Andrew Leahey

History 136

Paper #2

Kevin Starr reaction

In the essay "Radicalism in Nineteenth Century San Francisco", Kevin

Starr discusses the paradigm shifts with regards to labor that occurred in

San Francisco, California. It starts around the time of the Gold Rush (1849)

as a movement, started by the laborers, away from the intense labor and

low-wages that were the norm. There was a labor deficit because the

transcontinental railroad had not yet connected California to the rest of the

country; this gave the laborers an advantage. This produced an environment

that fostered the rise of the common man, and an economic environment

unique to this region and time. The completion of the railroad, however,

coupled with a economic depression, would soon change all of that.

The very same laborers who just a few years earlier had demanded an

eight hour work day and increased pay, now with the massive influx of

immigrant workers and the mass-laying off of railroad workers once the

transcontinental line had been completed, were unemployed. They were

"idl[ing] around fires blazing in the empty sandlots of San Francisco, passing

a bottle if one were available, muttering desperately to each other about the

lack of jobs"[Starr,122]. Sprinkle in some "First International" rhetoric (a

pseudo-communist organization) and there was a full-scale riot. The riots

were so severe revolution was a serious concern for the US Government,

and they felt compelled to anchor gunboats off the coast of San Francisco.
 One cause unemployed white men saw for their woes were the local

Chinese immigrant workers. After attacking an innocent Chinese man, an

angry mob went on to sack Chinatown, troops eventually having to be sent

in to restore order. Denis Kearney was an Irish immigrant in San Francisco

who fancied himself as something of a leader. He enters the picture as a

critic of the white working class, even going so far as to join in patrolling

with an axe-handle, protecting businesses that hired Chinese immigrant

workers. He soon sees however, in the seething hatred for the Chinese, an

opportunity to satisfy his lifelong ambition to lead. After a series of

incendiary speeches by Kearney, a statement was issued by the

Workingmen's Party for which he was a leader, "We have made no secret of

our intentions.... we declare that the Chinamen must leave our shores.".

Kearney fed on the sensationalism, and issued still more radical statements;

he called for the expulsion of the police and the hanging of the Prosecuting

Attorney, who he felt protected the Chinese. This sensationalist language

would prove his undoing, as he had now crossed the line dividing free

speech and revolutionary speech. The militia was called out, and Kearney

was arrested.

After Kearney's, and other revolutionaries arrest, it was evident to the

Workingmen that such a radical policy would have the end effect they

desired. If changes were to be made, they must be enacted through legal

channels. "Thus the Workingmen transformed themselves into a bona fide

party, committed ... to the reform of California through an adjustment of its

constitution" [Starr, 130]. They likewise saw that any affiliation with Kearney

or any of his revolutionaries, would prove counter-intuitive to their new

commitment to respectability. They distanced themselves from him, and

deposed him as their leader. Just as he had begun, Kearney wound up a

poor no one, selling coffee and donuts behind a counter in a squatters

village.

To summarize Kevin Starr's argument, I believe one has to see the

metaphorical connection he makes between Kearney and radicalism in San

Francisco. The very same radical rhetoric that rose Kearney out of obscurity,

proved to be his undoing. This is also true of radicalism itself; the same

policies that brought it to the forefront of politics in San Francisco brought

about its demise, when it was seen to be unable to make the changes it

endorsed.