Volume 89, Number 4 - California Historical Society

california historyvolume 89 number 4 2012The Journal of the California Historical Society

When they met,it changed the worldIt was November 1936 when the twosections of the main span of the GoldenGate Bridge came together, and thingswould never be the same.This step towards the completion ofthe bridge meant that the people ofSan Francisco and Marin County wereconnected to each other and the worldin a way they had never been before.Today, the Golden Gate Bridge standsas a mighty testament to the ingenuityand determination of the many men andwomen who fought opposition and bravedthe elements to make it a reality.View of the Golden Gate Bridge while under construction,showing safety net used to protect workers, November 5, 1936.Photo credit: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public LibraryAs Bay Area icons, both the bridge andWells Fargo have a history of providingvital links between people, communities,and businesses around the country andthe world. We are honored to help bringthe celebrations of the Golden Gate Bridge75th anniversary to life. Please visitggb75.wellsfargo.com for news andupdates on 75th anniversary events.The Golden Gate Bridge andWells Fargo — built in the Bay Areawellsfargo.com© 2012 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.All rights reserved. ECG-714596

california historyvolume 89 number 4 2012 The Journal of the California Historical SocietyExecutive Directoranthea hartigEditorJanet FireManManaging EditorShelly KaleReviews EditorJaMeS J. raWlSSpotlight Editorgary F. KurutzDesign/ProductionSandy bellEditorial ConsultantsLARRY E. BURGESSROBERT W. CHERNYJAMES N. GREGORYJUDSON A. GRENIERROBERT V. HINELANE R. HIRABAYASHILAWRENCE J. JELINEKPAUL J. KARLSTROMSALLY M. MILLERGEORGE H. PHILLIPSLEONARD PITTcontentsFrom the Editor: Isolation. ................................... 2Collections ................................................ 3Far from Zion: The Frayed Ties between California’sGold Rush Saints and LDS President Brigham Young .......... 5By Kenneth Owens“Dear Earl”: The Fair Play Committee, Earl Warren,and Japanese Internment ................................ 24By Charles WollenbergNotes ................................................... 56Reviews .................................................. 61Donors .................................................. 72Spotlight. ................................................ 80California History is printed inLos Angeles by Delta Graphics.Editorial offices and support forCalifornia History are provided byLoyola Marymount University,Los Angeles.on the front cover(Detail) Henry Raschen’s painting, CaliforniaMiner with Pack Horse (1887), depicts a familiarscene in the Sierra foothills of the late 1840sand 1850s. This forty-niner and thousands likehim seeking their fortune were the agents of California’sgold rush, which figured prominently inthe state’s formation and development. In hisessay, “Far from Zion: The Frayed Ties betweenCalifornia’s Gold Rush Saints and LDS PresidentBrigham Young,” Kenneth Owens expandsthe landscape of discovery—recounting the roleof the Latter-day Saints in the events at Sutter’sMill and revealing the transforming relationshipbetween the California Saints and the MormonChurch in the development of the West.Collection of the Oakland Museumof California, the Oakland Museum KahnCollection and the Museum DonorsAcquisition Fund1

from the editorisolaTionCALIFORNIA HISTORY, September 2012Published quarterly © 2012 by CaliforniaHistorical SocietyLC 75-640289/ISSN 0162-2897$40.00 of each membership is designatedfor California Historical Society membershipservices, including the subscription to Californiahistory.KNOWN OFFICE OF PUBLICATION:California Historical SocietyAttn: Janet FiremanLoyola Marymount UniversityOne LMU DriveLos Angeles, CA 90045-2659ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS/NORTH BAKER RESEARCH LIBRARY678 Mission StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-4014Contact: 415.357.1848Facsimile: 415.357.1850Website: www.californiahistoricalsociety.orgPeriodicals Postage Paid at Los Angeles,California, and at additional mailing offices.POSTMASTERSend address changes to:California history CHS678 Mission StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105-4014THE CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY is astatewide membership-based organization designatedby the Legislature as the state historicalsociety. The California Historical Society inspiresand empowers Californians to make the past ameaningful part of their contemporary lives.A quarterly journal published by CHS since 1922,California history features articles by leadingscholars and writers focusing on the heritageof California and the West from pre-Columbianto modern times. Illustrated articles, pictorialessays, and book reviews examine the ongoingdialogue between the past and the present.CHS assumes no responsibility for statementsor opinions of the authors. MANUSCRIPTS forpublication and editorial correspondence shouldbe sent to Janet Fireman, Editor, Californiahistory, History Department, Loyola MarymountUniversity, One LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA90045-8415, or jfireman@lmu.edu. BOOKS FORREVIEW should be sent to James Rawls, ReviewsEditor, California Historical Society, 678 MissionStreet, San Francisco, CA 94105-4014.A movie goddess declares, “I want to be alone”; a furry kitty nurses her woundsfor days in her own special hiding place; a friend packs up a load of wildernessequipment, writes a note to his family, and departs society for destinationsunknown, seeking isolation. Any one of us—worn out and dead tired—at timesrequires privacy and solitude overnight or for a few days of rejuvenation andrecharging.Whatever the manifestation, isolation is frequently a cure, a liberation, and apromise of a better future. Alternatively, isolation is severe punishment withinthe punishment of prison; sequestration marginalizes individuals for theircrimes against society.Two kinds of isolation are treated in this issue. Kenneth Owens’s “Far FromZion: The Frayed Ties between California’s Gold Rush Saints and LDS PresidentBrigham Young” relates Brigham Young’s choice for establishing the Latter-daySaints’ home in the Utah desert instead of on the commercial shores of SanFrancisco Bay. Eschewing the excitement of newly discovered gold, as well asthe broader promise of California, for the protection afforded by remoteness andseclusion in the Great Basin, the church president mandated isolation for hisflock.Charles Wollenberg’s “‘Dear Earl’: The Fair Play Committee, Earl Warren, andJapanese Internment” extricates from obscurity the story of the founding andoperation of a dedicated group of distinguished and influential persons whoopposed the brutal isolation of innocent people of Japanese descent duringWorld War Two. Most were American citizens, suffering discrimination, forcedremoval from their homes, incarceration in remote and shameful prison camps,and opposition to re-establishing their lives after the war. That Earl Warren,state attorney general and then governor of California, who once had been distinguishedby anti-bigotry sentiment and action, became “the de facto leader” ofthe Japanese exclusion movement exacerbated Japanese Americans’ plight and,in fact, guaranteed their banishment, exile, and ostracism.In later years, Earl Warren regretted his actions; Brigham Young had no reasonto do so.Janet Firemancalifornia historical Societywww.californiahistoricalsociety.org2California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

collections“This is your world. . . .”February 21 of this year marked theseventieth anniversary of PresidentFranklin Roosevelt’s signing of ExecutiveOrder 9066. The attack on PearlHarbor the previous December and theresulting fear about national securityled to the order’s mandate: forced relocation—imprisonmentas many viewit today—of about 120,000 JapaneseAmericans living along the West Coast.Among the documentation of theirexperiences in the CHS Collectionsare the Joseph R. Goodman Papers onJapanese American Internment. Goodman,a strong advocate for JapaneseAmericans during the war, providedassistance and support to friends andinternees at the camps, aided JapaneseAmerican students and activists,participated in the anti-imprisonmentmovement, and taught high schoolmath and science at the camp in Topaz,Utah, between 1942 and 1944. Hecollected correspondence, organizationalrecords, government documents,papers, and publications, includingthe camp’s arts and literary magazine,TREK.A small group of young internees,some of them former students at theUniversity of California, Berkeley,published the magazine’s three issues,which featured poetry, essays, editorials,short stories, articles, and drawings.The covers were illustrated by themagazine’s art director, Miné Okubo,an award-winning artist with a master’sdegree from UC Berkeley, who hadworked with the muralist Diego Rivera.Cover, TREK, February 1943Joseph R. Goodman Papers on JapaneseAmerican Internment, 1941–1945,MS 840.0033

collectionsOne of TREK’s contributors was ToshioMori, who, at thirty-two, was an establishedwriter. His short story “TomorrowIs Coming, Children” was printedin both English and Japanese in theFebruary 1943 issue. Mori embeddedspecial encouragement to the youth ofthe Topaz camp in this tale of a manwho leaves his native Japan for Americaand struggles to become an American.“Time is your friend in America,children,” the narrator says. “War ispainful. If there were no war we wouldnot be in a relocation center. . . . Children,you must grow big and useful.This is your world. . . .”Toshio Mori, “Tomorrow Is Coming,Children,” TREK, February 1943,MS 840.0044 California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

Far from Zion: The Frayed Ties betweenCalifornia’s Gold Rush Saints and LDSPresident Brigham YoungBy Kenneth OwensFirst arriving in California atthe outset of the U.S. war with Mexico,members of the Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day Saints (LDS), familiarly known asMormons, believed that the church’s spiritualand temporal headquarters, the Mormon Zion,soon would move to the Pacific Coast. 1 UnderBrigham Young’s leadership, they anticipated,the main body of LDS faithful, who had recentlyfled from Nauvoo—the embattled former LDScapital in western Illinois—before long wouldleave their temporary winter encampments alongthe Missouri River and trek overland to join themin California.Samuel Brannan had a central role in this project.A young LDS preacher, promoter, and newspapereditor in New York City in 1845, he wasenergetic, extremely ambitious, outspoken, andfilled with ideas. Brannan exhibited the sort ofcharismatic personality that made him a naturalleader. In his urge to succeed, he becameinfluential in the bold strategy put forward byBrigham Young and his advisers to seek a newgathering place for the Saints somewhere inthe Far West, then beyond the boundaries ofthe United States. While visiting Nauvoo inMay 1845, Brannan may have been the first topropose taking a shipload of Mormon convertsfrom the Northeast around Cape Horn to establishan LDS colony in northern California. 2 Thefollowing September, he received a letter fromYoung authorizing him to carry out this audaciousscheme. “I wish you together with yourpaper and ten thousand of the brethren,” Youngdeclared, “were now in California at the Bay ofSan Francisco, and if you can clear yourself andgo there, do so. . . .” There was a final, highlysignificant clause in Young’s statement. “And wewill meet you there,” he assured Brannan. “Andwe will meet you there.” 3Guided by this letter and further encouragementfrom other LDS leaders, Brannan organized aremarkable western colonizing venture, the firstof its kind. He leased the ship Brooklyn, sailedfrom New York to Hawaii, then proceeded to SanFrancisco Bay. Aboard the ship were 240 men,women, and children, along with a large cargoof equipment and supplies. Like most early overlandmigrants, the men were “all armed to theteeth,” as one participant remarked. These BrooklynSaints were fully prepared to occupy Mexicanterritory and establish LDS primacy in northernCalifornia.In early February 1846, just before their departure,Brannan wrote to Young about his aims.With the aid of prominent California boostersJohn Sutter and Lansford Hastings, Brannan5

So certain of this future were Brannan and hisshipmates that while the Brooklyn stopped for afew days in Oahu, Hawaii, a local newspaper editorannounced the Mormon plan to his readers.“California is now to be the grand central rendezvous,”he revealed, “while the area around SanFrancisco is the chosen spot where the Latter-daySaints propose to settle.” 5 Brannan also encouragedeastern LDS leaders Jesse Little and WilliamAppleby to charter another ship, believing theywould follow him to northern California with asecond colonizing expedition. 6In 1846, Samuel Brannan (1819–1889) led more than 200 membersof the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on a remarkablesix-month seafaring journey to California. Described by one of hiscontemporaries as “perhaps the most prominent figure in the earlyhistory of San Francisco,” Brannan became a successful newspaperpublisher, businessman, and financier, was elected to the state senatein 1853, and ran for president on the Republican ticket in 1861.California Historical Society; CHS2012.955.tifclaimed, he and his colonists would win over theHispanic Californians and, he declared, “no mistakethe country is ours.” As a result, Brannancontinued, “we shall have a strong and rulingparty in this country that will back us, politicallyand commercially.” He promised to select themost suitable spot on San Francisco Bay “forthe location of a Commercial City.” 4 The goal,Brannan and his colonists well understood, wasto prepare the way for successive groups of Mormoncolonists who—as the Brooklyn party hadevery right to believe—would follow BrighamYoung to California.This daring design became the victim of anunexpected international crisis. In May 1846,three months after the Brooklyn sailed, PresidentJames K. Polk asked Congress to recognize astate of war with Mexico. Over token opposition,the federal legislators quickly obliged. Thecoming of the U.S.–Mexican War certainly hadnot been anticipated by either Samuel Brannanor Brigham Young as they laid plans to secureLDS control over Alta California. Once the warbegan, everything changed. When Brannan andhis colonists sailed into San Francisco Bay, theydiscovered that a U.S. Navy warship, the USSPortsmouth, commanded by Captain John Montgomery,already had landed, raised the Americanflag, and taken possession of the little Mexicanshoreside village known as Yerba Buena. “Thus,”observer Edward Kemble later wrote, “endedthe movement which, in 1846, looked to theestablishment of a new civil and ecclesiasticaldominion on the shores of the Pacific.” 7 For hispart, when he caught sight of the Portsmouth atanchor, Brannan allegedly remarked, “By God!there is that damned American flag.” 8Nonetheless, over the next year Brannan kept hispromises to Brigham Young. Despite difficultieswith fractious members of the Brooklyn colony,he founded the California Star newspaper, withKemble later becoming its editor. He presidedover the growth of Yerba Buena, soon renamedSan Francisco, into a thriving commercial city6California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

The port and frontier village of Yerba Buena in 1846–47—as Sam Brannan andthe Latter-day Saints would have seen it aboard the ship Brooklyn—is depicted in alithograph by William F. Swasey (1823–1896). Swasey selected the drawing as thefrontispiece of his 1891 book, The Early Days and Men of California, validating hisportrayal in a caption: “Designed and published by the Author and authenticated byGeneral Vallejo, George Hyde and Col. J. D. Stevenson.”California Historical Society, Fine Arts Collection, FA 69-76-1-2

a hoMe For zionAt the time Sam Brannan was establishing his Pacific Coast colony,LDS church president Brigham Young (1801–1877) and 148 churchmembers were searching for a new home beyond federal control inthe western territories. By the mid-1850s, when this portrait wasmade, Young already had begun construction of his great temple inthe Utah Territory. His vision for the location of the Mormon Zionconflicted with Brannan’s, laying the groundwork for the frayedphysical and theological ties between the two emigrant groups.LDS Church History Librarydominated economically and politically by theSaints. He cooperated with U.S. authoritiesand maintained peaceful neutrality during thewartime wrangling between government andinsurgent factions. And in various ways he continuedto make preparations for the coming ofthe church. Brannan was not yet willing to abandonhis fond hopes for bringing Brigham Youngand all other LDS converts to his own northernCalifornia stronghold of the faith—a mission thatwould have great significance to the history ofboth Mormonism and the West.To do his duty as he regarded it, in late April1847 Brannan set out on another daring,unprecedented journey. Writing from New YorkCity the previous September, Apostle Orson Hydehad informed Brannan that the Nauvoo refugeesled by Young, “the camp of Israel,” would travelto winter quarters at Council Bluffs on the MissouriRiver and along the Platte River. Then,Hyde stated, “in the spring, just as soon as grassshall start so as to sustain our teams, we shallstart en masse for California.” 9 This letter likelyreached Brannan by ship in March or early April.Within a few weeks at most, he headed eastwardacross the Sierra Nevada to meet Young and themigrating Saints, intending to guide them tonorthern California. Despite the early season,with snow still drifted high in the passes, he,along with three companions, took the only moreor less established overland route, past Sutter’sFort and over Donner Pass to connect with theTruckee River and move onward by way of theHumboldt River toward the Rockies—roughlythe route of modern Interstate 80. 10On June 30, this trail-weary little group rode intoBrigham Young’s camp at the overland trail’sGreen River crossing, just west of South Pass inpresent-day Wyoming. What Young told Brannanthere came as a shock and huge disappointment:The church leader’s pioneer company nowwas heading toward the Great Salt Lake Valley,not northern California. Unbeknownst to eitherHyde or Brannan, Young’s decision to locate theLDS Zion in the Great Basin, at least temporarily,likely had been made months earlier, perhaps inNauvoo in August 1845, or certainly before thepioneer company left winter quarters. But it onlyhad become general knowledge as the Mormonwagons rolled westward along the Platte River atox-team’s pace. The final decision to turn towardthe Salt Lake Valley, following a route blazed ayear earlier by Lansford Hastings and the DonnerParty, rather than continuing on the established8California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

The 1847 Young-Brannan controversyembodied an implicit,extremely critical debateabout the future of theMormon movement asboth a religion and acultural phenomenon.and answered: “No, sir: I am going to stop righthere. I am going to build a city here. I am goingto build a temple here, and I am going to builda country here.” 12 According to another eyewitness,Young stated his reason with admirableclarity: “We have no business in San Francisco,”he told Brannan. “The Gentiles will be therepretty soon.” 13Much more than a clash between two strongwilledmen, and much more than an argumentabout a suitable location for the new LDS settlement—thoughit was these things, too—the1847 Young-Brannan controversy embodiedan implicit, extremely critical debate about thefuture of the Mormon movement as both a religionand a cultural phenomenon. For Young andhis closest advisers, as historian David Biglerhas eloquently pointed out, the goal, above allelse, was to fulfill Old Testament prophecy byestablishing the Kingdom of God on earth. TheLatter-day Saints under Young’s leadership, Biglerhas written, “set out to accomplish an incrediblyambitious and confrontational purpose . . .to sweep away all other nations of this world andmake ready for the coming of the Lord, and todo this within their own lifetime.” 14 Isolated inthe Great Basin, Young’s Mormon Zion wouldbecome the chosen gathering place where faithfulSaints could live in peace, avoiding the hostilepresence of non-Mormons while awaiting theMillennium. The city Young meant to build, thetemple he meant to build, the country he meantto build, would be the epicenter of his people’srevolutionary millennial faith.Samuel Brannan envisioned an altogether differentfuture for the LDS movement and its adherents.Establishing their new headquarters at SanFrancisco, a Mormon-dominated commercial city,would dictate a worldly prospect, characterizedby close contact and pragmatic accommodationwith non-Mormon society. There, if we can parsethe implications of Brannan’s appeal, LDS successwould be more secular than spiritual. Inthe summer of 1847, still nearly a year beforethe discovery of gold set off the largest worldwidevoluntary mass migration in history, withSan Francisco as its premier metropolis, it wasalready apparent that the bay region’s first citywould become a major trade center. Open to theworld, Brannan’s thriving city—whether underMormon leadership or not—would, indeed, soonattract thousands of non-Mormons. As BrighamYoung clearly foresaw, San Francisco could notpossibly provide a secluded homeland where alarge LDS community could gather and perfectits faith in peace until the Millennium arrived.Young’s decision to remain in northern Utahleft the Brooklyn colonists in a curious position.They had uprooted their lives, invested their fortunes,and sailed to California to prepare for thecoming of the church; and now the church wasnot coming. Meanwhile, in all good faith, theyhad begun industriously to construct new livesfor themselves on the Pacific Coast. What wasto be their future relationship to the church and10California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

its leading authorities? With Zion permanentlylocated in the Salt Lake Valley, hundreds of milesto the east, what might the San Franciscans’ rolebecome in the development of the LDS movement?What place would they occupy at this greatdistance from the newly founded Kingdom ofGod on earth?According to Young’s advice, the Brooklyn Saintsshould, for the present, remain where they wereand serve the church. Perhaps most unusual,Young instructed them to be discreet, even secretive,in the practice of their religion. They shouldstrive as well to make themselves wealthy, andwith their wealth show a generous charity towardtheir less-fortunate brethren and toward thechurch and its officials. Only if they chose, Youngdeclared, might they join him and the main bodyof the church in the Salt Lake Valley. In otherwords, moving to Zion, the only place wheretheir eternal salvation could be assured at the endof time, was now to be not their holy duty butmerely an option they might elect for themselves.Young’s words of counsel were contained in alengthy, highly detailed letter that he sent back toSan Francisco with Sam Brannan in August 1847.It described the journey of his pioneer party tothe valley of the Great Salt Lake and enthusiasticallyportrayed the prospects for a city there“which for beauty and convenience we have neverseen equaled.” Young’s letter also confirmed thatElder Brannan, despite his errors and imperfections,should remain the head of northern California’sLDS congregation, and it expressed hissatisfaction thus far with the California missionunder Brannan’s guidance. Of special interestwas Young’s tactical straddle on the issue ofwhether the San Franciscans should move toUtah or remain in California. “We are lodgedhere in this goodly place,” he wrote, “just wherethe Lord wants his people to gather unto; andwe say to you all, & to all the saints in California,you are in a goodly land; & if you choose to tarrywhere you are, you are at liberty so to do; & if youchoose to come to this place, you are at liberty tocome, & we shall be happy to receive you, & giveyou an inheritance in our midst . . . .” Yet, Youngstated, we do not “wish to depopulate Californiaof all the Saints, but . . . we wish to make this aStronghold, a rallying point, a more immediategathering place than any other; & from hence letthe work go out, & in [the] process of time theShores of the Pacific may be overlooked from theTemple of the Lord.” 15 But in Young’s eyes, as theBrooklyn Saints soon learned, California was notquite Zion, and never would be.gold on the aMerican riverBrannan’s return trip to San Francisco beginningin August 1847 intersected, quite literally, witha second group of Saints who also became keyto the early history of California Mormonism.At Truckee Meadows, near the modern town ofTruckee, Brannan met in early September a substantialcontingent of Mormon Battalion veteransheading east toward the Great Basin. The Battalion,a unit unique in the annals of Americanmilitary history, had been recruited from amongthe LDS Nauvoo refugees scattered across westernIowa who had camped temporarily at CouncilBluffs in early June 1846, shortly after the U.S.declaration of war against Mexico.Authorized by President Polk and with encouragementfrom Brigham Young, approximatelyfive hundred untrained men of all ages, someaccompanied by wives and even small children,were enlisted in this special force. Led by a non-Mormon commanding officer, the Battalionjoined Colonel Stephen Watts Kearny’s Army ofthe West. Poorly supplied and ill equipped, theseuntrained soldiers had made an epic march fromFort Leavenworth, first assisting in the occupationof Santa Fe, then traversing the rugged desert andmountain terrain of southern Arizona, and finally11

