California at the time of the 1900 census was 1.5 million (1). At that time, California was the nation’s 21st most populous state. In 1900, the City of San Francisco was populated by a majority of Whites (325,378) followed by 13594 Chinese, 1781 Japanese, 1654 African Americans and 15 Indians. The majority of these whites were Irish, German and Italian. In 1900, the percentage of San Francisco’s foreign-born population was 34%. This population totaled 116,885, about 35,000 were from Germany. There were 53323 dwellings in San Francisco at the time. In 1900, the number of farms in San Francisco was 304. These farms were spread across 8,219 acres. There were 4,002 manufacturing establishments existed in San Francisco in 1900. (2)
As a result of this large unskilled labor force, labor issues were at the forefront of the large numbers of working class citizens of San Francisco as they were with most other places in the country. However, in San Francisco, unlike in other places, the labor issues plagued the growth and progress of the city. The eight-hour working day had been established in San Francisco in 1865 and at that point many unions supporting the 8-hour workday sprung up around the city. In addition, to the 8-hour unions, many others also came to be including the workingmen’s union, office workers union and longshoremen union. In February of 1901, a new union formed, known as the City Front Federation, and united the Sailor's Union of the Pacific, the longshoremen's unions, and the Teamsters' Local 85. Many companies locked out their workers. Soon hundreds of locked out workers found themselves among others who had already been on strike: restaurant cooks and waiters, bakers and bakery wagon drivers, metal polishers, and all fourteen unions of the Iron Trades Council, who were part of a national strike. City Front Federation voted to stage a waterfront strike, which began on July 30 and lasted until October 2, 1901. Father Peter York, an Irish Catholic priest in the Mission at St. Peter's, made a name for himself with many strongly pro-labor speeches and editorials which appealed to the large Roman Catholic population of the City.
An Employers' Association was founded two months after the City Front Federation began. Association rules restricted any member from settling with a union without permission from the executive committee. “The Employers' Association was the real power, and ignored attempts to mediate and enlisted Mayor Phelan and his police force in their efforts” (3). Their goal was to eliminate the unions completely. Strikebreakers were brought in and city police rode with them. The police beat people but made no arrests. After two months on strike the Governor intervened and within an hour an agreement was reached. The Union Labor Party came to power in the city of San Francisco. The strike toll left 5 dead and 300 injured. (3)
Another noteworthy event in San Francisco’s turn of the century history was the development of the Presidio in the 1890’s. After the Presidio had been built, there were many moves to keep the area natural and forested with the native Eucalyptus trees. However, in the early 20th century, the Army realized that it needed to develop a systematic and permanent plan of improvement for the Presidio landscape rather than the haphazard approach that had characterized previous efforts. The Army asked for expert advice from the U.S. Forest Service. They thought that the acres of plantings were too crowded. The Army agreed that plantings had been carried out without a plan in the past and made the decision to manage the forest more intensively. “Although there were numerous initiatives and plans by various Army officers, the Presidio forest developed haphazardly and without a concrete plan for this development” (3). Various agencies and officials recommended the removal of thousands of trees, but only a small portion had been thinned. However it developed, the Presidio forest had become a dominant feature of the Presidio landscape. To many San Franciscans, the mature tree plantings had considerable aesthetic and scenic value.(3)
It is evident that the Northern Californians of San Francisco had already established themselves as people who stood up for what they believed in and voiced their opinions as protesters, ecologists and environmentalists. These stereotypes, to some extent, remain today of people in San Francisco, people who are willing to challenge the status quo.
Works Cited
1. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-1-1.pdf
2.http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/006580.html
3. http://www.shapingsf.org/tour.html
posted by Leslie Madsen-Brooks at 7:06 PM
7 Comments:
I think one of the most interesting about this entry is the beginning when you presented us with the population figures of S.F. at the turn of the century. What would be more interesting to see is if we put those figures and the figures for today side by side and compare. It will give us a really good illustration of just how much has changed since then, no doubt all over California, but in S.F. in particular.
One of the things I thought of while reading this entry was the protests that are happening all over France at the moment. It seems to me that it's been a while since our nation had a major uproar over labor or any major reform. I wonder if we're overdue for one.
San Francisco, geographically is a veyr small city, at this period it seems logical that all of the population was living in the small area near the warf, the present day embarcadaro. Conditions must have been difficult. Is there any indication as to where the city was expanding with the population growth?
You call the eucalyptus "native" to the Presidio, but eucalyptus, as far as I know, aren't native to anywhere in North America. So. . . Why do you think the original planters had chosen eucalyptus and replicated a dense forest? What feelings or beliefs about the area were they trying to evoke? What does it say about their values, especially at time when California was about to be rapidly developed, threatening many of the truly native species of plants?
I find it interesting that 1/3 of the california population was located in San Francisco during the early 1900s. I wonder what the percentage of foreign born citizens are part of S.F. today? I think your analysis on labor unions really relates to how we view S.F. citizens today, whom are always fighting for equal rights and other hot topic political issues.
It's interesting to read about the people of San Francisco in the 1890s being a work force, but what events or activites were taking place culturally? San Francisco is known for it's unique culture and physical nature. It would be interesting to learn how some of these cultural institutions or landmarks came to be.
Also, were the original limits of the city the 7 x 7 miles they are today (making a very compact city)? If not how did they city spread out to what it is today?
The population statistics are interesting if thought about in relationship to citizen/noncitizen, white/nonwhite, and labor unions. Given that in 1890, Germans, Irish, and Italians were not always considered "white" and being identified as either "white" or of African descent were the only two ways one could be considered for citizenship (Haney Lopez, 1996) that would mean that the majority of the population of SF was non-white and not citizens of the U.S. (regardless of whether they were born in the U.S.). Considering that most unions of the day restricted who could be members (based on race and/or gender and/or skilled worker, etc.) it would be interesting to think about who actually was affected, as a laborer, by these public policies and union strikes.
Great post. It reiterates the theme that great achievement is not without adversity. Protests in the earlier 1900's seemed to be just as affective a century ago, as they are today. However, I really credit those [protesters in earlier times] brave enough to engage in public display of dissent without the protection of the law, and a government that openly turned a blind eye to police brutality.
It was upsetting to see the local authority on board with executive committees. I think of them as putting the dollar over the welfare of the constituents. Again, it takes some courage to stage protests in those times, as well as today.
Post a Comment
<< Home