After arriving in Los Angeles in March 1847, the Mormon Battalion completed construction of FortMoore, raising the first U.S. flag there a few months later on July 4. In 1958, a memorial was dedicatedat the site, a 45 x 35 foot terra-cotta panel depicting the historic event. Along with the BrooklynSaints, battalion veterans participated in establishing California communities, initiating the goldrush, and opening major overland routes for emigrants—events that transformed the West.California Historical Society/USC Special Collectionsreaching San Luis Rey and San Diego in late January1847. Trail hardened, they were ragged, oftenhungry, and many of them barefoot by the endof this ordeal. The “Battalion Boys,” as they oftencalled themselves, had played a critical role in thepeaceful occupation of southern California untiltheir discharge at Los Angeles in mid-July. 16The men Brannan met in September were thevanguard from a company of one hundred andsixty Battalion veterans who had left Los Angelesand traveled northward through the San JoaquinValley to Sutter’s Fort. They intended to take theoverland route eastward along the Truckee River,expecting to find their families and friends eitherstill encamped along the Missouri River or withthe church in the new Great Basin settlement. AtSutter’s Fort the company had divided. For lackof horses and adequate supplies, perhaps a thirdof them decided to remain in northern Californiaand seek work during the coming winter. It wasthe larger, better-equipped contingent, a hundredor more, that had moved on, hoping soon to bereunited with their loved ones.After greeting Brannan at Truckee Meadows, theveterans listened to his pessimistic appraisal ofBrigham Young’s prospective Zion. The Saintscould not possibly subsist in the Great Salt LakeValley, he told them. According to one veteran,Brannan “expressed his confidence that theSaints would emigrate to California the nextspring.” Once Young had fairly tried to live fora season in his Utah settlement site, Brannanprophesied, “He will find that I was right and hewas wrong, and will come to California.” 1712 California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

Traveling separately just behind Brannan was asmall company led by former Battalion captainJames Brown, who carried a personal messagefrom Brigham Young directly to the veterans: Allthe men who had no families needing their support,Brown advised, should return to Californiaand work there until the following spring orsummer. Provisions were scarce at the Salt Lakepioneer colony, Brown explained, so there was nofood to spare for the unattached veterans—thusconfirming, at least in part, Brannan’s appraisal.“It would be wisdom,” he told them on Young’sbehalf, for those without dependents “to return toCalifornia and go to work and fit themselves outwith plenty of clothing, stock, provision, etc., andcome up next season to the valley.” 18In response, at least half the vanguard contingentturned back and re-crossed the Sierra toSutter’s Fort. Here they found their Battalioncomrades already hard at work for John Sutter,doing exactly what Brigham’s message hadrecommended. A week earlier, the veterans whoinitially had decided to winter in California senta delegation to meet with Captain Sutter, offeringto work for him until the following spring.As one recalled, “The committee informed Mr.Sutter that we had carpenters, blacksmiths,wheelwrights, millwrights, farmers, and commonlaborers, and that we should want horses,cattle, and a general outfit for crossing the plainsearly the next summer, and if we could not get allmoney, we could and would take a part of our payin the above mentioned stock and supplies.” 19An agreement was quickly made. The pay was anominal $1.50 per day per man, plus provisionsand pasturage for their animals, a “pretty fairwage,” as one veteran stated, but not exceptionalfor northern California at the time. For the alwaysIn 1866, Sam Brannan entered into the Library of Congress this print of Sutter’s Fort and his store, S. Brannan & Co.(far right), just outside the fort’s walls. Brannan and Charles Smith opened the store in the fort’s vaquero house in October1847. As John Sutter recalled, “There were a good many settlers who brought hides, tallow, and skins to this Mormonstore and received manufactured articles in return. . . . This store assumed great importance after the discovery of gold.”California Historical Society; CHS2012.957.tif13

cash-shy Sutter, the great advantage was the BattalionBoys’ willingness to take at least half theirwages later in horses, cattle, equipment, andsupplies. “As he had an abundance of the abovementioned property,” states our star witness, “thegreatest obstacle that confronted him had beenremoved by the proposition that our committeehad made to him.” 20 Some of the skilled craftsmenwent to work immediately in various occupationsat the fort. Other veterans set about thepainfully hard work of digging an irrigation canaland building a grist mill nearby on the AmericanRiver. A smaller group, six men at the start,agreed to accompany James Marshall into themountains to begin construction of a sawmill at ariverside site called Coloma, which Marshall hadscouted out months earlier. (Sutter and Marshall,it should be noted, signed their partnership contractfor the sawmill project the day after the LDScommittee members presented their employmentproposal to Sutter.) When the men of thevanguard contingent returned to Sutter’s Fort,delaying their journey to the Salt Lake Valley incompliance with Young’s directive, they rejoinedtheir comrades and set to work for Sutter underthe same terms.The Battalion Boys provided Captain Sutter alarger, more dependable workforce at his isolatedinterior post—a total of 106 men by the carefulaccounting of historian Norma Ricketts—than hehad ever previously thought possible. In effect,John Sutter, the erratic, bombastic, visionary, frequentlyinebriated Swiss émigré, financially ineptbut filled with great ambitions in Mexican California,had joined in an implicit, totally unplannedpartnership with Brigham Young, the steady,sober, visionary, financially shrewd, and still moreambitious Vermont-born leader of the Latter-daySaints. Sutter’s growing need for labor was metby Young’s instructions to the Mormon veterans.Young’s urgent need for food, seed, tools, andlivestock now was to be provided by Sutter, withthe dutiful former soldiers as intermediaries.For his part, Sutter soon was bragging about hisLDS workmen. Writing in mid-October to MarianoVallejo, his Californio rival, Sutter boastedthat both his grist mill and the Coloma sawmillwould be completed in a month or two owing tothe skilled efforts of the Battalion Boys. “The Mormons,”he stated, “are the best workers I have.Without them, the mills could not be made.” 21And to his Monterey merchant friend ThomasLarkin, Sutter wrote that the Mormons “are thebest people which ever I has had employed.” “IfI would have had Mormons 4 or 5 years past,” headded, “I would have a fortune. . . .” 22At this point, the historical law of unforeseenconsequences came fully into play. Far beyondthe wildest imaginings of Sutter, Young, or anyoneelse directly connected with these events,Marshall’s January 24, 1848, discovery of goldalongside the American River at the Coloma sawmillsite, followed by the start of the Californiagold rush, revolutionized both northern Californiaand northern Utah. Due to the Battalionveterans, independent of both John Sutter andBrigham Young, the earliest and richest phase ofthe California gold rush unfolded largely underLDS management. In the sequel, mainly becauseof his own colossal ineptitude, Sutter went broke.For Young and his pioneer colony in the GreatBasin, meanwhile, the beginning of the Californiagold rush brought a bonanza of supplies, livestock,equipment, able-bodied men, and gold dustthat mightily helped the struggling settlementendure through the worst of its starving times.the ldS MinerSThe discovery of gold by Marshall and his Mormonwork crew at the Coloma sawmill perhapsis the single best-known story in all of westernAmerican history—though regrettably one notalways told with great accuracy. 23 Yet, the eventsat Coloma and Sutter’s Fort in late January andFebruary 1848 were but a mere beginning. The14California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

significant narrative moves rapidly beyond theColoma gold discovery. The journal records ofMormon Battalion veterans Azariah Smith andHenry William Bigler, along with the recollectionsof James Marshall and James S. Brown,demonstrate that the Battalion Boys, and soonsome of the Brooklyn Saints, played a central rolein extending the chance discovery of a few goldlumps in the Coloma mill race into an internationalrush for riches.Bigler recorded that following Marshall’s golddiscovery at Coloma, he—and he alone—becamebadly infected with gold fever. On his own, workingweekends and holidays, he went searchingfor more shiny flakes and nuggets downstreamfrom Sutter and Marshall’s mill site. Wadingnaked and shivering in the wintertime flows ofthe American River, using only his all-purposeknife to dig in submerged bedrock crevices, heenjoyed moderate success. When a few Battalioncomrades arrived from Sutter’s Fort, a two-dayjourney, Bigler demonstrated his primitive goldhuntingmethods and encouraged the newcomersto prospect more widely on their way backdownstream toward the fort. Three of the men,Sidney Willes, Levi Fifield, and Wilford Hudson,found ample gold—far more abundant and easilyrecovered than at Coloma—about halfwaybetween Coloma and Sutter’s Fort, at a placesoon known as Mormon Island. Quitting theirwork for Sutter, during the next few weeks Willesand Hudson began rudimentary placer mining atthis location. By mid-April, seven Battalion veteranswere working there steadily, and others sooncame to join them. With the crudest of equipment,using watertight Indian baskets and tinpans to wash out the gold-bearing gravel, theseastounded Saints were each taking in as muchas a hundred dollars a day worth—more than sixounces—of fine gold.Reports of their success soon reached San Francisco.Sam Brannan then returned inland tomake his own tour of inspection, not at ColomaMormon Battalion veterans (left to right) Henry W. Bigler, William J.Johnston, Azariah Smith, and James S. Brown celebrated the January24, 1898, fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of gold, which they had witnessed.Historian Hubert H. Bancroft credited Bigler with the discovery’sdate. In his diary entry for “Monday 24 (January),” Bigler wrote, “Thisday some kind of metal was found in the tail race that looks like gold.”On January 30, he confirmed, “Our metal has been tried and proves tobe gold. It is thought to be rich. We have picked up more than a hundreddollars’ worth this week.”Courtesy of California History Room, California State Library,Sacramento, Californiabut at Mormon Island. Convinced of the richnessof the LDS veterans’ discovery, he hurriedlyrode back to San Francisco, carrying a quininebottle filled with Mormon Island gold flakes. Byone account, he stepped from the ferry onto thebeach holding the bottled gold high, swinginghis hat, and shouting that gold was found on theAmerican River—an event remembered morethan any other as the real beginning of the Californiagold rush. Still the leading figure amongnorthern California Saints, Brannan enthusiasticallyencouraged the San Francisco Mormons torush to the gold diggings. At a hastily convenedcongregation meeting, he urged every Saint tosecure a share of the bonanza. This proved to bethe last LDS gathering that Elder Brannan everattended. His adherence to Mormonism slippedaway as his own shrewd business talents madehim wealthy.15

zion vS. babylonBy 1849, the gold rush and its consequenceswere widening immensely the cultural andspiritual divide between the northern CaliforniaSaints and their co-religionists in the GreatBasin Zion. As Leonard Arrington, dean of LDShistorians, has pointed out, California’s allureposed one of the most severe threats to BrighamYoung’s ambitions for creating and sustainingthe Kingdom of God on earth in northern Utah.To prevent wholesale desertions from his LDScapital, particularly by the strongest, most capableand adventurous men and women, Youngcreated an anti-California Mormon consensus, anew mind-set in Zion. Repeatedly, in public andprivate, he condemned gold mining, California,and all those fainthearted Mormons who woulddefy his authority by slipping away from Utah tosearch for riches beyond the Sierra. 27As the California Saints established homes and businesses in theirWest Coast communities, Young built his Mormon Zion in theGreat Basin. In 1872, five years before his death, workers quarriedquartz monzonite (similar to granite) for the Mormon Temple fromLittle Cottonwood Canyon, about twenty miles southeast of SaltLake City. Though construction on the temple began in 1853, it tookforty years to complete. LDS president Wilford Woodruff dedicatedthe temple—the centerpiece of the ten-acre Temple Square—on April6, 1893, three years before Utah became a state.U.S. National Archives and Records AdministrationCalifornia in late 1848 or as soon as the trailsopened in 1849, some to mine, some to go intobusiness as traders, and some—like Abner Blackburnand a few companions—to indulge themselvesin an extended spree, feasting, drinking,and dancing with pretty senoritas as they traveledabout the countryside. 26Overall, although not all congregants heeded hismessage, Young’s forceful preachment of his newanti-California doctrine—tirades, really—succeededadmirably. His views echo still throughoutthe intermountain West and elsewhere, heardmost often in media-driven conservative fulminationsagainst California’s social radicalism,political liberalism, and pockets of undeniableweirdness, according to conventional standards,which characterize the way some denizens of theGolden State—including not a few refugees fromUtah and other, more sedate social settings—nowadays choose to live.Manufactured for the guidance of the people ofZion, Young’s vividly expressed anti-Californiadoctrine had an effect west of the Sierra as well.For Saints who were enjoying success and livingwell in this “goodly land”—Sam Brannan,purportedly California’s first millionaire, rankinghigh among them—it became increasinglydifficult to consider relocating to a place wherethey likely would be scorned and censured. Theirreluctance was magnified by two issues that grew18California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

(Above) Founded in 1851 by ApostlesAmasa Lyman and Charles C. Rich,the LDS colony in San Bernardino wasa thriving community by 1855, a fewyears after this lithograph of the Mormonsettlement was printed.(Left) A landmark of the town wasthe Council House, the county’s firstcourthouse, built in 1874. The two-storyframed building took its name from theMormon High Council, a group of twelvemen chosen by Apostles Rich and Lymanto govern the community.(Above) The Bancroft Library, Universityof California, Berkeley; (left) Los AngelesPublic Library Photo Collection1

Saints in Zion understood, their eternal spiritualfuture was in peril.Nothing improved relations between the Utahchurch leadership and the California Saints duringthe next few years. Young’s most notablegesture toward bringing the West Coast brethrenback into full, harmonious fellowship camewith his assignment of George Q. Cannon tostart a church-authorized newspaper in SanFrancisco, with instructions to organize thenorthern California Mormons once more in permanentcongregations. Caught up with ardententhusiasm, Cannon began publication of theWestern Standard in February 1856. This weeklyjournal aggressively defended LDS faith andpractice as defined in Temple Square, site ofthe church’s Salt Lake City headquarters, touchingoff a colorful California newspaper war. ButCannon was not simply preaching to a choir ofthe orthodox faithful. While he earnestly soughtto justify every word and action of the GreatBasin church leaders, his rhetoric, coupled withYoung’s growing defiance of federal authority inUtah Territory, roused latent anti-Mormon sentimentsthroughout California and elsewhere onthe Pacific Coast. For many Golden State Saints,Cannon’s extreme polemics made their churchaffiliation and religious beliefs for the first time asource of conflict with non-Mormons. 33The Utah reformation, a movement of conservativespiritual rededication, and President Young’sincreasingly forceful determination in 1856–57to defend his theocratic system against federalpower, had strong repercussions in California.During the summer of 1857, youthful missionariesunder Cannon’s supervision traveled fromSan Francisco to LDS communities scatteredthroughout the gold country, preaching, baptizingnew members, and re-baptizing old ones.When belligerent anti-Mormons showed up,some of these meetings erupted into brawls. 34At this point, word reached California that Young,in his double capacity now as Utah’s territorialgovernor and the head of the LDS church, hadvirtually declared Mormon independence fromU.S. authority. He labeled any interference withUtah’s territorial officers, led by the churchauthorities, a violation of the United States Constitution.Utah, he also declaimed, was the onetrue home for all Latter-day Saints. In contrast,Young declared, hell reigned among the Saints inCalifornia and other places that had lured Mormonsaway from Zion. The time was at hand, heannounced, for the Saints to leave each and everyone of these hellish places and gather together inZion to defend their church and its leadership. 35He followed this speech by directing all theSaints from California and other outlying localitiesto dispose of their property and, as he stated,“come home.” In addition, he wrote to colonyleaders at the Mormon Station settlement in CarsonCounty, instructing them to secure secretlyas much ammunition as they could to bring withthem. “Come prepared to defend yourself againstall our foes,” he urged, “both white and red.” 36The onset of the yearlong Utah War in May 1857,with Young’s call to relocate to Zion, soon wasfollowed by the shocking news of the MountainMeadows Massacre in southern Utah, where agroup of Mormons and Paiute Indians killednearly 120 men, women, and children travelingfrom Arkansas to California. These developmentsbrought on a culminating crisis in theaffairs of California’s gold rush Saints. A goodmany obeyed Brigham’s command; selling theirproperty, they loaded up their wagons and by onetrail or another, made the trek to Utah during theclosing months of 1857 and early 1858. In manyinstances, whole communities moved together.Yet elsewhere, particularly in northern California’sgold country, a good many others decidedto remain. 3722California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

For the latter, difficult future issues about theirfaith and religious affiliation lingered, especiallysince no authorized representatives of theUtah hierarchy would reappear in California foranother three decades. Many believers turnedtheir religious allegiances in other directions.Some affiliated with the Reorganized Churchof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the RLDSChurch), now identified as the Community ofChrist. Others apparently attempted to maintainan LDS fellowship outside the established churchstructure. At San Bernardino, Amasa Lymanbecame a spiritualist and then moved into a leadershiprole in the Church of Zion. Abner Blackburn,that supremely freewheeling individualist,ended his days in San Bernardino dreadfully poorand disabled. After his death in 1904, a Baptistminister preached the funeral sermon. In allthese cases, it may be concluded, California’sMormon Argonauts, in their location now veryfar from Zion, perceived not that they had lefttheir church but that their church had left them.reconciliationIronically, the LDS church’s revival in Californiabegan in the 1880s with an unanticipated newmigration of refugees from the Great Basin:Utah polygamists fleeing to the Pacific Coast toavoid arrest and prosecution on federal chargesunder the 1882 Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act.A full return, however, came only after LDSpresident Wilford Woodruff announced inSeptember 1890 that he would submit to thenation’s anti-polygamy legislation and “use myinfluence with members of the Church overwhich I preside to have them do likewise.” 38 Twoyears later, the church’s central governing body,the first presidency—now including George Q.Cannon—determined to reopen a mission innorthern California. New local leaders organizedbranches in Oakland and Sacramento by the endof 1892, and four LDS missionaries began travelingthroughout California. 39 After an absence ofthirty-five years, the Latter-day Saints were reenteringthe social, cultural, and religious life of theGolden State.Today, the LDS church counts more than750,000 adherents in California. These modernCalifornia Saints are members of rapidly growing,diverse congregations that more or lessreflect the state’s cultural landscape. Amidst astate population of thirty-three million, however,Mormon influence on social and political issuesis usually far less apparent in California than inUtah and adjoining Rocky Mountain and GreatBasin states, where total populations are comparativelymuch lower and the proportion of LDSchurch members substantially higher. Yet quiterecently, the hot-button issue of gay and lesbianmarriage, strongly opposed by LDS churchauthorities and local spokespersons, once againhas called wide attention to the socially conservativeattitudes that today’s California Saints generallyshare with their co-religionists elsewhere.Obviously, in matters of belief and public policy,Mormonism in the Golden State is now far lessdistinctive than during the gold rush era. Morethan one hundred sixty years after the first LDSchurch members traveled west of Zion, California’smodern Saints are broadly reconciled withthe church’s Utah-based leadership. Perhaps forthat very reason, the experiences of the gold rushSaints, including their contentious relationshipwith Brigham Young and his closest advisers,deserve our respect and a fair, full measure ofhistorical appreciation.Kenneth Owens is Emeritus Professor of History at CaliforniaState University, Sacramento. He has published extensivelyon the California gold rush era, including his volumeGold Rush Saints: California Mormons and the Great Rush forRiches (2004) and, as editor, Riches for All: The CaliforniaGold Rush and the World (2002). He is currently completinga biography of Aleksandr Baranov, first chief manager of theRussian-American Company, who directed the founding ofFort Ross.23

“Dear Earl”The Fair Play Committee,Earl Warren, andJapanese InternmentBy Charles WollenbergDear Earl:I presume upon my friendship with you to write you regarding a matter overwhich I am much concerned. I am convinced that we must deal fairly with theloyal Americans of Japanese ancestry who have been evacuated from our state. 1This is how Alfred J. Lundberg began hisletter to his friend Earl Warren on July13, 1943. Warren was the new governorof California, having taken office earlier that yearafter a term as state attorney general. Lundbergwas the chief executive of the Key System, theEast Bay’s major private rail, bus, and ferry masstransit company. He had twice served as presidentof the State Chamber of Commerce andfour times as leader of the chamber’s Oaklandbranch. He was a trustee of Berkeley’s PacificSchool of Religion and board member of the EastBay chapter of the Conference of Christians andJews. In 1943, it would have been hard to find amore representative member of Oakland’s establishmentthan Al Lundberg. 2Warren was also a member in good standing ofthat elite group. Before his election as governorin 1942, he had lived in Oakland, and prior tobecoming state attorney general in 1938, he hadserved several years as Alameda County districtattorney. He was tough on crime and corruptionand willing to crack down on radical laboractivists. Like Lundberg, he was a Mason and aRepublican. The two men served together in civicorganizations and one of Warren’s former assistantswas an important Key System executive.Both Warren and Lundberg had strong connectionswith Joseph Knowland, Republican Partypower broker and influential publisher of theOakland Tribune. Yet for all their past ties, theydisagreed fundamentally about what Lundbergcalled “the loyal Americans of Japanese ancestry.”By 1944, as Japanese Americans endured wartime imprisonmentin western states, some newspaper headlines acrossthe country promoted the internees’ rights of residence andcitizenship. An American Baptist Home Mission Societybrochure featured newspaper excerpts, calling for “fairplay” for Japanese Americans—a cornerstone position since1941 of the activities of the Fair Play Committee. Morethan two-thirds of those interned were U.S. citizens.Yale Collection of Western Americana, Beinecke Rare Bookand Manuscript Library24California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

Warren was California’s most prominent advocateof Japanese American wartime internment,while Lundberg was a leading member of the FairPlay Committee, a small but influential group ofcitizens who lobbied for the immediate releaseof people from internment camps 3 and theireventual return to the West Coast. The committee’sactivities and its disagreements with Warrenprovide insight into a largely ignored part of theinternment story—the vocal opposition of somemembers of the California establishment to thepolicy of dislocating and imprisoning people ofJapanese descent. By actively speaking out, theFair Play Committee signaled to power brokers inWashington that there were influential voices ofreason on the West Coast countering the nation’sdominant mood of hatred and fear. While it isdifficult to measure the precise effect of the committee’sactivities on the evolution of federalpolicy, by early 1945 Washington had adopted aposition similar to that advocated by the committeein 1941. Arguing on behalf of basic civil rightsand civil liberties in the 1940s, the Fair Play Committeeraised issues that are all too relevant to ourcontemporary debates over the Patriot Act, GuantánamoBay, and policies of indefinite detention. 4“an independent coMMittee oFinFluential individualS”The Fair Play Committee was established in thefall of 1941, three months before the attack onPearl Harbor. In May of that year, David PrescottBarrows, chairman of the University of California’sPolitical Science Department and formeruniversity president, became concerned aboutrising anti-Japanese sentiment in California.He discussed the matter with Galen Fisher, afaculty member at the Pacific School of Religionand a political science research associate atthe university. A liberal Protestant, Fisher hadserved twenty-one years in Japan as secretaryof the International Committee of the YMCA.Subsequently, he had carried out a survey ofrace relations on the Pacific Coast for the RockefellerInstitute of Social and Religious Research.Although Fisher was in his late sixties in 1941,he agreed to take on the task of organizing whathe and Barrows envisioned as “an independentcommittee of influential individuals” to advocatefor the protection of the civil rights and libertiesof Californians of Japanese descent. In September1941, he announced the establishment of theNorthern California Committee on Fair Play forCitizens and Aliens of Japanese Ancestry. 5Fisher created the new organization in part tocounter the considerable influence of the JointCommittee on Immigration. Valentine StuartMcClatchy, former publisher of the Bee newspapersin Sacramento, Fresno, and Modesto, hadorganized the Joint Committee in 1921 to opposeJapanese immigration and warn of the specterof a “Yellow Peril” threatening white Christianculture in the Pacific Basin. By 1941, the groupincluded official representatives of the NativeSons of the Golden West, the American Legion,the California Grange, the State Federation ofLabor, and the Associated Farmers. Ulysses S.Webb, Warren’s predecessor as state attorneygeneral, was a prominent member. He had beenthe principal author of the state’s 1913 AlienLand Law, which prohibited “aliens ineligiblefor citizenship” from owning land in California.Since federal law banned Asian immigrants frombecoming naturalized U.S. citizens, the AlienLand Law was designed to reduce the substantialrole of Japanese in California agriculture.However, the law applied only to the Issei, thefirst-generation immigrants. By virtue of theFourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution, the Nisei, the American-born secondgeneration, were U.S. citizens and thus notcovered by the Alien Land Law. (Collectively, allpeople of Japanese descent in California, first orsecond generation, were Nikkei.)26California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

The Joint Committee became particularly activein 1941 as international tensions between theUnited States and Japan escalated. The organizationargued that there were strong ties betweenJapanese Americans and the Japanese governmentand that the presence of people of Japanesedescent represented a clear and present danger.The committee’s efforts to fan the flames ofYellow Peril feeling were supported by muchof the state’s media, including the McClatchyand Hearst newspaper chains and the LosAngeles Times. 6Galen Fisher envisioned the Fair Play Committeeas an elite group of citizens whose prominence atleast matched that of the Joint Committee members.In addition to Lundberg, Fisher recruited anumber of important business leaders, includingthe president of the steamship companyAmerican President Lines and the San FranciscoFederal Reserve Bank. He also won the supportof a number of Protestant leaders, including theEpiscopal Bishop of California and the presidentof the Pacific School of Religion. However, thecommittee attracted few Catholic or Jewish clergy,with the prominent exception of Irving Reichert,rabbi of Temple Emanuel, San Francisco’s largestsynagogue. Fisher also recruited several prominentpoliticians, including Culbert Olson, theliberal Democratic governor of California, whoinitially served as honorary chairman. 7Anti-Japanese propaganda saturated California’s landscape.On April 13, Dorothea Lange, working for the War RelocationAuthority (WRA), photographed this Sutro Baths poster depictingthe era’s racial stereotypes. Lange used her camera to exposethe personal suffering and pain caused by the exclusion. TheU.S. Army refused to release her pictures to the public for morethan a decade. “Although the Army wanted a record,” Langeobserved, “it did not want a public record.”The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley;photograph by Dorothea LangeGiven its academic roots, it was inevitable thatcommittee membership would have a significantuniversity connection. The presidents of Stanfordand Mills College served on the board. Probably,the committee’s most prominent member wasRobert Gordon Sproul, the powerful and popularpresident of the University of California. Sproul’ssecond in command, Provost Monroe Deutsch,was also particularly active, as were a numberof UC Berkeley professors, including economistPaul Taylor. During the thirties, Taylor and hiswife, photographer Dorothea Lange, had documentedAmerica’s rural poor, but now they wereattracted by the plight of Japanese Americans. 8Fisher and Barrows did not conceive of the FairPlay Committee as a traditional civil rights orsocial service organization. Its purpose was toinfluence public opinion and public policy ratherthan provide direct assistance to individuals.The committee’s first publication, an open letterreleased on September 11, 1941, urged Californiansto distinguish between the Japanesegovernment and the loyal people of Japanesedescent living in the United States. If there wasany espionage or sabotage, government agencieslike the FBI would handle the problem. What thesituation demanded of ordinary citizens was “fairplay” for their Japanese American neighbors.That, the committee argued, was true patriotismand the American way. 927

What the situationdemanded of ordinarycitizens was “fair play”for their JapaneseAmerican neighbors.That, the committeeargued, was truepatriotism and theAmerican way.The Fair Play Committee had barely gotten offthe ground when the December 7 attack onPearl Harbor dramatically changed the politicaland social landscape. Although public officials,including Warren, initially called for respect forJapanese American rights and property, in thefirst weeks of 1942, the idea of forced evacuationquickly gained popular support. Secretary of theNavy Frank Knox told the press (erroneously, as itturned out) that “the most effective fifth columnwork of the entire war was done in Hawaii, withthe possible exception of Norway.” The Hearstpapers, along with other media and groups likethe Joint Immigration Committee, warned of similaraction by West Coast Japanese. On January 12,Congressman Leland Ford of Santa Monica proposedthat “all Japanese, whether citizen or not,be placed in inland concentration camps.” By thebeginning of February, Governor Olson had effectivelydissociated himself from the Fair Play Committeeand joined the growing chorus of electedofficials calling for Japanese removal. Los Angelesmayor Fletcher Bowron not only supported exclusion,but also called for the immediate dismissalof all Japanese Americans on the city payroll.In early February, the West Coast congressionaldelegation unanimously called for the evacuationof people of Japanese descent from Washington,Oregon, and California. 10“California’s Most ProMinent PubliCoffiCial”Earl Warren became the de facto leader of thisgrowing political movement. As Alameda Countydistrict attorney, he had battled against the KuKlux Klan, and as state attorney general, he madea point of not serving on the anti-Japanese JointImmigration Committee (in contrast to his predecessor,Ulysses S. Webb). In 1940, Warren hadstrongly condemned racial prejudice in a speechbefore the Associated Farmers. After Pearl Harbor,he opposed a proposal to fire state workers ofJapanese descent as unconstitutional. His reputationas an opponent of bigotry gave his supportof Japanese forced removal particular credibility.As the leading Republican office holder in Sacramento,his performance often was comparedfavorably to that of Democratic Governor Olson.Warren’s biographer Ed Cray observed that inresponse to Pearl Harbor, Warren “appeared tobe firm and self-assured. . . . He was the voiceof reason in a time of fear.” While Olson “vacillated,Warren was decisive; the attorney generalhad become California’s most prominentpublic official.” 11Although Olson tried to centralize control ofCalifornia’s civil defense activities, the legislatureestablished a structure that put Warren, thestate’s chief law enforcement officer, effectively incharge. On January 29, Warren called a meetingof state officials, informing them that a Japaneseattack on the mainland was possible. He arguedthat every Japanese immigrant should be considered“a potential fifth column,” and called for the28California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

immediate evacuation of Japanese aliens fromthe state. He discussed his views with WalterLippmann, the nation’s most prestigious newspapercolumnist. As a result of their discussion,on February 13 Lippmann published an opinionpiece in the Washington Post called “The FifthColumn on the West Coast.” Warren was alsoin constant communication with local militaryauthorities, including General John DeWitt, commanderof army forces on the West Coast. DeWittinitially opposed mass removal, but by Februaryhe had changed his mind, pointing out to hisWashington superiors that the “best people” onthe West Coast, including Warren, were pushingfor it. 12DeWitt’s recommendation to proceed with theevacuation received a mixed reception in thenation’s capital. Members of the Justice Department,including FBI director J. Edgar Hoover andAttorney General Francis Biddle, resisted massremoval. Hoover argued that his agency had thematter well in hand, having already arrested severalhundred leaders of the Japanese immigrantcommunity. Biddle condemned expulsion onconstitutional grounds, particularly if it appliedto U.S. citizens. But DeWitt, with strong supportfrom Warren and other West Coast officials, wonover Secretary of War Henry Stimson and hischief deputy, Assistant Secretary John J. McCloy.At a key Washington meeting with Justice Departmentofficials, McCloy said that when it cameto “a question of safety of the country,” the Constitutionwas “just a scrap of paper to me.” 13 OnFebruary 11, the White House approved the evacuationand on February 19, President Rooseveltsigned Executive Order 9066, authorizing thearmy to forcibly relocate both citizens and noncitizensof Japanese descent from the West Coast.Opponents of the evacuation policy hoped tomake their case at sympathetic hearings conductedby the House Select Committee InvestigatingNational Defense Migration, chairedby Democratic congressman John Toland. AAs governor of California during the war years, Earl Warren(1891–1974) promoted the compulsory exile of West Coastresidents of Japanese ancestry. Formerly state attorney general(1939–43), Warren served after the war as the fourteenth ChiefJustice of the United States (1953–1969). Though celebrated formany landmark decisions, his position on internment duringthe war has left a dishonorable mark on his record as a protectorof individual rights and equality.California Historical Society; CHS2012.954.tifpro-labor liberal, Toland previously had led hearingson California farm labor problems that hadexposed the plight of migrant workers. But by thetime the Toland Committee began its public hearingsin San Francisco on February 21, 1942, Rooseveltalready had issued Executive Order 9066,and the sessions served primarily to reinforcesupport for the forced relocation policy. Most ofthe people who testified at the hearings favoredmass evacuation.Warren was probably the most influential witness.He showed the committee a map of Japaneseland holdings in California and noted that“virtually every important strategic location andinstallation has one or more Japanese in itsimmediate vicinity.” The fact that no sabotagehad yet occurred, Warren surmised, only meantthat Californians were “being lulled into a false29

security.” In his memoirs, written more thanthirty years after the fact, he denied that his supportof relocation was based on racism, but atthe hearing he claimed that when dealing withthe “Caucasian race we have methods that willtest the loyalty of them.” “With the Japanese,”however, “we are in an entirely different field.”Thus mass evacuation was appropriate forJapanese but unnecessary for Germans and Italians.Although Warren also recalled that he hadadvocated the evacuation only of Japanese-bornresidents, in fact he testified that it was “theconsensus of opinion among law enforcementofficers of this state that there is more potentialdanger among the group of Japanese born in thiscountry than from alien Japanese who were bornin Japan.” Clearly, the attorney general was arguingfor the involuntary removal of all people ofJapanese descent, whether citizen or noncitizen. 14Representatives of the Japanese AmericanCitizens League took strong exception to Warren’stestimony. JACL membership was composedprimarily of assimilated, well-educatedyoung American citizens of Japanese descent.Mike Masaoka, the group’s national secretary,strongly denied charges of widespread disloyaltyamong Japanese Americans and asked for “theright to share the common lot of all Americans.”“We think, feel, act like Americans.” Yet theorganization said that if the government believedthat “evacuation of Japanese residents from theWest Coast is a primary step toward assuring thesafety of this Nation, we will have no hesitationin complying.” 15Louis Goldblatt, longshoreman union activistand secretary of the California State IndustrialUnion Council, was probably the most outspokendefender of Japanese American rights at the hearings.The American Federation of Labor had longbeen identified with anti-Asian sentiment on theWest Coast, and its state affiliate was a memberof the Joint Immigration Committee. But theCongress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), therelatively new labor federation of which Goldblatt’sindustrial union council was an affiliate,included some unions with multiethnic membershipsand strong records of civil rights advocacy.Goldblatt accused officials like Warren of joiningthe “wolf pack when the cry came out ‘let’s getthe Yellow menace.’” They had turned the “waragainst Axis Powers into a war against the ‘YellowPeril.’” But even Goldblatt accepted the possibilityof evacuation for the protection of the Japanesepopulation—“to avoid vigilantism, mob rule, andhysterical beatings and riots.” 16Galen Fisher, representing the Fair Play Committee,also defended the West Coast Nikkei. Heargued that much of the anti-Japanese feelingwas “whipped up by interested parties,” includingagricultural interests that stood to gain byevicting Japanese American farmers and processors.Fisher said there was no evidence ofsignificant disloyalty among Japanese Americans.Indeed, some Nisei already were serving in thearmed forces and evacuation would dramaticallyaffect their morale. Mass evacuation also wouldbe a propaganda boost for the Japanese war effortand cause significant problems for the UnitedStates after the war. But bowing to political reality,Fisher said the Fair Play Committee wouldsupport a “selective evacuation.” He urged thegovernment to establish fair processes for determiningindividual loyalty so that only disloyaland potentially dangerous people would be subjectto removal. 17Assistant Secretary of War McCloy also hadhoped that the evacuation could be “selective,”perhaps excluding the elderly, people in mixedmarriages, and those with special hardships.But General DeWitt told him, “Out here Mr.Secretary, a Jap is a Jap.” In the end, the WarDepartment supported DeWitt’s plan for totalexpulsion. 18 All people of Japanese descent livingin a security zone that eventually included all ofCalifornia, Oregon, Washington, and a portionof western Arizona were forcibly evacuated. The30 California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

Haruko Huzichi awaits departure from Los Angeles on April 2, 1942. Internees packed only what they could carry.As specified by Executive Order 9066—President Franklin Roosevelt’s mandate to deport Americans of Japaneseancestry from coastal areas to inland camps—the rest was provided, including “transportation, food, shelter, andother accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander,and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order.” Mrs. Huzichi, the LosAngeles Herald-Examiner reported, had a son in the U.S. Army.Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collectionorder applied to about 120,000 people, close to90 percent of all people of Japanese descent livingin the continental United States. (Hawaii wasnot included, although Nikkei made up about 37percent of the population.) The majority of thoseevacuated were American citizens and more than70,000 were California residents. The exclusionapplied to people of mixed heritage and evento unattached children who were taken fromorphanages and placed in internment camps. Itscriteria were not nationality or evidence of disloyalty,but race and ethnicity. 19As evacuation got under way in the spring of1942, several Fair Play Committee membersbecame concerned about the future of West CoastNisei college students. While the governmentplanned elementary and secondary schools forthe internment camps, there was no provisionfor post-secondary education. Robert O’Brienof the University of Washington estimated thatthere were more than three thousand JapaneseAmerican students enrolled in West Coast colleges,the largest—nearly five hundred—at UCBerkeley. Although the University of Washingtonwas a close second, the great majority of JapaneseAmerican students were in various Californiainstitutions. Fair Play Committee members MonroeDeutsch and Paul Taylor joined with O’Briento develop a program to allow the students tofinish their studies at eastern and Midwestern31

institutions outside of the security zone. Alongwith the presidents of Stanford and the Universityof Washington, UC president Sproul becameactively involved, using his considerable prestigeto influence federal officials. In spite of strongopposition from groups like the Joint ImmigrationCommittee, federal authorities gave theirblessing to a formal student resettlement program,initially headquartered in Berkeley buteventually administered by the American FriendsServices Committee in Philadelphia. It servedmore than four thousand Japanese American studentsduring the war. 20“the huMan iMplicationS oF theevacuationS”The Fair Play Committee seemed to face almostinsurmountable odds during the spring and earlysummer of 1942. In February, a Japanese submarineshelled an oil facility near Santa Barbara anda blue ribbon committee investigating the PearlHarbor attack concluded (wrongly) that Japaneseresidents in Hawaii had engaged in sabotage.American forces sustained a series of militarydefeats in the Pacific. Fear and wartime hysteriastrengthened the already intense public feelingagainst Japanese Americans. But the committeesoldiered on, with Galen Fisher serving as unpaidexecutive secretary. In response to the post–PearlHarbor environment, the organization changedits official name to the Committee on NationalSecurity and Fair Play. Its mission was now “tosupport the Government and armed forces inpreserving national security and winning thewar,” while simultaneously fostering “fair play,especially toward law-abiding and innocent aliensand citizens of alien parentage.” 21By the end of the summer, Fisher had identifiedinfluential allies in a surprising place—withinthe leadership of the War Relocation Authority(WRA), the agency President Roosevelt establishedto administer the resettlement process.While the military provided security and carriedout the actual roundup of residents, the presidentplaced the administration of the relocation underthe civilian WRA. The new agency was housedin the War Department, answering to AssistantSecretary McCloy. Roosevelt accepted McCloy’srecommendation of Milton Eisenhower, an experiencedDepartment of Agriculture administratorand brother of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, asthe first WRA director.Milton Eisenhower became “deeply troubled”by the WRA’s mission. He found that GeneralDeWitt “had somehow blocked out the humanimplications of the evacuations.” The Nikkei weretemporarily housed in makeshift camps on theWest Coast, including the racetracks Tanforanin the Bay Area and Santa Anita in southernCalifornia. Eisenhower proposed that many ofthe evacuees be allowed to resettle voluntarily inthe Rocky Mountain and southwestern states.He also envisioned a series of centers spreadthroughout the West, based on the model of theCivilian Conservation Corps. From these facilities,the evacuees could work in western agricultureand industry, helping to fill labor shortagescaused by the war. In April, Eisenhower haddiscussed these ideas with western governors at ameeting in Salt Lake City. The results were hardlyencouraging. Only the governor of Coloradoresponded positively. Eisenhower said the othergovernors “were literally shouting at me.” Thegovernor of Idaho said “the Japs live like rats,breed like rats, and act like rats.” Another governortold Eisenhower, “If you bring the Japaneseto my state, I promise they will be hanging fromevery tree.” Eisenhower reluctantly agreed to plana series of large militarily secured camps, eventuallyten in number, scattered in fairly isolatedlocations from eastern California to Arkansas.Evacuation and relocation now also had becomeinvoluntary internment. 2232California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

Evacuee housing opened at the Tanforan racetrackin San Bruno, California, on April 27, 1942, duringa heavy rain—remnants of which are visiblein a photograph made two days later. This womandeparted for the Tanforan Assembly Center onarmy-commandeered buses from San Francisco’sJapanese American Citizens League headquartersat 2031 Bush Street, one of sixty-four Civil Controlstations of the Wartime Civilian Control Agency(WCCA), which coordinated the expulsions.Approximately eight thousand Bay Area residentslived here in remodeled horse stalls for about sixmonths. Then they were transported to a permanentcamp in the desert area of Topaz, Utah.The Bancroft Library, University of California,BerkeleyAfter just ninety days on the job, Eisenhowergladly accepted another federal assignment. Herecommended his friend and former colleague inthe Department of Agriculture, Dillon S. Myer,as his replacement. He told Myer to take theposition only “if you can do the job and sleep atnight.” On June 17, 1942, Myer decided, “I wassure I could sleep, and so I accepted the position.”During the next few months, Myer putEisenhower’s revised plans into effect, transferringmore than 100,000 evacuees to the newinternment camps. 23 He came to share many ofEisenhower’s reservations. He concluded that themass evacuation was not justified and as early asMarch 1943 was privately arguing for a gradualphasing out of the exclusion order. In the meantime,he sought McCloy’s approval for allowingqualified internees to leave the camps and voluntarilyresettle in states outside the West Coastsecurity zone. Myer argued that the camps breda culture of dependence that was “bad for theevacuated people” and “bad for the future healthof American democracy.” His aim, he said, was“getting these people out of the relocation centersand reestablished in normal communities.” 24Gradually, the War Department came around toMyer’s position, at first supporting an individualfurlough process and then approving proceduresfor more extensive voluntary resettlement.Still, the great majority of evacuees remained ininternment camps for most of the war.Myer also advocated allowing young internees toserve in the armed forces, initially as volunteersand eventually as draftees. When the war began,there were already a few Nisei in the military,and others were recruited for special intelligenceunits. But initially, Japanese Americans wereprohibited from leaving the camps for militaryservice. That policy changed in early 1943, whenSecretary Stimson approved the creation of whatwas to become the army’s all-Japanese American442nd Combat Team.Leaders of the Fair Play Committee supportedmost of Myer’s policies and initiatives. Morebroadly, they agreed with his assimilationist convictions.Like Myer, their goal was to help JapaneseAmericans integrate into the mainstream of33

The grandstand dominated the entire complex. It was the center of activities and housed the camp administration,visitors’ hall, canteen, scrip book office, and one huge bachelors’ dormitory.California Historical Society; CHS.Saito.003.tiftanforan assembly Center: siberius Y. saitoEighteen assembly centers, most ofthem in California, served as rusticquarters for Japanese Americans whenthey first were forcibly removed fromtheir homes. The centers were hastilyconstructed at racetracks, fairgrounds,migrant workers’ camps, and warehouses.These detention camps—withbarbed-wire fences, searchlights, andguard towers—provided temporaryhousing until the WRA permanentcamps—scattered in desolate inlandareas throughout seven states—werecompleted.Among those deported to the TanforanAssembly Center in San Bruno was thearchitect Siberius Y. Saito (1908–1980),who composed twenty-four drawingsillustrating Tanforan’s barracks, messhalls, medical facilities, public areas,and general views. In June 1942, Architect& Engineer magazine listed himin the “Architects Migrate” column asleaving from San Francisco “to Barracks8, apartment 3, Tanforan Assembly, SanBruno.” 1 Saito is one of many JapaneseAmerican internees who used theirtalents to document life during expulsion.He taught pencil drawing andarchitectural drafting in Tanforan’s artschool, 2 as did many other artists, photographers,and craftsmen who sharedtheir expertise with others in the camps’makeshift schools and studios.In a June 22, 1942, letter, Saitodescribed the living conditions of thoseinternees assigned to the stall apartments:“Poor ventilation, dirty andgrimy, smell of manure from underfloorarea, dampness; these are some ofthe conditions that occur out in our‘skid row.’” 3After the war, in 1948, Saito cofoundedan architecture firm in Waterloo, Iowa,and in 1979, a year before he died,donated annotated photographic copyprints of his Tanforan drawings toCHS; the Bancroft Library, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley; Hoover InstitutionLibrary and Archives, Stanford University;and Rod Library, University ofNorthern Iowa. His notes comprise thecaptions on these pages. 4—Editors34California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

(Above) View from the top area of thegrandstand looking north on El CaminoReal, at that time the main highwaybetween San Francisco and San Jose.Some barracks appear on the right.California Historical Society;CHS.Saito.004.tif(Left) The guard tower.California Historical Society;CHS.Saito.008.tif

(Above) There were many skilled landscapegardeners. They converted a drieduppond in the infield into a beauty spotcomplete with Japanese garden, bridges,trees, walks, etc.California Historical Society;CHS.Saito.010.tif(Left) Barrack apartments at the racetrack curve. . . . The camp was dividedinto blocks of barracks housing about300. Each block had its own mess hall,toilets and showers. . . . There wereneither plumbing nor heating andone single light bulb on a pull chainper compartment. Size of a typicalapartment was 16 x 20 ft. with anaverage occupancy of 6.California Historical Society;CHS.Saito.020.tif(Opposite) “Well, it’s been almost two months since coming here,” Saito began hisJune 22, 1942, letter. “Gotten used to camp life now.” His detailed description of theTanforan Assembly Center ends with uncertainty about the future: “Don’t know howlong I’ll be here—no word yet. . . .”California Historical Society, Augusta Bixler Farms Records, MS 202b.001.tifCalifornia History • volume 89 number 4 2012

(Left) From the box seats of the grandstand lookingdown on people waiting in line to get into thecanteen. Scrip coupons were exchanged there forsundries. There was only one canteen and choicesof items were limited.California Historical Society;CHS.Saito.007.tif

American society. Politically moderate to liberal,they criticized the Yellow Peril formulation ofAmerica as a “white man’s country.” But alongwith WRA leadership, the Fair Play Committeepromoted the idea that Japanese Americans, likeother minorities, should achieve integration byadopting white, middle-class values, standards,and lifestyles. By the end of 1942, a remarkablepolitical alliance had emerged between the FairPlay Committee, a major opponent of JapaneseAmerican internment, and the WRA, the governmentagency administering the internment policy.Myer said the Fair Play Committee “helpedprovide support on the side of the angels.” 25“purely and SiMply a public relationSeFFort”The committee restructured itself in late 1942and early 1943, changing its name for the thirdtime in two years to the Pacific Coast Committeeon American Principles and Fair Play. RobertGordon Sproul was honorary chairman, ArthurMcGiffert, president of the Pacific School ofReligion, chaired the executive committee, andProfessor Paul Taylor and Rabbi Irving Reichertserved as vice chairs. Alfred Lundberg and MonroeDeutsch also served on the executive committee.The organization established an advisoryboard led by Maurice Harrison, a prominentSan Francisco attorney. Galen Fisher was vicetreasurer, a title that did not fully reflect his ongoinginterest and activity, which included writinghighly effective articles and flyers opposing theinternment. The committee tried to spawn anumber of local chapters in various Californiacities, as well as Seattle and Portland, but onlythe Pasadena chapter remained active and viablethroughout the war. Never a mass-membershiporganization, by the end of 1943, the committeehad only 600 members and an annual budgetof about $7,300, most of which was supplied byfoundation grants. 26The most important changes produced by thecommittee’s restructuring were the establishmentof modest offices in Berkeley and San Franciscoand the hiring of a paid executive secretary,Ruth W. Kingman. Kingman’s husband, Harry,was director of Stiles Hall, the UC BerkeleyYMCA. A former major league baseball player, hehad worked for the YMCA in China and Japan.Ruth had accompanied him to Asia and used hermusic education at the College of the Pacific toorganize performances and pageants for holidaysand YMCA events. In Berkeley she servedas Stiles Hall’s “unpaid hostess” and played animportant role in the institution’s activities. Bothchildren of Protestant clergymen, the Kingmanswere political liberals and community activists.During the thirties, they fought against racial discriminationand established a free-speech policyat Stiles Hall that provided a forum for controversialspeakers, including political radicals. Inearly 1943, President Roosevelt appointed HarryWest Coast director of the Fair EmploymentPractices Commission, the agency enforcing thenondiscrimination provisions in federal defensecontracts. 27The Kingmans were early opponents of internment.Many Nisei were active in the YMCA, andStiles Hall sponsored the initial efforts to resettleJapanese American students at eastern and midwesterncolleges. After Executive Order 9066,Ruth asked Stiles Hall staff member Bob Okamatsuwhat church groups were doing to help.He answered, “Ruth, I think they’ve got to putup or shut up.” Kingman took that as a challengeand worked with other Berkeley women to persuadethe local Congregational Church to supportinternees through the difficult evacuation process.The church offered its social hall as Berkeley’spoint of embarkation for the camps, servingcoffee and cake to adults and providing toys forchildren. Later Kingman and her colleagues visitedthe temporary assembly camp at Tanforan,providing household supplies and moral support38California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

(Above) As executive secretary of the Fair Play Committee, RuthKingman (1900–1994) waged an unrelenting campaign for justicefor “loyal” Japanese Americans. After the war, she served in leadershippositions in numerous Bay Area civic organizations and was associatedirector of the Washington-based Citizens’ Lobby for Freedom andFair Play. During an oral history interview in the early 1970s (right),Kingman described the Fair Play Committee’s relationship with GovernorEarl Warren, affirming: “As far as I know, Earl Warren hasnever regretted the position he took during the war, and as far as Iknow, none of us has found reason to regret ours.”The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeleyfor the internees. In December 1942, she traveledto Utah to organize a bilingual Christmas pageantfor internees at the Topaz camp. It wasn’t a whiteChristmas, she reported, because “it was too coldto snow.” The high school chorus sang carolsfor an audience that included camp guards andadministrators, as well as internees. Kingmansaid, “The soldiers loved it. They wouldn’t let thekids go.” 28Assuming the office of executive secretary inearly 1943, Kingman immediately became thefocal point of Fair Play Committee activity. Sheargued that “the economic and racist interests”had mobilized long before people of good willwho “hadn’t believed ‘it could happen here.’”Now the committee was playing catch up, andthe organization’s role needed to be “purely andsimply a public relations effort.” She believedthe committee had to project a moderate image,instead of openly criticizing the internment orpublicly calling for an immediate return of theinternees. The committee also needed to be perceivedas supporting the war. “None of us wereantiwar,” Kingman said. The committee was“fighting for democracy, for American principles.”“This,” she explained, “was our war effort.”Kingman also strengthened the committee’s alliancewith the WRA and its personal ties with DillonMyer. She publicly defended Myer’s policiesand decisions, while Myer used the committee’sexistence to prove to his Washington superiorsthat not all Californians were anti-Japanese racists.The wife of a WRA official even served as apaid committee staff member in 1945. 29Kingman established powerful connections inWashington, where she traveled in the fall of1943 for the first of two highly successful lobbyingtrips. She met with Assistant SecretaryMcCloy and had a particularly gratifying session39

“None of us wereantiwar,” Kingmansaid. The committeewas “fighting fordemocracy, forAmerican principles.”“This,” she explained,“was our war effort.”with Attorney General Francis Biddle, who openlycriticized the internment. She also conferredwith some cautiously sympathetic members ofCongress and won the support of Anna RooseveltBoettiger, the president’s daughter and a closeconfidant, who was living in the White House. 30Kingman also traveled extensively up and downthe West Coast and even visited Camp Shelbyin Mississippi, where the 442nd Combat Teamtrained. In the Bay Area, she handled an extraordinaryvolume of correspondence, made publicappearances and radio broadcasts, oversawthe distribution of thousands of copies of variouspublications, interacted with the press andelected officials, maintained ongoing relationswith local representatives of the military, FBI,and WRA, managed the committee offices, anddealt with an opinionated and sometimes contentiouscommittee membership. Not surprisingly,she needed occasional leaves of absence torecover from sheer exhaustion. Twice she took amonth off on doctor’s orders. 31By mid-1943, the efforts of Kingman and herallies were having some effect. The War Departmentwas increasingly comfortable with theidea of voluntary resettlement out of the camps.In June, the department replaced General JohnDeWitt as army commander on the West Coast.He was the military’s strongest supporter ofinternment and was deeply suspicious of Niseiloyalty. His successor, General Delos C. Emmons,previously served as military commander inHawaii and in that capacity had opposed massevacuation. Along with the FBI and the Honolulupolice chief, Emmons had contradicted theerroneous charges of Nisei sabotage and espionage.California newspapers reported that thechange in command was directly related to theWar Department’s displeasure with DeWitt’sextreme views. 32“Slap the Jap”The relative liberalization of federal policy produceda furious counterattack from anti-JapaneseAmerican forces. New groups like the No JapsInc. joined the traditional Yellow Peril establishmentin criticizing federal authorities. TheHome Front Commandos sponsored a “Slap theJap” campaign, urging supporters to “keep theJap rats out of your hair.” The California CountySupervisors Association unanimously passed aresolution opposing the voluntary resettlementpolicy, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisorsexpressed its collective belief that 80 percentof the internees would fight for Japan if given thechance. The California congressional delegationvoted unanimously to oppose any return of Nikkeito the West Coast. 33Various federal and state legislative committeesheld hearings that gave the opponents ofWRA policies well-publicized forums. A StateAssembly committee chaired by Lester Gannonof Sacramento made the Fair Play Committee’sPasadena chapter a particular target. The Pasadenagroup was the Fair Play Committee’s most40California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

active and unruly local chapter. Some of its membersobjected to the committee strategy of closecooperation with government agencies and itsrefusal to call for an immediate return of interneesto the West Coast. Testifying before the legislativecommittee in December 1943, however,chapter leader Mrs. Maynard Thayer adheredto the Fair Play Committee’s moderate stance.Gannon thought her defense of the Bill of Rightssounded like “Communist doctrine” and asked,“Are you a Communist?” Thayer answered thatshe was a Republican and member of the Daughtersof the American Revolution. Gannon thenasked whether “you want to champion the rightsof people where different sexes do nude bathingtogether?” He argued, “You don’t know anythingabout the habits and morals of Japs in California.Mrs. Thayer, have you ever smelled the odorof a Jap home?” Gannon may have overplayedhis hand; even the pro-internment Los AngelesTimes criticized his performance. 34Earl Warren remained the most credible spokesmanfor the anti-Japanese American cause. Asgovernor, his views now attracted national attention.His defeat of incumbent governor CulbertOlson was due, in part, to his calm, decisivedemeanor and moderate reputation. Warrencriticized what he called “social experimenters”within the WRA leadership. He specificallyopposed allowing internees to leave the campsand settle in the Midwest and East Coast, a policyhe called “dumping the Japs on other states.” Inan address at a national governors’ conference inColumbus, Ohio, he claimed that his views werenot “an appeal to race hatred” but were based onrational security concerns. If the Japanese leftthe camps, he said, “No one will be able to tella saboteur from any other Jap. We don’t wantto have another Pearl Harbor in California.” Ata later press conference, he reiterated his beliefthat the internment “saved our state from terribledisorders and sabotage.” 35A “Slap the Jap” pamphlet produced by Sacramento’s HomeFront Commandos—“organized for the express purposeof Deporting and Excluding the Japs”—helped to fomenthostile feelings in the state’s major farming areas. “Do youwant them back in your back yard . . . to poison your water,kill your cattle, destroy your orchards?” the brochure asked.“Slap the Jap” and other anti-Japanese slogans were used tosell war bonds and stamps and were featured on highwaysigns, posters, greeting cards, buttons, and ashtrays, and inmagazines, leaflets, punchboards, and marble games.California Historical Society, American Civil Liberties Unionof Northern California records, 1900–2000, MS 3580.001.tif41

It was statements such as these that led to AlfredLundberg’s “Dear Earl” letter of July 13, 1943.Although it was phrased as a personal letter, thecorrespondence appeared on Fair Play Committeestationery and was, in fact, the committee’sresponse to Warren’s position. The committeewas particularly concerned that the governor’spronouncements, covered by Life magazine,had extensive national distribution and publicity.Lundberg wrote that despite Warren’s claimthat he was not appealing to race hatred, “yourwords are being exploited by vigilante-mindedindividuals.” Lundberg argued that althoughthe great majority of people of Japanese descentwere loyal, the Fair Play Committee did not favortheir return to the West Coast “at the presenttime.” The committee did support the voluntaryresettlement of loyal people out of the camps sothat they could find jobs “in industry and agricultureoutside the military areas.” Finally, givingthe governor an opportunity for graceful retreat,Lundberg said that if Warren was misquoted, heshould “take steps to set the matter right.” 36Warren had no intention of accepting Lundberg’solive branch. But he did take the letter seriouslyand replied just three days later. His “Dear Al”letter of July 16, 1943—nearly four single-spacedtyped pages—was probably his most expansivestatement on the internment policy, essentiallyan extended summary of his former positions.(A quarter-century later, Warren regretted havingwritten the document and persuaded hisbiographer John Weaver not to publish it.) In1943, Warren attributed Lundberg’s opinions tohis laudable “humanitarian instincts.” But thegovernor refused to apologize for his own viewsbecause “I believe them to be true and in theinterest of the safety of our State and Nation.”He defended the original relocation and arguedthat nothing had occurred to justify an end tointernment. Indeed, he warned that “the samesmugness that brought about . . . the disaster atPearl Harbor is beginning to permeate our countryagain.” Warren denied that his views wereaffected by “race hatred” or “wartime emotions,”but he argued, “We know how Japanese, whereverborn, are indoctrinated with the ambitionsof the Japanese Empire and of their efforts toachieve them.” Ultimately, Warren relied on themilitary judgment of General DeWitt, who continuedto back the internment. If the Japanesewere released from the camps, he asked, “who, Iask you, could tell the difference between a loyalJapanese . . . and a saboteur?” 37Lundberg did not reply until September, apologizingfor the “multiplicity of demands upon mytime” responsible for the delay. But the delay wasalso caused by the substantial participation ofFair Play Committee members and staff in draftingthe response. Even Dillon Myer weighed in.The letter was designed to be a point-by-pointrefutation of each of the governor’s arguments.For example, Lundberg denied that his and thecommittee’s concerns were “primarily humanitarian.”Instead, he said, they were based on “themost important of all American principles, theprotection of minority rights.” The son of Danishimmigrants, Lundberg pointed out that hewas in the minority in a number of ways, including,“for the present only, I hope,” as a memberof the Republican Party (along with Warren).“Attacks upon the rights of any minority tend toundermine the rights of the majority.” Althoughthe letter didn’t explicitly accuse Warren of racism,Lundberg pointed out that discriminationagainst minorities based on their ancestry “wasthe basis of Hitler’s rise to power.” While Warrenhad relied on General DeWitt for support, Lundbergcited a number of distinguished Americans,including General Emmons, FBI director Hoover,and even Secretary of War Stimson, who haddefended the loyalty of the great majority of Nikkei.In contrast to DeWitt, who believed “a Japis a Jap,” Lundberg proclaimed that a person is“either loyal to our country or not, as the casemay be, entirely regardless of the blood or themixture of bloods that flow in his veins.” 3842California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

By May 1943, the WRA encouraged increasing numbers ofinternees—“the great majority of them . . . completely loyal to theUnited States”—to leave the camps and settle outside the WestCoast restricted zone. The WRA urged “all able-bodied residentswith good records of behavior to reenter private employment.”Internees were encouraged to apply for positions throughout theEast and Midwest in a variety of fields—including, ironically, thevital arms-producing industry. The Fair Play Committee was particularlyvociferous in its support of voluntary resettlement.(Left) In its 1943 brochure, Relocating a People, the WRAdescribed its resettlement policy and outlined “How to EmployEvacuees.”Joseph R. Goodman papers on Japanese American internment,MS 840.002.tif, California Historical Society(Above) Young internees inspect job notices on a work-offer boardat the Manzanar Relocation Center in Owens Valley, California.Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection43

“troubleMaKerS”By 1943, the committee’s case for voluntaryresettlement was weakened by significant disorderin the camps. Dillon Myer had continuedMilton Eisenhower’s policy of working closelywith the JACL, which cooperated with the WRAin the administration of the camps. The JACLsupported Myer’s assimilationist beliefs and policies,but its prominence often was resented bytraditional Issei community leaders and by Kibei,American-born Nisei raised and educated inJapan. Some American-educated Nisei also tookexception to the JACL’s cooperation with a governmentthat had deprived Japanese Americansof their basic rights as U.S. citizens. When, inDecember 1942, a dispute over wages and workingconditions for internee kitchen workers atthe Manzanar camp in California’s Owens Valleyturned violent, demonstrators physically attackedJACL members and clashed with army guards.Troops killed two internees before order wasrestored. 39 Demonstrations and protests brokeout at other camps, including antidraft activitiesat Heart Mountain, Wyoming, where the rebelsformed their own Fair Play Committee, perhapsin an effort to identify with the Bay Area group.Although a WRA investigation blamed muchof the disorder on poor administration, Myercracked down on the “troublemakers,” adoptinga policy of separating them from the rest of theinternee population. 40Kingman and her Fair Play Committee supportedMyer’s actions. The committee believed thatthe WRA needed to assure the public that only“loyal” Japanese Americans would be released inthe voluntary resettlement program. The committeealso supported a loyalty questionnairedistributed by the WRA to internees in early1943. But the questionnaire provoked even moreprotest and unrest in the camps. The WRA sentmany of the alleged troublemakers to Tule Lakein northeastern California. For several monthsin late 1943 and early 1944, the Tule Lake campitself was rocked by protests. At one point, themilitary took temporary control of the facility.Camp authorities put several protest leaders ina stockade, where they engaged in an extendedhunger strike.Ernest Besig, executive secretary of the NorthernCalifornia Branch of the American Civil LibertiesUnion, traveled to Tule Lake and publicly criticizedthe WRA for serious violations of the prisoners’legal rights. He recruited San Franciscolawyer Wayne Collins to represent the men, whoeventually were released. 41 The ACLU’s nationaloffice in New York had supported the internmentpolicy as a necessary evil. But in 1942, in directdefiance of national policy, Besig and his northernCalifornia branch backed the legal challengeto internment brought by Fred Korematsu, a JapaneseAmerican citizen arrested for disobeyingthe expulsion order. By 1944, so little love waslost between Besig and national ACLU directorRoger Baldwin that Baldwin approved the WRA’sdecision to forcibly eject Besig from the TuleLake camp. 42Although Kingman, like many other committeeleaders, belonged to the ACLU’s northern Californiabranch, she feared that the Fair Play Committee’smoderate image would be compromisedif she became identified with the hunger strikersand Besig’s militant defense of civil liberties.She even turned down an offer to serve on thebranch’s executive committee. Instead, she andthe Fair Play Committee rallied to support DillonMyer and the WRA, whose position on the TuleLake upheavals had induced an avalanche of criticism.In November 1943, the Hearst newspapersblamed the disorders on Myer’s “coddling” ofcamp residents and disclosed that conscientiousobjectors were working as teachers at Tule Lake.Many western members of Congress called forMyer’s immediate dismissal, and Governor Warrendemanded the reestablishment of direct militarycontrol over the entire internment program. 4344 California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

Under attack from both civil libertarians andYellow Peril activists, Myer looked to the FairPlay Committee for support. The committeeexpressed its confidence in the WRA leadershipbut asked the agency to clearly answer the publiccriticisms, urging Myer to inform the public ofthe difference between the residents of Tule Lakeand the “loyal populations” of the other camps.Kingman made the same point in telegramsto Attorney General Biddle, Assistant SecretaryMcCloy, and General Emmons. On November26, she publicly released the text of a telegramto President Roosevelt, again distinguishingbetween the “troublemakers” at Tule Lake andthe “law abiding residents” of other camps. Inthe end, Myer informed Kingman that he and theWRA still had the president’s support. The War,Justice, and State Departments all favored maintainingcivilian administration of the camps. 44Myer admitted “that our public relations reacheda new low following the Tule Lake incident.”Kingman agreed, complaining about Myer’s poorcommunication skills in letters to CongressmanGeorge Outland of Santa Barbara and Anna RooseveltBoettiger. She encouraged Myer to speakbefore influential audiences in California, butthe results were not always positive. Even Myerconceded that he “flubbed’” a speech in Berkeley.Sproul, who introduced him at the event, complainedthat Myer’s “greatest weakness seems tobe an utter lack of any dramatic sense.” 45 Myer’spublic speaking abilities apparently improved,and with committee support he continued tomake appearances in West Coast communities.“beginning oF the change oF theWhole public attitude”Kingman believed that presentations by Niseisoldiers were the most effective means of changingpublic opinion. Eventually, the committeeused the 442nd’s successful record to win converts,but even before that unit was trained anddeployed, the testimony of Japanese Americansoldiers had a major impact. While the greatmajority of Nisei servicemen were in segregatedunits, a few who had volunteered before PearlHarbor served in regular forces, including YoriWada, a Berkeley graduate and former editor ofthe student newspaper, The Daily Californian.Wada had been active at Stiles Hall where hebecame friendly with the Kingmans. Unable toget a job because of his ethnicity, he joined thearmy and was on active duty at the time of PearlHarbor. The committee arranged for Wada towrite an article on his military service for theuniversity’s alumni magazine, The CaliforniaMonthly. The piece was published in December1943 and was well received. Mary Jeffards, thecommittee’s office secretary, informed Wada that“everyone thinks the article superior.” The committeedistributed copies to key constituencies. 46Even more effective were appearances by SergeantBen Kuroki, a decorated turret gunner forthe U.S. Army Eighth Air Force who had servedin the skies over Europe. Kingman persuadedMcCloy to allow Kuroki to speak to the prestigiousCommonwealth Club at San Francisco’sPalace Hotel. Kuroki talked about his combatexperience and about the prejudice he had facedin the military. He said he was fighting “two battlesinstead of one—against the Axis and againstintolerance among my fellow Americans.” Duringbasic training, Kuroki explained, he and hisbrother faced so much hostility that they were“the loneliest two soldiers in the army.” Thespeech received a five-minute ovation. IndustrialistHenry J. Kaiser was in tears after the event.Kingman arranged for Kuroki to follow up hisspeech with joint appearances on local radio stationswith a white marine who had served onGuadalcanal. She also hoped Kuroki would getnational exposure on the NBC network. Whenthe network canceled the broadcast, she firedoff an angry telegram to NBC executives. But itturned out that the program had been banned bythe War Department. Although McCloy claimed45

he had acted to protect Kuroki, it’s likely thatthe department’s primary motive was to avoid anational airing of army racism. 47Kingman was convinced that Kuroki’s appearanceshad a major impact. They received substantialmedia coverage, and even the Hearst andMcClatchy newspapers ran sympathetic stories.According to Kingman, Kuroki’s presentationswere “the beginning of the change of the wholepublic attitude in California.” 48 American militarysuccesses in the Pacific also contributed, greatlyreducing the levels of fear and hysteria that hadbeen prevalent in the months immediately afterPearl Harbor. Galen Fisher wrote four articles inChristian Century magazine, attacking the internmentand defending the loyalty of the Nikkeipopulation. The articles were highly effective andin reprinted form became the committee’s mostimportant public handout. Eventually more thantwenty thousand copies were distributed. 49In spite of numerous attempts to develop a presencein California communities, at least until1944 the Fair Play Committee was primarily aBay Area institution. The only successful localbranch in southern California was the sometimesrebellious Pasadena chapter. In the spring of1944, the executive committee decided to hire astaff member based in Los Angeles to promotean active chapter in that city. One of the southernCalifornians Kingman contacted was CareyMcWilliams, a Los Angeles lawyer, writer, andactivist who had served as a controversial stateCommissioner of Housing and Immigrationunder Governor Olson. In 1944, he wrote a bookstrongly condemning the internment. AlthoughMcWilliams sometimes criticized the Fair PlayCommittee’s moderate tactics, he supported theorganization’s goals and maintained generallygood relations with Kingman. McWilliams recommendedKatherine Kaplan for the new staffposition, and it proved to be an inspired choice. 50Her husband was a UCLA physics professor,and the couple had important connections inacademic and political circles. She also developedgood working relationships with prominentsouthern California community and businessleaders.Kaplan pushed for a Los Angeles appearance bySproul to promote the new Los Angeles chapter.In early 1943, Sproul had agreed to serve as honorarychairman of the Fair Play Committee, butas UC president he seldom had time to attendcommittee meetings and was less than fullyengaged in the organization’s activities. He had,however, allowed the committee to make gooduse of his name and prestige, which sometimesgot him into political trouble. 51 Due to eithertime constraints or political caution, Sprouldelayed committing to a specific date for the LosAngeles appearance. But he finally agreed toaddress a selected audience at the city’s exclusiveCalifornia Club on June 29, 1944. In his speech,Sproul strongly defended the committee, sayingit was not “pro-Japanese” but “pro-Americandemocracy.” He criticized Los Angeles as a centerof “race-baiting opposition” to the committee’sefforts. “The opposition,” Sproul argued, “is stillvehement and unscrupulous,” and the committeeneeded the active support of influential people ofgood will. 52The speech was a rousing success. It receivedfavorable press coverage, and forty of the sixtyVIPs in attendance agreed to participate in thenew Los Angeles branch, including two bankpresidents, the Catholic archbishop of LosAngeles, and the presidents of the Universityof Southern California and California Instituteof Technology. Businessman Homer D. Crottychaired the new Los Angeles executive committee,which also included Nobel Prize physicistRobert Millikan. Kingman expressed theorganization’s “deep appreciation” for Sproul’s“magnificent statement” and complimented himfor his “courage in attacking that highly controversialsubject.” Sproul replied, “I liked the sayingof it. . . . I was getting tired of being quiet in46California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

that difficult area.” 53 The committee reprintedand widely distributed the speech, accompaniedby a cover letter signed by President Ray LymanWilbur of Stanford and UC Provost MonroeDeutsch and Professor David Prescott Barrows.More than 2,300 copies were sent to publicschool principals and teachers throughout thestate. 54Sproul told his Los Angeles audience that theFair Play Committee favored return of the interneesto the West Coast after the army lifted thesecurity ban. But this point of view was hardlyuniversal. A 1944 flyer published by the SouthernCalifornia Produce Association called onfarmers to mobilize to prevent any return ofJapanese residents, otherwise “the Japanese willcome back after the war and monopolize theproduce business just as they were doing beforePearl Harbor.” The flyer was cosponsored by theLos Angeles County Chamber of Commerce,both the Los Angeles County and California StateFarm Bureaus, and the University of CaliforniaAgricultural Extension Service. The AmericanEducational League of Los Angeles, whose boardincluded state Senator Jack Tenny and the presidentsof the California Federation of Labor andPepperdine University, also opposed the returnof the Japanese. 55 The Los Angeles Times reportedthat a poll of Los Angeles County residents found74 percent supported deporting all Japanese citizensin the United States after the war. Forty percentwere in favor of including American-bornNisei in the deportation order. An editorial in theLos Angeles Herald argued, “California does notwant any Japs ever returned. . . . Let us keep theJaps out forever.” 56“no longer a Matter oF MilitaryneceSSity”In his widely disseminated A Balance Sheet on JapaneseEvacuation, Galen Merriam Fisher (1873–1955) termedthe forced evacuations a “military success” but “a socialfailure.” Originally published in the Christian Centuryin August and September 1943, the articles were amongmany publications authored by Fisher and produced by theFair Play Committee. Cofounder of the committee, Fisherserved actively, initially as executive secretary and, later, asvice treasurer, a title that does not fully reflect his ongoinginterest and activity in the organization.Joseph R. Goodman papers on Japanese American internment,MS 840.001.tif, California Historical SocietyNevertheless, federal officials assured Fair PlayCommittee representatives that the interneeseventually would return to the West Coast. In47

1943, the War Department quietly began permittingNisei service members to take military leavesin California. The Kingmans invited Yori Wada todinner at their Berkeley home, but snuck him inafter dark so he could come and go without beingseen. 57 The possibility of a wholesale return ofinternees increased in February 1944, whenPresident Roosevelt transferred control of theWRA from the War Department to the Departmentof the Interior. Secretary of the InteriorHarold Ickes, who had opposed internment fromthe very beginning, called the policy “stupid andcruel,” referring to relocation centers as “fancynamedconcentration camps.” Blunt and uncompromising,Ickes had made his opinions clear tothe president. When Roosevelt transferred controlof the camps into Ickes’s hands, the Fair PlayCommittee leadership took it as a sign that WhiteHouse policy was changing for the better. 58In April 1944, Ickes met with Kingman andother committee leaders in San Francisco. Themeeting was cordial and encouraging. Kingmanestablished good working relations with AssistantSecretary of the Interior Abe Fortas. 59 In June,Ickes wrote to Roosevelt, arguing that since theWar Department no longer believed the exclusionzone was militarily justified, the time hadcome for the president to lift the executive orderand allow Nikkei residents to return to the WestCoast. Secretary of War Stimson agreed, but tothe dismay of Fair Play Committee leaders whowere kept abreast of events, the president didnot. Roosevelt was preparing to run for reelectionin November 1944 and did not want to face anypolitical flack generated by ending the exclusionpolicy. The internees were going to have to waituntil after the November election for full restorationof their rights and liberties. 60The WRA, however, did allow a few people “ofspecial merit” to return on an individual basis.One such person was Ester Takei, who in Septemberwas allowed to enroll in Pasadena JuniorCollege. Her return was sponsored by the Friendsof the American Way, a group of present andformer Fair Play Committee members who haddisagreed with the committee’s policy of not providingdirect assistance to individual internees.Takei’s presence was opposed by the Ban the JapsCommittee, which demanded that the schoolboard expel her. The group held a mass meetingprotesting Takei’s presence in Pasadena, buther supporters responded with an even largerdemonstration of their own. The school boardheld firm, and Takei attended classes withoutincident. 61By the fall of 1944, Dillon Myer feared that theinternment would be overturned by the SupremeCourt before the president acted. The 1942California case of Fred Korematsu challengingthe constitutionality of internment and similarchallenges from Oregon and Washington ledknowledgeable observers to expect a final courtruling before the end of the year. On December17, 1944, apparently tipped off to the fact thatthe decision was imminent, the War Departmentfinally revoked the exclusion order, explainingthat “it was no longer a matter of military necessity.”Internees now were free to leave the campsand live anywhere in the United States, includingthe West Coast. 62The following day, the Supreme Court ruledagainst Korematsu and his co-plaintiffs, affirmingthe legality of the exclusion order and theinitial roundup and evacuation of people ofJapanese descent, including American citizens.But in a companion decision in the case of exparte Endo, the court ruled the enforced internmentunconstitutional—the evacuees could notbe held against their will outside of the exclusionzone. Although the War Department’s action ofthe previous day technically rendered the court’sactions moot, the Korematsu and Endo decisionsnever have been specifically overturned and thusremain legal precedent. 6348California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

After the U.S. Army lifted its security ban in December 1944, Japanese American internees began returning to theirhome towns and cities on the West Coast. Despite efforts by the Fair Play Committee and other organizations, anti-Japanese sentiment prevailed. Many southern California returnees—forced to leave the camps before securing housingon the Pacific Coast—were housed in barracks and trailers at former army camps in Burbank. As late as May1946, some still lived in the trailer camps of Burbank’s Winona Housing Project and ate at outdoor kitchens.Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection; photograph by Howard BallewWashington informed Governor Earl Warren ofthe revocation order the day before the officialannouncement. Warren remembered that he wason the phone “nine-tenths” of the time that day,calling public officials, telling them “the worstthing that could happen . . . would be for us tomaintain a feeling of antagonism toward the Japanesewho had lived in our state and hadn’t doneanything wrong”—a statement consistent withthe Fair Play Committee’s position since 1941.Warren said that of those he called, only LosAngeles mayor Fletcher Bowron disagreed. Publicly,Warren asked Californians to “comply withthe decision” and “join in protecting the constitutionalrights of the individuals involved.” 64At the end of December, Warren convened astatewide conference of law enforcement officialsto discuss ways to assure an orderly return of theinternees. The gathering was similar to the onehe had organized in 1942 as attorney general,only the 1942 meeting promoted the expulsion ofJapanese from the state, while the 1944 sessionadvocated their return. State Coordinator of LawEnforcement Robert Piver proposed a resolutioncondemning the original exclusion, but Warrensuccessfully argued against it, pointing out that“we agree on that now, but none of us raised avoice against it when it happened.” In fact, manyof those in attendance, including Warren, had“raised a voice” in favor of exclusion back in1942. 65 Still, the Fair Play Committee publiclycongratulated the governor for his 1944 statements,though some committee leaders privatelyquestioned his sincerity. In June 1945, Warrenassured the committee that he had worked withthe army and the WRA to “create a tolerant publicopinion. . . . I will continue to do everythingI can to see that Japanese Americans have theirconstitutional rights protected.” 6649

Paul S. Taylor (1895–1984), UC professor and vice chairman of the Fair Play Committee, opened the seconddaysession of the committee’s Conference on Interracial Coordination on January 11, 1945. Attended by representativesof many government agencies and nonprofit organizations, the conference focused on the grave problemsencountered by returning internees, including racism and the lack of jobs and housing.The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; photograph by Charles E. MaceOn January 10 and 11, 1945, the Fair Play Committeesponsored its own conference in SanFrancisco, attended by more than two hundredrepresentatives of various public and privateagencies, to promote a positive and coordinatedresponse to the problems created by the returnprocess. The conference addressed not onlypublic opposition and racism, but also practicalissues like housing and employment. 67 Theseconcerns led to the only serious conflict betweenthe Fair Play Committee and Dillon Myer. Consistentwith his assimilationist views, Myerfavored closing the camps and integrating theNikkei into larger society as quickly as possible,even if it meant forcibly evicting them from thecamps. The committee proposed keeping at leastsome of the camps open as interim settlementsuntil the internees could be guaranteed housing,jobs, and personal security. Kingman went overMyer’s head, asking Secretary Ickes to overrulehis WRA director. It was a tough decision forIckes, who described the choice as either “pushingmany of the Japanese out or maintainingthem in what were really concentration campsfor months or years to come.” 68 In the end, Ickesbacked Myer, and all the camps but Tule Lakeclosed before the end of 1945. The last residentleft Tule Lake in March 1946, effectively endingfour years of internment.The practical problems faced by the returningevacuees persuaded some committee members topropose that the organization begin helping individualscope with the return process. But Kingmanadhered to the committee’s original vision,explaining, “We are not working for the evacueesas they come back, but rather to establish publicacceptance of their right to come back.” 69 Nevertheless,Kingman provided personal assistanceto several individuals. Throughout the war, shecorresponded with victims of the exclusion and50California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

often used her influence on their behalf. Thatincluded Chiura Obata, a distinguished artistand Berkeley art professor. He and his familywere interned first at Tanforan and then atTopaz. Obata taught art classes at the camps, andKingman brought supplies for his students. Shealso arranged for some of Obata’s pictures ofthe camp experience to be presented as gifts toEleanor Roosevelt. Kingman urged Myer to allowthe family to leave Topaz, and after Obata wasattacked by other internees, apparently for cooperatingwith camp authorities, the family was furloughed.They settled in the St. Louis area, wherean Obata son was attending college. In the summerof 1945, UC President Sproul invited theprofessor to return to the university. Obata soonreturned and took up his old faculty post. 70Earl Warren recalled that during the returnperiod, there were “maybe a half dozen or soinstances of hoodlums going by and throwingrocks into windows and so forth.” 71 In fact, therewere many more “instances,” some more seriousthan “throwing rocks into windows.” The AmericanCouncil on Race Relations reported 124 casesof harassment and violence involving “personsof Japanese ancestry” on the West Coast betweenDecember 1944 and October 1945. 72 Oppositionto the return was particularly intense in someCalifornia rural areas. In Auburn and surroundingPlacer County, for example, it included theestablishment of a Placer County Citizens Anti-Japanese League. The leader of the county’s Fruitand Vegetable Growers Association said, “If wemust do something for (the Japanese), let ussterilize them.” In mid-January 1945, a group ofyoung people tried to dynamite and burn buildingson a Japanese-owned ranch near Auburn.The owner’s Nisei sons were on active militaryduty, while two of the white youths arrested forthe incident were AWOL from their army units.In the subsequent trial, the jury acquitted thedefendants, apparently swayed by the defenseattorney’s argument that “this is white man’scountry.” 73Kingman adhered tothe committee’s originalvision, explaining, “Weare not working forthe evacuees as theycome back, but ratherto establish publicacceptance of theirright to come back.”The Fair Play Committee furiously condemnedsuch verdicts and continued to call on GovernorWarren and local law enforcement authorities toprotect the returnees’ lives and property. Kingmandidn’t let the federal government off thehook, communicating the committee’s concernsto President Harry Truman and strongly criticizingthe War Department. In a letter to AssistantSecretary McCloy, Kingman argued that in institutingthe internment, the department had beenresponsible for “crystalizing civilian attitudeswhich now present a potentially explosive situationon the West Coast.” She called on the governmentto wage a public relations campaign tochallenge and change those attitudes. 74The army did, in fact, publicize the record ofthe 442nd and sent uniformed white officers tolocal communities to argue on behalf of returningNisei soldiers. Even the American Legionmodified its traditional anti-Asian policies to51

In 1944, authorities at the camp at Topaz,Utah, permitted artist Chiura Obata (1885–1975) to relocate to St. Louis, Missouri,where his son was studying architecture andwhere, in September of that year, Obataworked with Harry Taylor, art director atthe Grimm Lamback Artificial Flower Company.Upon hearing that committee memberPresident Robert Gordon Sproul askedObata to resume his teaching position at UCBerkeley’s art department, Ruth Kingmanwrote the professor, “This is the best thingI’ve heard in a long time. . . . We must haveyou here.”The Bancroft Library, University of California,Berkeley; photograph by Hikaru Iwasakidefend the rights of Japanese American veterans.Much of the press, including the McClatchynewspapers, condemned the anti-Japaneseagitation. Kingman was particularly gratefulfor the support of CIO unions, including theInternational Longshoremen and Warehousemen’sUnion. The ILWU prevented membersof a Stockton local from discriminating againstJapanese American workers, and San FranciscoCIO Council President George Wilson, a Fair PlayCommittee member, issued a strong statementcondemning organizations that “use war-causedprejudices to discriminate against all Japanese.” 75During the last half of 1945, the number ofanti-Japanese incidents declined, and Kingmanreported that the return to the West Coast wentmore smoothly than she and other committeeleaders had anticipated. 76Dillon Myer said that one of his primary objectiveswas “to secure a rapid and widespread dispersalof the evacuees.” 77 He hoped that most ofthe former camp residents remained “east of theSierras,” allowing them to integrate more fullyinto the American mainstream. And some of theNikkei did, indeed, stay in the Midwest and onthe East Coast. Gyo Obata, Professor Chiura Obata’sson, settled in St. Louis, where he becamea distinguished architect. Former sergeant BenKuroki became a newspaper editor in Nebraskaand, much to Kingman’s dismay, a conservativeRepublican. 78 But the great majority of evacueeseventually returned to the West Coast.Kingman worked on the returnees’ behalf. Shewelcomed home Nori Ikeda, a former Stiles Hallmember and office manager of the CommunistParty’s San Francisco newspaper, The People’sWorld. Consistent with their wartime “popularfront” strategy, the Communists had not objectedto the internment and had suspended people ofJapanese descent from party membership. Theparty also supported the JACL’s policy of cooperationwith the WRA. Nevertheless, in 1945 theparty newspaper sponsored a public celebrationof the Nikkei’s return, including the paper’s ownoffice manager. 7952California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

“not in Keeping With our aMericanconcept”By the summer of 1945, the Fair Play Committeewas involved in an internal discussion about itsfuture. In July, Ruth Kingman and Galen Fisherrepresented the committee at a Sacramento conferenceof various civil rights organizations, planningfor the postwar era. Kingman was namedchair of a Temporary Organizing Committee thatdrafted proposed bylaws for a statewide federation.In November, the member organizationsapproved the establishment of what becamethe California Federation of Civic Unity. Unlikethe Fair Play Committee, the new group wasconcerned with the civil rights of many ethnic,national, and immigrant minorities. Severalactive Fair Play Committee members nowdevoted their efforts to the new organization.With the war over, the internment ended, andthe return to the West Coast proceeding fairlysmoothly, they saw no need to continue operations.On December 12, 1945, the Pacific CoastCommittee on American Principles and Fair Playformally dissolved. 80When Congress shut down the Federal FairEmployment Practices Commission at aboutthe same time, Harry Kingman returned to hisjob as director of Stiles Hall. He and Ruth againbecame deeply involved in YMCA matters andcommunity affairs. In 1957, Harry retired andthe couple moved to Washington, D.C., to establishthe Citizens’ Lobby, using their considerablepolitical connections and experience to advocatefor civil rights and other liberal causes, includingopposition to the Vietnam War in the late sixties.In the seventies, the Kingmans returned toBerkeley, where they lived out their final years.Ruth received an award from the JACL for herservice during the internment era. She gave fullcredit to actions of the JACL and like-mindedJapanese Americans for what she saw as a gradualchange in public opinion during the war. Thepublic finally “got it,” she said, but “without theNisei we could have never done it.” 81Dillon Myer was proud of his accomplishmentsas director of the WRA. Though he argued thatthe relocation centers were not concentrationcamps but ”way stations,” and claimed that someOn June 15, 1945, former evacuee Alice Takeuchiwas settled in her new secretarial positionat the Congress of Industrial Organizations(CIO) Council in Oakland. Takeuchi hadintended to stay in Columbus, Ohio, whereshe had relocated from the camp in Jerome,Arkansas, but the CIO job offer changed hermind. “Now I want to go home—home toCalifornia,” she wrote Ruth Kingman, whoreserved a room for Takeuchi at the San FranciscoYWCA and met her at the train stationin early 1945.The Bancroft Library, University of California,Berkeley; photograph by Charles E. Mace53

The Fair Play Committee cosponsored an Americans Allbooth at the Pan-Pacific Industrial Exposition on September6, 1945, in Los Angeles. The exhibit expressed thedemocratic themes espoused by the committee since its 1941founding. Among the events was the continuous showing offilms such as The World We Want to Live In, sponsoredby the National Conference of Christians and Jews, whichpreached tolerance through national unity and defense andwas shown to schools and civic groups across the country.The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley;photograph by Hikaru Iwasakition code. He proposed the establishment of astate Fair Employment Practices Commission,but neither his proposal nor an initiative measurecontaining a more comprehensive version waspassed into law. 83 Warren also eventually supportedpostwar court decisions that overturnedCalifornia’s Alien Land Law.of the residents “had never had it so good,” hecontinued to believe that the camps had bred anunhealthy atmosphere of dependence. This convictioninfluenced his subsequent career as directorof the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Just as he hadtried to promote the assimilation of the Nikkeiinto the American mainstream through resettlement,as BIA director he encouraged Indians toterminate their tribal status and move from reservationsto urban centers. The results were oftendisastrous. In 1987, historian Richard Drinnonpublished a highly critical biography of Myer, callinghim Keeper of the Concentration Camps. 82Earl Warren was reelected governor in 1946. TheRepublican candidate was so popular that heeven defeated Attorney General Robert Kenny,the regular Democratic Party candidate, in theDemocratic primary. During his second term,Warren became something of a champion of civilrights. After the federal courts held segregationof Mexican children in California schools unconstitutionalin the case of Mendez v. Westminster,he worked with legislative leaders to remove thelast segregation statutes from the state’s educa-President Dwight Eisenhower appointed WarrenChief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953.In 1954, Warren wrote the opinion in Brown v.Board of Education, which struck down the doctrineof “separate but equal” and knocked theconstitutional props out of the Jim Crow system.That began a fifteen-year period during whichthe Warren Court dramatically strengthenedconstitutional protections of civil rights and civilliberties. Yet Warren continued to defend hiswartime advocacy of evacuation and internment.At an informal dinner with his law clerks, hejoked about a clerk’s Southern background. Theyoung man replied, “Wait a minute. What wasthe name of that guy in California who put all theJapanese in concentration camps?” There werea few seconds of uncomfortable silence—theclerk, after all, was addressing the chief justice ofthe United States. But Warren laughed and said,“I get your point. But that was a clear and presentdanger. We really thought their fleets weregoing to land in California.” As late as 1972, threeyears after his retirement from the Court, Warrenwas still publicly defending the internment’sconstitutionality. 8454California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

“birthplace oF the aMerican Fair playMoveMent”But privately, Warren was having doubts. JusticeArthur Goldberg said the chief justice toldhim, “You know in retrospect, that is one of theworst things I ever did.” During a 1971 oral historyinterview, Warren talked about the effect ofinternment on Japanese American children soemotionally that he had to stop the interview fora few minutes. 85 In the last years of his life, somefamily members and friends urged him to makea public apology. In memoirs published after hisdeath, Warren came as close as he ever did tosuch an apology: “I have since deeply regrettedthat removal order and my own testimony advocatingit, because it was not in keeping with ourAmerican concept of freedom and the rights ofcitizens.” He said he was “conscience stricken”when he thought of “the innocent little childrenwho were torn from home, school friends, andcongenial surroundings. It was wrong to react soimpulsively without positive evidence of disloyalty,even though we felt we had a good motive inthe security of our state.” 86Warren again denied that racial prejudice playedany part in his position. But even his mostsympathetic biographers believed that race wasa major factor for Warren, as it was for mostCalifornians. Leo Katcher concluded that Warrenwas “motivated by personal beliefs and fears,”while Edward G. White said the governor “wasa prisoner of racial stereotypes.” 87 Warren’scontemporaries recognized the important rolehe played in the internment decision. Personalfriend and sometime political rival Robert Kennyjoined Carey McWilliams and Mike Masaokain condemning Warren’s conduct, but Kennywasn’t willing to excuse his own shortcomings.A liberal Democratic state senator at the time ofthe internment decision, Kenny admitted he hadremained silent: “Some of us, like me, big braveme, I just wasn’t found. I should have spoken upfor the Nisei.” 88The Fair Play Committee did speak up. It didso even though as prominent members of economic,academic, and religious establishments,committee leaders had much to lose in terms ofinfluence and reputation. In the name of politicalexpediency, committee members sometimescompromised their principles, cooperated withtheir antagonists, and distanced themselvesfrom militant Nikkei protesters and determineddefenders of civil liberties. Many committeeleaders agreed with Dillon Myer’s simplisticassimilationist ideology. Rather than running thecommittee as a broad membership group, theyestablished a relatively small, top-down organizationthat emphasized public relations and insiderlobbying rather than grassroots organizing. Butthe committee consistently argued on behalf ofthe Nikkei’s basic civil rights and, in the end,helped bring decision makers, including EarlWarren, around to that point of view.And the committee let people in the camps knowthat they had supporters among their fellowcitizens. Minejiro Hayashida, chairman of thecommunity council at Heart Mountain, was oneof many internees who wrote letters of appreciationto the committee in the days following the1944 decision to end the internment. He thankedcommittee members “for your untiring effortsin establishing the real principles of democracy.”In September 1945, Professor Chiura Obatawrote Ruth Kingman that he was glad to returnto Berkeley, not only because “it has such anatmosphere of universal goodwill” but because “itis also the birthplace of the American Fair PlayMovement.” 89Charles Wollenberg teaches history at Berkeley CityCollege and is the convener of the California Studies DinnerSeminar at UC Berkeley.55

notesCollections sources: Joseph R. Goodmanpapers on Japanese American internment,1941–1945 (MS 840), California HistoricalSociety; Laura Card, “TREK Magazine 1942–1943: A Critical Rhetorical Analysis” (Ph.D.dissertation, University of Utah, 2005)Far From Zion: The Frayed TiesbeTween CaliFornia’s Gold rushsainTs and lds PresidenT briGhamyounG, by KenneTh owens, PP 5–23Caption sources: William F. Swasey, TheEarly Days and Men of California (SanFrancisco/Oakland: Pacific Press PublishingCompany, 1891), 202, frontispiece;H. R. Roberts, The Mormon Battalion: ItsHistory and Achievements (Salt Lake City,UT: Deseret News, 1919), 65–67; Erwin G.Gudde, Sutter’s Own Story: The Life of GeneralJohn Augustus Sutter and the History ofNew Helvetia in the Sacramento Valley (NewYork: G. P. Putnam Sons, 1936), 199–200;Bradley Hill, “The San Diego Coal Company:An Early Mormon Enterprise on PointLoma,” Journal of San Diego History, https://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/v56-1/v56-1hill.pdf, 70; “Mormons, a Law-abiding Element,”http://www.californiagenealogy.org/sanbernardino/mormons2.htm; “MormonColony San Bernardino,” http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/willis/gallery1.html;Route from Liverpool to the Great Salt LakeValley, illustrated by Frederick Piercy andedited by James Linforth (London: FranklinD. Richards, 1855), 108, 109–110. Californiaas We Saw It: Exploring the California GoldRush, California State Library, http://www.library.ca.gov/goldrush/sec11.html.1 The background and general history ofthe Mormon experience in gold rush Californiaare described in two recent scholarlyworks: Kenneth N. Owens, Gold Rush Saints:California Mormons and the Great Rush ForRiches (Spokane, WA: The Arthur H. ClarkCo., 2004); and J. Kenneth Davies andLorin K. Hansen, Mormon Gold: Mormons inthe California Gold Rush Contributing to theDevelopment of California and the MonetarySolvency of Early Utah, 2d ed. (North SaltLake City, UT: Granite Mountain Pub. Co.,2010).2 As Will Bagley points out in his excellentdocumentary account of Brannan’s life,“Brannan would forever after claim that theidea of sending a shipload of Mormons toCalifornia was his own.” Bagley, ed., Scoundrel’sTale: The Samuel Brannan Papers (Spokane,WA: The Arthur H. Clark Company,1997), 72.3 Young to Brannan, Sept. 15, 1845, inBagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 91–92.4 Brannan to Young, Jan. 26, 1846, inBagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 122–24.5 The Brooklyn voyage is carefully documentedin Lorin Hansen’s “Voyage of theBrooklyn,” Dialogue: A Journal of MormonThought 21 (Autumn 1988), 46–72; andBagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 131–68. Additionaldetails appear in Richard H. Bullock, ShipBrooklyn Saints: Their Journey and EarlyEndeavors in California (Sandy, UT: ShipBrooklyn Association, 2009).6 Bagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 123–24.7 Edward Kemble, “Flag of the Twelve Stars,”Sacramento Daily Union, May 22, 1858.8 For the most credible versions of this story,see Bagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 166–68.9 Ibid., 157.10 Brannan’s sparse description of the journey,written from Fort Hall in mid-June, wasoriginally published in the Latter-Day Saints’Millennial Star, Oct. 15, 1857. It is reprintedin Bagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 204–5.11 William W. Slaughter and MichaelLandon, Trail of Hope: The Story of theMormon Trail (Salt Lake City, UT: ShadowMountain, Deseret Book Company, 1997),66–68.12 Wilford Woodruff, The Discourses of WilfordWoodruff (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft,1969), 322–23.13 John Brown, “An Evidence of Inspiration,”Juvenile Instructor 16 (1881), 269.14 David L. Bigler, Forgotten Kingdom: TheMormon Theocracy in the American West,1847–1896 (Spokane, WA: The Arthur H.Clark Company, 1998), 15.15 Bagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 219.16 The history of the Mormon Battalion hasbeen a subject of many scholarly works.Preeminent among them are Norma B.Ricketts, The Mormon Battalion: U.S. Armyof the West, 1846–1848 (Logan: Utah StateUniversity Press, 1996); and the documentaryvolume edited by David L. Bigler andWill Bagley, Army of Israel: Mormon BattalionNarratives (Spokane, WA: The Arthur H.Clark Company, 2000).17 Bagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 222.18 Young to Hunt and Battalion, Aug. 7,1857, Journal History, LDS Church Archives,Salt Lake City (hereafter cited as JournalHistory), in Bigler and Bagley, Army ofIsrael, 355–57.19 James Stephens Brown, California Gold—An Authentic History of the First Find, Withthe Names of Those Interested in the Discovery(Salt Lake City, UT: James S. Brown, 1894),9.20 Ibid.21 Sutter to Vallejo, Oct. 1847, New Helvetia,Sutter Collection, box 312, folder 10, CaliforniaState Library, Sacramento, tr. NellieVan de Grift Sanchez. The original letter,written in Sutter’s rudimentary Spanish, isin Mariano G. Vallejo, Documentos para lahistoria de California, Tomo XII, 1844–48,Manuscript 315, Bancroft Library, Universityof California, Berkeley.22 Sutter to Larkin, Oct. 28, 1847, inGeorge P. Hammond, ed., The LarkinPapers: Personal, Business, and Official Correspondenceof Thomas Oliver Larkin, Merchantand United States Consul in California, 10vols. (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1951–1964), 7:47. On the colorfulcareer of John Sutter, the preeminent biographyis Albert L. Hurtado, John Sutter: ALife on the North American Frontier (Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 2006).23 For a carefully detailed account of the discovery,based on the contemporary journalsof Azariah Smith and Henry Bigler as wellas subsequent accounts by James Marshalland James S. Brown, see Owens, “‘Gold,Boys, Gold!’ The Mormon Beginnings ofthe California Gold Rush,” Gold Rush Saints,91–124.24 J. S. Holliday, The World Rushed In: TheCalifornia Gold Rush Experience (New York:Simon & Schuster, 1981). Among the manyother excellent studies dealing with aspectsof the gold rush, essential are Malcolm J.Rohrbough, Days of Gold: The CaliforniaGold Rush and the American Nation (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1997);and Peter J. Blodgett, Land of GoldenDreams: California in the Golden Decade,1848–1858 (San Marino, CA: HuntingtonLibrary, 1999). For a broad introduction togold rush historiography and history, seeKenneth N. Owens, “The California GoldRush in History” and “California Gold RushFundamentals,” in Owens, ed., Riches for56California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

All: The California Gold Rush and the World(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,2002), 1–28.25 Rich in detail, the history of the 1848 LDSeastward expeditions is narrated in Owens,Gold Rush Saints, 157–200.26 Abner Blackburn, Frontiersman: AbnerBlackburn’s Narrative, ed. Will Bagley (SaltLake City: University of Utah Press, 1992),146–50.27 Leonard Arrington, Brigham Young:American Moses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,1985) 176–79, 184–84. Examples of Young’sfiery anti-California oratory may be foundin “‘Greedy After the Things of This World’:Brigham Young’s California Gold Rush Policy,”in Owens, Gold Rush Saints, 201–44.28 The complete text of their report is inLyman and Rich to Young, July, 23, 1850,Young Collection, LDS Archives, Salt LakeCity (hereafter cited as Young Collection), inBagley, Scoundrel’s Tale, 292–96.29 Owens, Gold Rush Saints, 302.30 Lyman and Rich to Young, July, 23, 1850,Young Collection, in Bagley, Scoundrel’s Tale,295. For the full history of this colonizingproject, see Edward Leo Lyman, SanBernardino: The Rise and Fall of a CaliforniaCommunity (Salt Lake City, UT: SignatureBooks, 1996).31 Manuscript History of the Church,Brigham Young Period, 1844–1877, Mar.20, 1851, LDS Archives, cited in Blackburn,Frontiersman, ed. Bagley, 196.32 Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, andWillard Richards, “General Epistle to AllLatter-Day Saints, Feb. 19, 1853, Journal History,in Owens, Gold Rush Saints, 241.33 Roger Robin Ekins, ed., Defending Zion:George Q. Cannon and the California MormonNewspaper Wars of 1856–1857 (Spokane, WA:The Arthur H. Clark Company, 2002).34 Owens, Gold Rush Saints, 314–28.35 George D. Watt’s transcript of PresidentYoung’s speech, delivered in the summerof 1857, is in the Brigham Young Papers,LDS Archives, Salt Lake City (hereafter citedas Young Papers). Lyman, San Bernardino,377–78, refers to a version that appeared inthe Deseret News, the LDS newspaper publishedin Salt Lake City, which is not entirelyconsistent with the Watt transcript.36 Young to Chester Loveland and the Brethrenin Carson Cr. [County], Aug. 15, 1857,Letterbook 3, Young Papers, in Owens, GoldRush Saints, 330.37 The Utah War (sometimes called theMormon War or the Mormon Rebellion) hasmost recently gained scholarly examinationin David L. Bigler and Will Bagley, The MormonRebellion: America’s First Civil War (Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 2011);and William P. MacKinnon, At Sword’sPoint: A Documentary History of the UtahWar to 1858, vol. 1 (Norman, OK: The ArthurH. Clark Company, 2008). The MountainMeadows Massacre remains a highly controversialtopic, especially concerning theissue of Brigham Young’s role in this brutaland tragic event. Regarding the ongoinginterpretive melee, leading studies are WillBagley, Blood of the Prophet: Brigham Youngand the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 2002);and Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley,and Glen M. Leonard, Massacre at MountainMeadows: An American Tragedy (New York:Oxford University Press, 2008).38 Diary of Wilford Woodruff, Sept. 25,1890, LDS Archives; “Official Declaration,”LDS Doctrine and Covenants, after sec. 136,quoted in Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton,The Mormon Experience: A History of theLatter-day Saints, 2nd ed. (Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press, 1992), 183.39 Richard O. Cowan and William E. Homer,California Saints: A 150-Year Legacy in theGolden State (Provo, UT: Religious StudiesCenter, Brigham Young University Press,1996), 234–35.“‘dear earl’”: The Fair PlayCommiTTee, earl warren, andJaPanese inTernmenT, by CharleswollenberG, PP 24–55Caption sources: Linda Gordon and Gary Y.Okihiro, Impounded: Dorothea Lange andthe Censored Images of Japanese AmericanInternment (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006),19–36 ; Dorothea Lange, The Making of aDocumentary Photographer (oral history,Regional Oral History Office, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, 1968), 186–91; ExecutiveOrder 9066, http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154; Ruth W. Kingman, “The FairPlay Committee and Citizen Participation”(oral history, in Japanese-American RelocationReviewed: Volume II, The Internment,Regional Oral History Office, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, 1973, 32a; “Relocationof Japanese Americans” (Washington, DC:War Relocation Authority, 1943), http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/relocbook.html;Relocation of Japanese Americans (Washington,DC: War Relocation Authority, 1943),http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/relocbook.html;Galen M. Fisher, A Balance Sheeton Japanese Evacuation (Berkeley, CA: PacificCoast Committee on American Principlesand Fair Play, 1943); Ruth W. Kingman toChiura Obata, July 10, 1945, box 5:6, PacificCoast Committee on American Principlesand Fair Play records, BANC MSS C-A 171,Bancroft Library, University of California,Berkeley (hereafter cited as Records); AliceTakeuchi to Kingman, Nov. 8, 1943 and Jan.15, 1945, boxes 2:3, 4:6, and Kingman toTakeuchi, Jan. 29, 1945, box 4:6, Records;Wendy L. Wall, Inventing the “AmericanWay”: The Politics of Consensus from the NewDeal to the Civil Rights Movement (New York:Oxford University Press, 2008), 134.1 Lundberg to Warren, July 13, 1943, box 7:9,Records).2 Harre Demoro, The Key Route: TransbayCommuting by Train and Ferry (Glendale,CA: Interurban Press, 1985), 67–68.3 The government called its policy “relocation,”a benign term that does not beginto convey the pain and suffering thatresulted. Some recent scholars have used“incarceration,” but to many Americans,this implies a judicial proceeding includingdue process. I use “internment” to refer toan executive branch policy of involuntaryremoval and imprisonment without dueprocess. For current thinking on the use oflanguage to describe the wartime experiencesof Japanese Americans, see AikoHerzig-Yoshinaga, Words Can Lie or Clarify;Mako Nakagawa, The Power of Words; JACLNational Resolution on Terminology; andother works on the National Parks Servicewebsite, http://www.nps.gov/tule/forteachers/suggestedreading.htm.4 Recent works on opposition to the internmentinclude: Ellen Eisenberg, The Firstto Cry Injustice?: Western Jews and JapaneseRemovals During World War II (Landam,MD: Lexington Books, 2008), and StephanieBangarth, Voices Raised in Protest:Defending Citizens of Japanese Ancestry inNorth America, 1942–49 (Vancouver: Universityof British Columbia Press, 2008). For57

notesrelevance to the contemporary “War on Terror,”see Jerry Kang, “Watching the Watchers:Enemy Combatants in the InternmentShadow,” Law and Contemporary Society 68,no. 2 (2005): 255–84, and Roger Daniels,“The Japanese American Cases, 1942–2004:A Social History,” Law and ContemporarySociety 68, no. 2 (2005): 159–72.5 Atlee E. Shidler, “The Fair Play Committee:A Study in the Protection of the Rights ofMinority Groups” (master’s thesis, ClaremontGraduate School, 1952); Ruth W.Kingman, “A Brief Historical Report of thePacific Coast Committee on American Principlesand Fair Play” (Berkeley, CA: Fair PlayCommittee, 1946), 1–2.6 Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 9; RogerDaniels, The Politics of Prejudice: TheAnti-Asian Movement in California andthe Struggle for Japanese Exclusion (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1977),90–91,105, and “The Decision to Relocatethe North American Japanese,” PacificHistorical Review (Feb. 1982): 71–77; DillonMyer, Uprooted Americans and the WartimeMigration (Tucson: University of ArizonaPress, 1971), 12.7 Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 28; RuthW. Kingman, The Fair Play Committee andCitizen Participation (oral history, RegionalOral History Office, University of California,Berkeley, 1973), 24–26 (hereafter cited asRuth Kingman oral history).8 Paul Schuster Taylor, California SocialScientist (oral history, Regional Oral HistoryOffice, University of California, Berkeley,1975), 90–95; Dorothea Lange, The Makingof a Documentary Photographer (oral history,Regional Oral History Office, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, 1968), 186–91.9 Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 29–30;Kingman, Brief Historical Report, 1.10 Myer, Uprooted Americans and the WartimeMigration, 14–16; Scott Kurashige, TheShifting Ground of Race: Blacks and JapaneseAmericans in the Making of Multiethnic LosAngeles (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, 2008), 115–20; Ed Cray, Chief Justice:A Biography of Earl Warren (New York:Simon and Schuster, 1997), 116–17.11 Cray, Chief Justice, 115–16, 123; Edward G.White, Earl Warren: A Public Life (New York:Oxford University Press, 1982), 70.12 Earl Warren, The Memoirs of Earl Warren(Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 145; LeoKatcher, Earl Warren: A Political Biography(New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), 141; KaiBird, The Chairman John J. McCloy: TheMaking of the American Establishment (NewYork: Simon and Schuster, 1992), 148–49.13 Bird, Chairman John J. McCloy, 149–50.14 Hearings Before the Select Committee InvestigatingNational Defense Migration, Houseof Representatives, Seventy-Seventh Congress,Part 29, San Francisco Hearings, February 21and 23, 1942 (Washington, DC: U.S. PrintingOffice, 1942), 10973–11015.15 Ibid., 11137–11155.16 Ibid., 11178–11186.17 Ibid., 11197–11203.18 Bird, Chairman John J. McCloy, 151–54.19 Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 16–17,42–47; Daniels, “The Decision to Relocatethe North American Japanese.”20 Allan W. Austin, From ConcentrationCamps to Campus: Japanese Students andWorld War II (Urbana: University of IllinoisPress, 2000); Thomas James, Exile Within:The Schooling of Japanese Americans 1942–1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1987); Gary Y. Okihiro, Storied Lives:Japanese American Students and World WarII (Seattle: University of Washington Press,1999); Robert W. O’Brien, The College Nisei(Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books, 1949); Myer,Uprooted, 131.21 Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 37.22 Milton Eisenhower, The President IsCalling (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 97,114–19.23 Eisenhower, The President Is Calling, 123;Myer, Uprooted, 23.24 Myer, Uprooted, 29, 61.25 Dillon Myer, War Relocation Authority:The Director’s Account (oral history, RegionalOral History Project, University of California,Berkeley, 1974), 41 (hereafter cited asMyer oral history), and Myer, Uprooted, 71.26 Kingman, “Brief Historical Report,” 2–3;Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 61–68.27 Harry Kingman, Citizenship in a Democracy(oral history, Regional Oral HistoryOffice, University of California Berkeley,1973), 16–61 (hereafter cited as Harry Kingmanoral history); Galen Fisher, Citadel ofDemocracy: The History of the Public AffairsRecord of Stiles Hall (Berkeley, CA: Howell-North, 1955), 23–28, 32; Frances Linsley,What Is This Place?: An Informal History ofStiles Hall (Berkeley, CA: Stiles Hall, 1984),63–66.28 Harry Kingman oral history, 68–69; RuthKingman oral history, 7–13, 16–21; T. RobertYamada, The Japanese American Experience:the Berkeley Experience (Berkeley, CA:Berkeley Historical Society, 1995), 16; “AStatement to Japanese Friends and FellowAmericans from the Berkeley Fellowshipof Churches and the First CongregationalChurch of Berkeley, 1942,” carton 2:5,Records.29 Ruth Kingman oral history, 27–29.30 Ruth Kingman oral history, 34; Kingmanto Fisher, Oct. 2, 1943, box 6:8, Records.31 Ruth Kingman oral history, 38–39; Myer,Uprooted, xix.32 Los Angeles Times, May 27, 1943; Shidler,“Fair Play Committee,” 81.33 Flyer, carton 2:3, Records; Shidler, “FairPlay Committee,” 91–94.34 Carey McWilliams, Prejudice: JapaneseAmericans Symbols of Racial Intolerance (NewYork, Little Brown, 1944), 257–59: Shidler,“Fair Play Committee,” 123–30.35 Cray, Chief Justice, 157–58; Katcher, EarlWarren, 48; Bernard Schwartz, Super Chief:Earl Warren and His Court (New York: NewYork University Press, 1983), 123–30.36 Life, July 5, 1943; Lundberg to Warren,July 13, 1943, box 7:9, Records.37 Warren to Lundberg, July 16, 1943, box7:9, Records; Cray, Chief Justice, 158.38 Lundberg to Warren, Sept. 2, 1943, box7:9, Records.39 Kurashige, Shifting Ground of Race, 75–80;Arthur A. Hansen and David A. Hackerman,“The Manzanar Riot: An Ethnic Perspective,”Amerasia (Fall 1974): 112–57.40 Gordon and Okihiro, Impounded, 73;Richard Drinnon, Keeper of the ConcentrationCamps: Dillon S. Myer and American Racism(Berkeley: University of California Press,1987), 127; Mike Mackey, ed., A Matter ofConscience: Essays on the World War II HeartMountain Draft Resistance Movement (Powell,WY: Western History, 2002); Arthur Hansen,“The 1944 Draft Resistance at HeartMountain,” OAH Magazine of History (Summer1996): 48–60.58California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

41 Myer, Uprooted, 80; Elaine Ellison andStan Yogi, Wherever There’s a Fight: HowRunaway Slaves, Suffragists, Immigrants,Strikers, and Poets Shaped Civil Liberties inCalifornia (Berkeley CA: Heyday, 2009),426–28; Judy Kutulas, The American CivilLiberties Union and the Making of AmericanLiberalism, 1930–1960 (Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press, 2006), 113,120–21.42 Kutulas, American Civil Liberties Union,90–128; Bangarth, Voices Raised in Protest,49–58.43 Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 115–20;Ruth Kingman oral history, 27–29.44 Sproul, Harrison, and Lundberg to Myer,Nov. 10, 1943, box 2:3, Kingman to Roosevelt,Nov. 26, 1943, box 2:4, Myer to Kingman,Dec. 6, 1943, box 2:5, Records; Myer,Uprooted, 80; Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,”119–21.45 Kingman to Outland, Dec. 14, 1943, Kingmanto Boettiger, Oct. 15, 1943, Myer toKingman, Oct. 16, 1943, Records; Myer oralhistory, 40.46 Jeffers to Wada, Sept. 20, 1943, and Jan.26, 1944, boxes 1:12, 2:9, Records.47 Kingman to NBC, Emmons, and McCloy,n.d., box 2:9, McCloy to Kingman, Feb. 11,1944, box 2:10, Records; Shidler, “Fair PlayCommittee,” 136–38. Kuroki also criticizedNisei draft resisters at Heart Mountainand elsewhere; Hansen, “1944 Draft Resistance,”50.48 Ruth Kingman oral history, 49–52.49 Galen Fisher, A Balance Sheet on JapaneseEvacuation: Untruths About Japanese Americans(Berkeley, CA: Committee on AmericanPrinciples and Fair Play, 1943), previouslypublished in Christian Century, Aug. 18, 26,Sept. 1, 8, 1943.50 McWilliams, Prejudice; McWilliams toFisher, Feb. 16, 1943, box 6:1, Kingmanto McWilliams, Apr. 25, 1944, box 2:16,Records; Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,”201; Peter Richardson, American Prophet:The Life and Work of Carey McWilliams (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005),132–36.51 Kingman to Sproul, Mar. 1, 1944 and Apr.17, 1944, boxes 6:13, 6:14, Fisher to Sproul,box 6:13, Kingman to Kaplan, May 23, 1944,box 6:22, Records.52 Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 145–47;Ruth Kingman oral history, 45.53 Kingman to Sproul, July 10, 1944, Sproulto Kingman, July 14, 1944, Kaplan to Kingman,July 24, 1944, box 6:17, Records.54 Harrison to Crotty, July 17, 1944, box 3:6,Records; Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,”173.55 “Mister Produce Grower: The Future Is inYour Hands,” carton 2:3, Records.56 Los Angeles Times, Oct. 2, 1944; Los AngelesHerald Express, Nov. 15, 1944.57 Ruth Kingman oral history, 55.58 Harrison to Ickes, Mar. 18, 1944, box 2:4,Records; T. H. Watkins, Righteous Pilgrim:The Life and Times of Harold Ickes (NewYork: Henry Holt, 1990), 792–95.59 Department of the Interior to Harrison,Apr. 4, 1944, box 2:15, Myer to Kingman,May 5, 1944, box 2:16, Kingman to Fortas,Apr. 20, 1945, box 4:14, Records.60 Runquist to Kingman, Apr. 15, 1944, andKingman to Runquist, Apr. 19, 1944, box2:14, Records; Watkins, Righteous Pilgrim,795; Myer, Uprooted, 183; Greg Robinson, ByOrder of the President: FDR and the Internmentof Japanese Americans (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 2001), 245.61 Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,” 178–80;Pasadena Post, Sept. 27, 1944; Wylie to Kingman,Dec. 5, 1944, box 4:3, Records.62 Fisher to Baldwin, Dec. 10, 1944, box 4:3,Myer to Harrison, Dec. 18, 1944, box 4:3,Records; Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,”183–85; Myer, Uprooted, 184, 191; Robinson,By Order of the President, 251; Los AngelesTimes, Dec. 18, 1944.63 Ellison and Yogi, Wherever There’s a Fight,430–37; Greg Robinson and Toni Robinson,“Korematsu and Beyond: Japanese Americansand the Origin of Strict Scrutiny,” Lawand Contemporary Society 68 (2005): 29–56;Daniels, “Japanese American Cases,”159–72.64 Warren, Conversation with Earl Warren onCalifornia Government (oral history, RegionalOral History Office, University of California,Berkeley, 1982), 260 (hereafter cited as Warrenoral history); Kingman to Warren, Dec.20, 1944, box 4:4, Records; Cray, Chief Justice,159, 278; White, Earl Warren, 74.65 John D, Weaver, Warren, the Man, theCourt, the Era, (New York, Little Brown,1967) 112; Schwartz, Super Chief, 16.66 White, Earl Warren, 74; Kingman to Warren,Dec. 20, 1944 and Apr. 21, 1945, boxes4:4, 4:13, Warren to Deutsch, June 26, 1945,box 7:1, Records.67 Ruth Kingman oral history, 67; Kingmanto Saburo Kido, Dec. 23, 1944, box 4:4,Records; San Francisco News, Jan. 11, 1945.68 Kingman to Holliday, n.d., box 6:26,Kingman to Fisher, Apr. 4, 1945, box 4:13,Records; Myer, Uprooted, 197; Watkins, RighteousPilgrim, 796.69 Kingman to Booth, June 15, 1945, box6:28, Records.70 Kingman to Myer, Mar. 3 and May 20,1943, boxes 1:1, 1:4, Myer to Kingman, June12, 1943, box 1:4, Records; Kimi Kodani Hill,ed., Chiura Obata’s Topaz Moon: Art of theInternment (Berkeley, CA: Heyday, 2000),19–21, 40, 105–6.71 Warren oral history, 261.72 American Council on Race Relations,“West Coast Incidents Involving People ofJapanese Descent” (San Francisco: AmericanCouncil on Race Relations, 1945).73 Sacramento Bee, Jan. 1, 1945, Feb. 1, 1945,May 8, 1945; Daily Californian, Apr. 26,1945; San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 25, 1945.74 Fair Play Committee Open Letter, n.d.,box 5:8, Kingman to McCloy, June 10, 1943,box 5:3, Records.75 Kingman to Chronicle, May 25, 1945, box5:2, Records.76 Ruth Kingman oral history, 61; Kingmanto Ickes, Sept. 28, 1945, box 5:9, Kingman toReichert, Nov. 26, 1945, box 5:11, Records.77 Myer, Uprooted, 286; Drinnon, Keeper ofthe Concentration Camps, 57, 58.78 Ruth Kingman oral history, 49–51; Hill,Topaz Moon, 99; Hansen, “1944 Draft Resistanceat Heart Mountain,” 50–51.79 Orr to Kingman, Sept. 20, 1945, andKingman to Orr, Sept. 25, 1945, box 5:9,Records.80 Kingman to Reichert, July 1, 1945, box5:11, Kingman to Griffin, Dec. 14, 1945, box5:12, Records; Shidler, “Fair Play Committee,”233–37.81 Harry Kingman oral history, 110, 136,166, 175, 190; Ruth Kingman oral history,74.82 Myer, Uprooted, 291, 293; Drinnon, Keeperof the Concentration Camps.59

notes83 Warren, Memoirs, 232.84 Schwartz, Super Chief, 16. Warren did,however, refer to the Korematsu case inhis opinion in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954). Theopinion, which outlawed school segregationin the District of Columbia, established raceas a “suspect classification” requiring “strictscrutiny.” Robinson and Robinson, “Korematsuand Beyond,” 29–56.85 Schwartz, Super Chief, 17; Cray, Chief Justice,520.86 Warren, Memoirs, 148–49.87 Katcher, Earl Warren, 141; White, EarlWarren, 71.88 Robert Kenny, California Attorney Generaland the 1946 Gubernatorial Campaign (oralhistory, Regional Oral History Office, Universityof California Berkeley, 1979), 20.89 Hayashida to Kingman, Dec. 18, 1944,box 4:4, Obata to Kingman, Sept. 4, 1945,box 5:9, Records.sidebar: TanForan assembly CenTer:siberius y. saiTo, PP 34–371 “Architects Migrate,” Architect & Engineer149, no. 3 (June 1942), 52; Flinn SaitoAndersen Architects website, http://www.ahtsarchitects.com/who_we_are.htm.2 S. Saito to William Hyde Irwin, June22, 1942, folder 32, Augusta Bixler FarmsRecords, MS 202B, California HistoricalSociety.3 Ibid.4 Drawings of the Tanforan AssemblyCenter, BANC PIC 1979.071—PIC, TheBancroft Library, University of California,Berkeley.60California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

eviewsEdited by James J. RawlsemiGranTs on Theoverland Trail: ThewaGon Trains oF 1848By Michael E. LaSalle (Kirksville,MO: Truman State UniversityPress, 2011, 536 pp., $40 paper,$29.99 eBook)REVIEWED BY JUDSON GRENIER, PROFESSOREMERITUS OF HISTORY, CALIFORNIA STATEUNIVERSITY, DOMINGUEZ HILLS, AND AUTHOROF CAliforniA lEgACy: thE WAtson-DominguEz fAmily AND golDEn oDyssEy:John strouD houston, CAliforniA’s firstControllEr AnD thE origins of CAliforniAstAtE govErnmEntThe nineteenth century wasthe heyday of travel literature in theUnited States, a time when hundreds,if not thousands, of visitors to varioussections of the nation recorded theirimpressions and memories in letters,diaries, and journals. And of thesetrips, the most momentous—searedinto the nation’s psyche—was the voyagewest over the plains and mountainsfrom the Midwest to the PacificCoast in mid-century. Beginning withFrancis Parkman’s The Oregon Trail(serialized in 1847–49) and lastinguntil today, readers have been sweptup in the story of headstrong pioneerswho trudged with livestock and wagonsten to twenty miles a day for fivemonths in a dusty, dangerous, stressful,tedious trip, often with strangerswhom they did not know and grew todetest. Could anything more be writtenabout this journey?Michael LaSalle believed that it could,and fruit of his research justifies hisoptimism. This volume differs fromprevious accounts by its focus on theyear 1848 and eighteen specific wagontraincompanies that left Missourienvirons before word of the discoveryof gold reached those settlements. Theyear 1848, the author asserts, markedthe end of an era. Travelers of that yearwere seeking land; the gold rush wouldusher in a totally different endeavor. In1848, neither trekkers nor their guidesknew for certain how tough the tripwould be; in 1849, the world wouldknow.The book depends largely on the dailyaccounts recorded by six men and onewoman from different companies,supplemented by letters, articles, andbiographies, mostly primary in naturethat appeared before, during, andafter 1848. The author supplementsthe accounts with vivid descriptionsof the landscapes, flora and faunaencountered by the visitors, includingsuch particulars as the type of grasson the prairies, fish in the rivers, andchemical content of dust on the trails.He also provides data on the personalbackground of the main travelers andbrief histories of related movements,such as the fur trade and the Mormonexodus that contributed to developmentof the Overland Trail.The author wants his readers to travelalong with his sources, to experiencethe monotony of putting one foot infront of the other, “slipping into a languidsleepwalking trance” while drywinds crack one’s lips, or the physicaldemands of hauling wagons by ropesup cliffs or on barges across riverswhile in a state of virtual exhaustion, orthe persistent fear of being surroundedby a tribe of Indians who may or maynot be at war with federal troops orother tribes.And in a sense, this is also a guidebookto the trails, for the author providesa series of 20 maps that introduceeach chapter, arranged chronologically,overlaying modern topographic/highway maps of each section, alongwith descriptions of how to reach eachdesignated campsite or landmarktoday. (This technique is reminiscentof that utilized by Gregory Franswa inhis classic, The Oregon Trail Revisited,a combined history-travel guide thatpassed through five editions prior tohis death.)The maps illustrate chapters of roughlytwo-week periods, all concluding withthe location of each of the companieson the trail, making obvious whichtravel the fastest, which are laggard,61

eviewsand how many days the first precedesthe last. Because all companies followedroughly the same route throughNebraska and Wyoming, the narrativesreport many similar experiences andtend to be repetitious in content. Butonce the travelers reached Fort Hall inIdaho, the Great Trail forked, with partiesheaded for California separatingfrom those en route to Oregon Territory,and the accounts become muchmore diverse.As each group neared its destination,an even greater variety of experiencesare recorded, as small contingents oftravelers broke off from larger companiesto follow different routes. Partiesdestined for California were very awareof the climb over the Sierras awaitingthem and the recent fate of theDonner Party. Additionally, they soonencountered eastward-bound wagonsbearing news of the discovery of gold,which added impetus to their drive toreach the Sacramento valley before theadvent of winter storms.LaSalle concludes his study with theobservation that the wagon trains of1848 overcame “mistakes, misfortuneand misadventure,” but in the endtheir experience “demonstrated that,with steadfast determination, all couldbe overcome.” His epilogue offers acapsule summary of the subsequentfate of the major personages. Reachingthe Promised Land, their troubles werefar from over, but many went on tosuccessful careers.Aside from a few typos and threerepeated sentences, this reviewer foundno errors in content and appreciatedthe author’s occasional speculationson reasons for decisions made andcourses taken. I have some quibblewith the categories of primary and secondaryinto which the author places hissources in the bibliography, believingthat just because a narrative previouslyhas been printed does not keep it frombeing considered primary. It is theseoriginal accounts that form the heart ofthe book and provide its deserving spoton our shelf of important works aboutthe history of the West.in ThouGhT andaCTion: The eniGmaTiCliFe oF s. i. hayaKawaBy Gerald W. Haslam withJanice E. Haslam (Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press, 2011,472 pp., $26.95 paper)REVIEWED BY JAMES WORTHEN, AUTHOR OFthE young nixon AnD his CAliforniArivAls AND JAmEs rolph AnD thE grEAtDEprEssion in CAliforniALike any conscientious biography,this portrait of a liberal educator–turned–conservative politician in theheat of California’s student revolt ofthe late 1960s balances strengthsagainst flaws. S. I. (“Don”) Hayakawawas a man of considerable charm,wide-ranging interests, and insatiableappetites, which included a craving forthe spotlight. During the unlikely finalchapter of his life, he also displayedopportunism and a lack of seriousnessthat disappointed many. If Hayakawa’slife was enigmatic, as the authors conclude,it also was unfulfilled.Hayakawa was a Japanese Canadianwho moved to the American Midwestin the 1930s to pursue an academiccareer. He had two strikes againsthim—his Japanese ancestry and hischoice of the obscure field of semanticsas his specialty. Though he neverachieved conventional academicsuccess, his ability to write for a generalaudience and his elegant, evencharismatic presence brought himwidespread attention as an author andlecturer.A twist of fate thrust Hayakawa intothe national spotlight. The unpopularityof the Vietnam War raised tensionson California’s college campuses tothe boiling point in 1968 and 1969.By then an instructor at San FranciscoState University, Hayakawa wasappalled by the confrontational tacticsof militant leftists at the school andrecommended that the administrationtake a hard line. Though he had nomanagement experience and had beena lifelong liberal Democrat, he wassoon named acting president of theuniversity on the strength of his tough62California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

stance. A photograph of him physicallyresisting student strikers at the schoolwent viral. He had tapped into the rageof the “silent majority” that electedRonald Reagan governor and RichardNixon president.Lauded by conservatives as the manwho “saved San Francisco State,” Hayakawadecided to become a Republicanand run for the U.S. Senate. He hadno program and no record and waslargely incoherent on the issues, but hemanaged to defeat a weak incumbent,Democrat John Tunney. Hayakawawent on to become a notably ineffectivelegislator, making repeated verbalgaffes and falling asleep in meetings.Even so, he was entertaining enoughto be voted California’s most popularpolitician in 1977.Hayakawa might still lack a biographerhad his wife, Marge, not askedhistorian Gerald Haslam to write thisbook. Haslam and his wife, Janice,were social friends of the Hayakawasduring the 1960s but drifted apart asHayakawa veered from left to right.Perhaps recognizing that their ambivalencewould affect the tone of the book,the Haslams put the project off untilboth Don and Marge were deceased.The final product, based largely oninterviews and written accounts of bothcritics and supporters, shows Hayakawa’smany faces—nonconformingacademic, philanderer, jazz enthusiast,hearty extrovert, hedonist, and selfdescribedman of destiny.At times, the Haslams become soreliant on third-party testimony thattheir own narrative voice falters. Whatseems clear from their account, however,is that Hayakawa’s increasinglymessianic view of himself and his pursuitof celebrity did many people a disservice,most notably the citizens of hisadopted state. His devoted wife, Marge,responded to his late-life change ofcourse by immersing herself in herown professional interests. The authorscaution us not to judge Hayakawa’slife by his last several years—butthose years must weigh heavily in thebalance.savinG san FranCisCo,relieF and reCoveryaFTer The 1906 disasTerBy Andrea Rees Davies(Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress, 2012, 232 pp., $29.95 paper)REVIEWED BY RICHARD SCHWARTZ, HISTORIANAND AUTHOR OF EArthquAkE ExoDus, 1906:BErkElEy rEsponDs to thE sAn frAnCisCorEfugEEs AND EccEntrics, HEroEs, andcuttHroats of old BErkElEyWhen I first perused Saving SanFrancisco, I was entranced by the manyblack-and-white photos of the era of the1906 Great San Francisco Earthquakedisaster. The images of the damagedcity, refugees fleeing and living on thestreets, official relief camps, temporaryhousing, and postdisaster everyday lifecaptured the entire arc of San Franciscans’experience.As I began reading the book, I wasequally enamored with its organization.The five chronological chapters,all densely footnoted, cover the relevantorigins of San Francisco (its ethnicities,economics, politics, and architecture)and a neighborhood-by-neighborhooddescription of the different levels ofdisaster, destruction, and response;the relief effort and its organization,and the ensuing conflicts and corruption;the opportunities taken by thosewho were marginalized before andafter the disaster (Chinese and singlewomen, for example); the structure,functioning, and failures of the officialrelief camps; and the rebuilding of thecity, who had the money and powerto direct the efforts, and the numerousvoices that rose up to assert theirdesires for the future.Author Andrea Rees Davies, assistantprofessor of history at California StateUniversity, Northridge, clearly spentenormous effort in collecting sourcematerial and absorbing analysis fromluminaries such as San Francisco’s Dr.William Issell, an expert on San Franciscohistory, politics, and labor movements.At its best, the book combinesfirsthand accounts, official records andtranscripts, newspapers of the day, andaccounts of the then infant science ofhow to respond to disasters, all overlaid63

eviewswith both historical and modern analysisof the events. Maps and charts helpkeep track of the fire zones, and anin-depth study addresses constructionmethods and neighborhood expansionsin the rebuilding phase.Rees Davies explores the events witha lot of intriguing tools that providenew lenses with which to view thehidden forces that shaped the disasterresponse, relief, and rebuilding. Shebelieves that the disaster reinforcedrole models that were in place beforethe earthquake and dismisses the commonlyheld (even by people of that era)notion that the disaster broke downthe barriers of class and economic status.She cites examples of how genderroles, marital and economic status,race-based stereotypes, and class allfactored in to how individuals andgroups were defended against fire, andhow they were fed, housed, and givenfunds and charity to rebuild or get theirlives back on track. For example, singlewomen were offered jobs as domestics,keeping them entrenched in their predisasterroles.Though I have spent years studyingaspects of the relief effort, I happilylearned many new things. The mix ofresearch methods kept the text livelyand interesting most of the time. Thebook is presented as a study, not astory. The academic tone and manyanalytic interjections all attest to thisapproach. Rare passages were boggeddown with statistics, such as the examinationof which residents returned totheir neighborhoods and how suburbanizationtook place.However, I started squirming a bitwhile reading passages where full-oflifeevents and experiences seemedpressed a little too hard into onedimensionalacademic models heavilyused by modern historians. Some ofthe situations described were muchmore complicated than to say people’sexperiences were caused by factors assingular as stereotypes used by thosein power.For example, I don’t believe the stereotypicalmodel that Chinatown was leftto burn for racist reasons and that thefiremen “were not concerned.” (BothRees Davies and I were firefighters—she in San Francisco and I in the U.S.Forest Service.) I think the evidenceshows the situation was much morecomplicated: fast-changing windspropelled the fires up the hills intothe tinderbox of Chinatown, and thechaos of the loss of communicationsand all firemen being deployed madethe use of dynamite a choice of lastresort in a number of neighborhoods,including Chinatown. Events happenedso fast and within the turmoil of theday, and Chinatown burned becauseof a confluence of reasons, racism notbeing a significant one (though racismwas a huge factor during the reliefperiod). There were instances wherethe author made valid suppositions,but presented them as facts without away for the reader to be taken along forthe ride.But this academic approach did notdeter me from gaining much knowledgeand enjoyment from this colorfulbook. Saving San Francisco is a worthy,rich, and profitable read and a greatready reference.wesTon & CharloT: arT& FriendshiPBy Lew Andrews (Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press, 2011,462 pp., $65.00 cloth)REVIEWED BY MARTHA A. SANDWEISS, PROFES-SOR OF HISTORY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY,AND AUTHOR OF Passing strangE: a gildEdagE talE of lovE and dEcEPtion acrosstHE color linEEdward Weston (1886–1958) wasa high priest of American photographicmodernism whose sharply focusedblack-and-white still lifes, nudes, andwestern landscapes quickly found theirplace in the canon, thanks in part tohis friendship with Beaumont Newhall,curator of photography at the Museumof Modern Art in New York.The French-born Jean Charlot (1898–1979) was a more political sort of artist.He made his mark in Mexico, wherehe helped revive the old fresco traditionand initiated the new Mexicanmuralism that celebrated the nation’spast. The two men met in MexicoCity in 1923 and maintained an epistolaryfriendship until shortly beforeWeston’s death in 1958. In their letters,they shared news of friends andfamily, professional struggles, andtheir evolving ideas about art. WhileWeston hunkered down in Carmel,California, supporting himself as a finearts photographer, Charlot held severalpositions in the United States beforesettling into a long career teaching artat the University of Hawaii.This book, as the author explains, “isa little hard to characterize or categorize.”Neither a conventional biography64California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

an enGlishwoman inCaliFornia: The leTTersoF CaTherine hubbaCK,1871–76Edited by Zoë Klippert (Oxford:Bodleian Library, 2010, 222 pp.,$40.00 cloth)nor a monograph on either artist, itstresses “those moments when thelives of Weston and Charlot, and thoseclose to them, came together or intersected.”The narrative devolves largelyaround correspondence between thetwo men, augmented by Weston’swell-known “daybooks” and Charlot’spocket diaries. But the resulting textfeels overly focused on the trees atthe expense of the forest. A readercan learn about the minutiae of aparticular day, but it’s hard to figureout why these men matter, how theirart engaged formal or political issuesof real import, or how their workinfluenced those outside of the smallcircle of family members and friendsmentioned by name in the letters. Atthe same time, since the letters aremostly summarized or paraphrasedinstead of quoted verbatim, it’s difficultto hear the writers’ voices or to get asense of them as people struggling toput their thought into words as well asinto art.CaPTive oF ThelabyrinTh: sarah l.winChesTer, heiress ToThe riFle ForTuneBy Mary Jo Ignoffo (Columbia:University of Missouri Press, 2010,252 pp., $29.95 cloth, $24.95 paper)REVIEWED BY VALERIE SHERER MATHES, PHD,PROFESSOR EMERITUS, CITY COLLEGE OFSAN FRANCISCO; AUTHOR OF hElEn huntJACkson AnD hEr inDiAn rEform lEgACy;EDITOR OF thE inDiAn rEform lEttErs ofhElEn hunt JACkson; AND COAUTHOR OFthE stAnDing BEAr ControvErsyAlthough born on differentcontinents with more than two decadesseparating their births, Catherine Hubbackand Sarah Lockwood Winchesterpossessed a resilience that enabledthem to rise above grief and rebuildsuccessful lives in California. Catherine’sstory enfolds through the pagesof forty-four letters written to her eldestson, John, a partner in a Liverpool firm,and his wife, Mary, while Sarah’s storyemerges from a first-rate biographythat includes extensive histories of herfamily, of her husband’s family, andof the Winchester Repeating ArmsCompany.Catherine, daughter of Jane Austen’sbrother Francis, a captain in the RoyalNavy and later admiral of the fleet,had her own modest literary career.Between 1850 and 1863, she wrote tennovels while she and her three sonslived with her widowed father followingher husband’s mental breakdown.Then, shortly after John’s marriage,the fifty-three-year-old Englishwoman,accompanied by her youngest son,Charles, sailed for America. LeavingCharles in Virginia, she continued onto California to live with another son,Edward, who worked for a wheat brokeragefirm.For the next six years, Catherine pursuedan active life, traveling, tendingto her garden, teaching Sunday schooland lace making, organizing a missionarysociety, and visiting art exhibits.Her “rendering of specific places,” aswell as the various forms of “transportationrequired to reach them”and “her deft portrayal of characters,many drawn from her own family andfriends,” contribute to the historicalinterest of these letters, written withthe insight of a novelist. Catherine wascontent with her new life, writing inone letter: “I don’t think you need pityme for any part of my Californian life.”65

eviewsShe returned home to England in 1875and, once back in America, lived withCharles in Virginia, where she died in1877.Sarah Winchester was born in NewHaven, where in 1862 she marriedWilliam Wirt Winchester, heir to theWinchester Repeating Arms Company.Her idyllic lifestyle was shatteredwhen, during a ten-month period, hermother, father-in-law, and husbanddied, the latter to tuberculosis. Sufferingfrom severe rheumatoid arthritis,the wealthy widow sought a warmerclimate in California’s Santa Clara Valleyin 1885, where she purchased aneight-room farmhouse with acreage,christening the property Llanada Villa.Her display of wealth stood out in thisrural valley, especially as she beganenlarging the house over a twenty-yearperiod, drawing her own designs andrough drafts and supervising all construction.What emerged was a “labyrinthof rooms and halls and foyersand passages [which] rambled along apath that captivated [Sarah’s] creativeattention.”Although she owned a dozen propertiesin the San Francisco Bay area,including an elegant mansion in Athertonwhere she spent her later years,Sarah could never escape this ramblinglabyrinth, which in today’s form (theWinchester Mystery House in SanJose) resulted from the 1906 earthquake.Upper floors collapsed, leavingstaircases to nowhere and doors thatopened to thin air. Instead of rebuilding,Sarah had the debris carted away,causing locals to describe her as a madwoman“because of her pessimistic andrecalcitrant reaction to the earthquake.”After her death, this property wasleased to an amusement park promoterwho capitalized on apocryphal storiescirculated about this very privatewoman, who has been described asmysterious, an obsessive and superstitiousdowager, and a spiritualist. Shewas accused of continually buildingfor fear she would die if constructionended or as being guilt-ridden overdeaths caused by the Winchester rifle—outlandish claims she never refuted.And because her philanthropic workwas anonymous, she was perceived asmiserly and money grubbing. Old ageonly exacerbated the Winchester mystery—lossof teeth required the wearingof a veil while crippled hands led tothe use of gloves.Unfortunately, Sarah’s life is definedmore by a house she refused torebuild than by her true legacy, whichbegan with an anonymous pledge of$300,000 in 1909. This first of manydonations to the Connecticut GeneralHospital Society resulted in the WilliamWirt Winchester Hospital, a tuberculosisclinic (today part of the Yale/New Haven Hospital).Handsomely printed, with illustrationsand bibliographies, both booksprovide insight into the histories oftwo women, one more reclusive thanthe other, who turned their privatetragedies into fulfilling lives and in theprocess helped others—Catherine withher teaching and missionary work andSarah with her philanthropies.why david someTimeswins: leadershiP,orGaniZaTion, andsTraTeGy in TheCaliFornia FarmworKer movemenTBy Marshall Ganz (New York:Oxford University Press, 2009, 368pp., $34.95 cloth, $24.95 paper)REVIEWED BY MIRIAM PAWEL, JOURNALIST,WRITER, AND AUTHOR OF thE unionof thEir DrEAms: poWEr, hopE, AnDstrugglE in CEsAr ChAvEz’s fArm WorkErmovEmEntCesar Chavez’s successful effortsto outwit the powerful agriculturalindustry and found a union for farmworkers have often been characterizedas a David-versus-Goliath struggle.Marshall Ganz, an activist-turnedacademic,sets out to dissect thefarm worker movement’s triumph byanswering the questions implicit in histitle, Why David Sometimes Wins.Ganz makes an important contributionby weaving together two significantnarratives: He places the UFW in thebroader context of historical efforts toorganize farm workers and analyzesthe movement’s success as a case studyin how to develop effective strategy. Indoing so, he moves beyond traditional66California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

social movement theory and focuses onthe underlying process that produces“strategic capacity.”Why David Sometimes Wins fills ingaps in the literature by tracing earlier,unsuccessful attempts to organize farmworkers in the twentieth century, endingwith efforts in the 1950s that setthe stage for Chavez’s work. Ganz thenoffers a comparative analysis, contrastingthe UFW’s tactics and strategieswith those of its precursors and moretraditional, better-financed competitors.This analysis forms the heart ofthe book. Drawing on primary andsecondary sources, oral histories, andpersonal experience, Ganz examines indetail a series of factors, including thebackground of the union leaders, theiraccess to information, networks, andresources, and their deliberative processes.This combination, Ganz argues,gave the UFW the greater “strategiccapacity” necessary for success. Thus,he goes beyond standard explanationsof the why the UFW’s messageresonated to probe why the leaders ofthis particular organization succeededwhere others had failed.Ganz concludes his basic narrativein 1967, three years before thegrape boycott forced the major tablegrape growers to sign contracts. Ganzagain might well have drawn on hissignificant experience in the boycott toexplain the remarkable success of thatendeavor. But perhaps that is anotherbook. Telescoping several decades intotwenty pages, Ganz concludes with anepilogue that traces the union’s risethrough the 1970s and then its tragicdecline—a reminder, he writes, that“remaining David can be even morechallenging than becoming David inthe first place.”Ganz dropped out of Harvard in 1964to work in the civil rights movement,spent sixteen years working for Chavez,and returned to Harvard decades laterto complete his undergraduate workand then his doctorate. As a lecturerat Harvard’s Kennedy School, he hasbuilt a national reputation as a scholarpractitioner;this book extends hisreach so that those lessons may reach amuch wider audience.Why David Sometimes Wins willbecome a standard part of the literatureand mandatory reading for studentsof the farm worker movement. At thesame time, by analyzing the UFW’smethodology through the rubric of“strategic capacity,” Ganz offers a usefulprimer for those seeking insightinto his philosophy and his practice.In the process, he presents a vivid andvery human story that should draw anew generation into the now historicsaga of Chavez’s early success.StateS of Delinquency:Race anD Sciencein the Making ofcalifoRnia’S JuvenileJuStice SySteMBy Miroslava Chávez-García(Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 2012, 290 pp., $65.00 cloth,$27.95 paper)Doing tiMe in theDepReSSion: eveRyDaylife in texaS anDcalifoRnia pRiSonSBy Ethan Blue (New York: NewYork University Press, 2012, 335 pp.,$40.00 cloth)Reviewed by GoRdon MoRRis bakken,PRofessoR of HistoRy, CalifoRnia stateUniveRsity fUlleRton, and aUtHoR ofWomen Who Kill men: California Courts,Gender, and the PressThese timely and deeplyresearched books bring two of thechronic problems of California societyin stark relief. In States of Delinquency:Race and Science in the Makingof California’s Juvenile Justice System,Professor Chávez-García tells of thejuvenile justice system; its use of science,mostly eugenics until recently;the identification of minority youth asfeebleminded or mentally defective,leading to the castration of some; andinnovators who forged reform strategiesfor short terms.Nineteenth-century reform and industrialschools were prisons for youth.The Whittier State School, establishedin 1889, was run for a time by Fred C.Nelles, an innovative reformer and67

eviewsconservative eugenicist. He “sought toinculcate a sense of manliness amongthe boys that emphasized the values offamily rather than the military.” Nellesand women’s reform groups moved thegirls out in 1913.Reform schools used intelligence teststo segregate populations, shuttling thefeebleminded minority inmates off tothe Sonoma State Home for the Feeblemindedfor sterilization. The testingof Whittier boys confirmed what racescientists already believed. John R.Haynes, one of the leading race scientists,won an institution for the feeblemindedat the Pacific Colony in Spadra,California, for the systematic sterilizationof the mentally unfit under a 1917state statute.Although the inmates of severalinstitutions resisted the system, onlythe 1939 and 1940 suicides of twoMexican inmates led to a meaningfulstate investigation. This past was mereprelude, as the Los Angeles Times notedin its April 24, 2012, editorial “Youngand in Solitary.” The California YouthAuthority that emerged from the investigationof the 1940s maintained the“youth prison violence” and the physicalabuse of “its wards”; “more thanhalf the suicides among imprisonedyouths were among those in solitaryconfinement.” Reform was short lived.Of the two states whose prison systemsare discussed in Doing Time in theDepression: Everyday Life in Texas andCalifornia Prisons, California fares farbetter than Texas in its treatment ofprisoners. Prison populations grew inthe 1930s and fell in the 1940s. ProfessorBlue argues effectively that thesewere years of “punishment changeswith political economic transformation.”It was the San Quentin foodstrike of 1938 that drew national attention.Investigations in 1939 and 1943found corruption with “con bosses”running prison industries, creating“covert markets and its hegemonicmasculinity.”The exception was California prisonqueens, who were sex workers behindbars. While California kept inmatesbusy with industries and prison sports,Texas used prison labor, prison farms,prisoner radio, and prisoner rodeoto control costs and show the publicmodel prisoners. Postwar Californiasaw more money going into penologythat “wedded psychotherapeutic practiceswith indeterminate sentencing,intensive surveillance with vocationaltraining.” California doubled the numberof prisons and filled them withAfrican American and Latino prisoners.Professor Blue notes the problemsof California prisons today with massivebudget cuts and the transfer ofthousands of felons to county facilities.The April 24, 2012, Los Angeles Timesarticle “Prison Plan Cuts Budget by Billions”noted the additional transfer of9,500 inmates to their home states.These books are timely and requiredreading for all interested in the historyof California’s criminal justice system.68California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

demandinG Child Care:women’s aCTivismand The PoliTiCs oFwelFare, 1940–1971By Natalie M. Fousekis (Urbana:University of Illinois Press, 2011,264 pp., $50.00 cloth)REVIEWED BY CAROLE SROLE, PROFESSOROF HISTORY, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITYAT LOS ANGELES, AND AUTHOR OF trAnsCriBingClAss AnD gEnDEr: mAsCulinityAnD fEmininity in ninEtEEnth-CEnturyCourts AnD offiCEsNatalie M. Fousekis’s DemandingChild Care: Women’s Activism and thePolitics of Welfare, 1940–1971 examinesthe grassroots activism of a raciallydiverse group of working mothers andearly-childhood educators in California.These women uniquely sustained theWorld War II–initiated, publicly fundedchild care centers in California, unlikethe program terminations in the otherforty-eight states.This political history lays out a fascinatingtrajectory of child care politics,from its late New Deal establishment toits survival during the Cold War yearsunder the leadership of the CaliforniaParents’ Association for Child Care(CPACC) and its eventual demise as anunintended consequence of the liberalpolicies of the War on Poverty.Fousekis provides more than an institutionalhistory of CPACC. She delineatesthe shifting child care coalitionsof the Council of Industrial Organizations,the Communist Party, the Congressof American Women, and theCalifornia League of Women Voters inthe early years to the single mothers,early-childhood educators, and powerfulmale political leaders in the 1950sand 1960s. She highlights the strategiesof the activist mothers, who, alongwith educators, deployed the childcare centers as their base of operation.There they furnished potluck dinnersand child care services to organizemothers and some fathers for letterwritingcampaigns, media blitzes, andvoter registration drives.Fousekis details the activist mothers’most successful strategies of writingletters to newspapers and politiciansand testifying before state hearings totell their personal stories, claim theirsolidarity with other working women,and define themselves as good mothersfor economically supporting theirchildren without taking handouts. Theeducators’ coalition supplementedthe Cold War maternal rhetoric byexplicitly upholding child care centersas a bulwark against communism.Together, the mothers and educatorscoalition portrayed child care centersas service providers for cities and children,replacing the pre-1948 liberallanguage of child care as a social rightfor working women.Demanding Child Care’s strengthsemerge from Fousekis’s efforts toshow the empowerment of the workingpoor, who kept alive the child caresocial programs during the Cold War.She describes the leadership in minibiographies,summarizes their letters,and relates their development of across-race child care coalition. Evenmore importantly, she complicates ourunderstanding of the political turnfrom liberalism to conservatism in herexplanation of the program’s demisein 1972.Fousekis shows how the War on Poverty’sblind spot about the working poorled to their replacement by women onwelfare. This policy change contributedto the popular perception that governmentprograms supported only welfarerecipients. The fifth and sixth chaptersare must reads for historians interestedin the shift from liberalism toconservatism.Demanding Child Care’s strengths alsoengender its weaknesses. By focusingon the activists’ successes and failuresat politicking, Fousekis minimizes howchanging discourses of class and raceshaped the reception of their strategies.Despite this limitation, DemandingChild Care deserves a wide audienceamong historians of women, the workingclass, grassroots politics, the state,and conservatism.69

eviewsraCial beaChhead:diversiTy anddemoCraCy in amiliTary TownBy Carol Lynn McKibben (Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press, 2011,352 pp., $80.00 cloth, $24.00 paper,$24.95 eBook)REVIEWED BY ROGER W. LOTCHIN, PROFESSOROF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CARO-LINA AT CHAPEL HILL, AND AUTHOR OF thEBAD City in thE gooD WAr: sAn frAnCisCo,los AngElEs, oAklAnD, AnD sAn DiEgoCarol Lynn McKibben has set outto end the neglect of small towns, suburbs,and military towns in the historicalliterature. By so doing she wantsus to understand the multiculturalismthat is the future of urban America. Asthe “Public Historian for the City ofSeaside, California, and the Director ofthe Seaside History Project,” she is wellpositioned to do these things. Seasideis one of the cities around Monterey,California. It began as a neglectedsuburb of Monterey, which originatedwhen one John Roberts bought 164acres of land from the Jacks Corporationin order to create a town. Hisdream languished throughout the ProgressiveEra and the 1920s, but thencaught fire in the Great Depression,growing 300 percent, quadruplingin the 1940s, and doubling again inthe 1950s. Demographically, it is aremarkable story of suburban growththat eventually sent its numbers pastits parent city of Monterey, 37,969 to31,410 by 1989. Ever since Brooklynsurpassed Manhattan in population inthe nineteenth century and as recentlyas San Jose’s eclipse of San Francisco,American suburbs have been transformingthe urban landscape in unexpectedways.Professor McKibben, who is also alecturer in history and co-coordinatorof the public history/public servicemajor at Stanford University, makesthe argument that what is now thecity of Seaside was a leader in the civilrights movement, which largely derivedfrom its location adjacent to Fort Ord,where integration was mandatory. Thereviewer should have recused himselffrom this duty because he served hisarmy training in the 1950s under anintegrated system. One of my platoonsergeants was African American andone was white, and neither was particularlyoutstanding. However, bothmy field first sergeant and companycommander were black and wereoutstanding.McKibben cements this assertionof benign military influence tointegration repeatedly and it is onethat we can all applaud. It is notas certain that Seaside is diverse,since 80 percent of its populationis African American. Most of theChinese, Japanese, Italians, Filipinos,Portuguese, Okies, and “whites”are gone. McKibben further arguesthat the media has presented biasedcoverage of blacks, concentratingon their failures rather than theirsuccesses. Instead, she presents aheartening discussion of a blackmiddle class that refused to fleethe city as both black and whitemiddle classes have done elsewhere.They remained to fight successfullyproblems caused by drugs and crime.Unfortunately, the editors at StanfordUniversity have let McKibben downby allowing numerous stylisticshortcomings to corrupt the text,especially overlong sentences andendless repetition of word andthought. There are a few factualerrors as well. John Roberts could nothave lobbied “President Roosevelt” tocreate Fort Ord in 1910—Rooseveltwas no longer president in thatyear. But most of the information isaccurate. Overall, this is a workman/woman-like effort that breaks newground on several different topics.It nicely complements McKibben’swork on the Italians in CanneryRow and bids fair to fulfill theauthor’s seeming quest to flesh outcompletely the ethnohistory of theurban Monterey Peninsula.70California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

CaliFornia indianlanGuaGesBy Victor Golla (Berkeley:University of California Press, 2011,400 pp., $72.00 cloth, $90.00eBook)REVIEWED BY ROSALYN LAPIER, LECTURER,NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES DEPARTMENT,UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, AND MEMBER OFTHE PIEGAN INSTITUTE, A NONPROFIT ORGA-NIZATION DEDICATED TO RESTORING ANDREVITALIZING NATIVE LANGUAGESMost people who “read” this bookwill treat it as an encyclopedia of theAmerican Indian languages withinCalifornia. It can be read from start tofinish, but few will do this. Most readers,especially Native peoples of California,will search this book for their particularlanguage community and willfind a treasure trove of information.After painstaking research and time,the author includes within his workevery Native language spoken withinthe state. California is a geopoliticalstructure with odd boundaries thatcut across a great diversity of Nativegroups and their languages. There isno uniformity of languages, cultures,or histories among California’s variousNative groups. The author, though,recognizes this and addresses all languagesdespite the diversity.Victor Golla divides his work into fiveparts. The first provides a short introductionwith a basic description of thediversity of languages found withinCalifornia. The second covers a historyof the study of languages withinthe state, including the earliest westerndescriptions of Native languages(before statehood) and the work offamed ethnologists and anthropologists.Within this section are brief biographiesof the principal researchers ofCalifornia languages.The third part of Golla’s work constitutesthe majority of the book. Eachlanguage is discussed within subsections:geography, documentation andsurvival, linguistic structure, andnomenclature. This segment of thework includes detailed and valuablemaps of the language communities, aswell as photographs and informationabout the Native collaborators. Golladeserves credit for this; it is rare evenin today’s world that collaborators areidentified. This will be of great interestto the Native communities themselvesas they move toward language and culturalrevitalization. Such transparencyis helpful not only to Native communities,but to scholars now and in thefuture who study those communities.The fourth part of the book offers atheoretical discussion of how Californiamight exist as a unique linguistic area.This section is written perhaps morefor the academician than the generalpublic. The fifth part gives a briefexploration of the prehistoric nature ofCalifornia Indian languages.This work can be used by both theacademy and community. Althoughsome parts are technical in nature andwill be difficult for community peopleto understand without some formaltraining in linguistics, each section ofthe book offers something useful. Forthe academician, this book can be thestarting point for further investigationor provide the information needed forlinguistic reference.booKs For reviewPlease send to:James J. RawlsReviews Editor, California HistoryCalifornia Historical Society678 Mission StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105-401471

Join theCaliforniaLegacyCircleInclude the CaliforniaHistorical Society in yourestate planningWoman dancing to guitar music as other people clap alongCHS Collection at the University of Southern California.Title Insurance and Trust / C.C. Pierce Photography Collection, CHS-M20543We invite you to make your legacyCalifornia’s legacyPlanned gifts—through a bequest, charitable trust, or other estategiving vehicle—will ensure that your passion for California historywill continue to be expressed long into the future by becoming amember of the California Legacy Circle.California Historical Society supporters become members of theCalifornia Legacy Circle when they communicate to CHS thatthey have included CHS in their estate plans. Once we receive thisinformation, your name will be listed prominently as a memberof the California Legacy Circle in our membership publication,California History.Your StateYour HistoryYour Historical SocietyFor more information please contact 415.357.1848 x215 oremail legacy@calhist.orgCalifornia Historical Society678 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94105

donorsINDIVIDUALS$10,000 and aboveMr. Jon Christensen, Palo AltoMr. Stephen LeSieur, San FranciscoMrs. Jeanne S. Overstreet, Bennington, VTArthur & Toni Rembe Rock, San Francisco$5,000 to $9,999Mr. Sandy & Mrs. Linda Alderson, New York, NYMr. & Mrs. S. D. Bechtel, Jr., San FranciscoMr. John E. Brown, RiversideMr. Robert Chattel, Sherman OaksMr. Yogen & Mrs. Peggy Dalal, Menlo ParkDr. Maribelle & Dr. Stephen Leavitt,San FranciscoMr. John L. & Mrs. Susan L. Molinari,San FranciscoMr. Thomas R. Owens, San FranciscoMs. Helen Zukin, Beverly Hills$1,000 to $4,999Jan Berckefeldt, LafayetteMrs. May Blaisdell, OaklandBill & Claire Bogaard, PasadenaMr. & Mrs. Andrew E. Bogen, Santa MonicaMs. Joanne E. Bruggemann, Redwood CityMrs. John Edward Cahill, San RafaelBrian D. Call, MontereyMs. Alice Carey, Pope ValleyMr. Michael Carson & Dr. Ronald Steigerwalt,Palm SpringsMrs. Leonore Daschbach, AthertonMr. Bob David, A.I.A., San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. R. Thomas Decker, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Reid W. Dennis, WoodsideMr. & Mrs. Ray Dolby, San FranciscoMr. Bill & Mrs. Ilse L. Gaede, San FranciscoMrs. Gloria Gordon Getty, San FranciscoJustice & Mrs. Arthur Gilbert, Pacific PalisadesMr. Fredric Hamber, San FranciscoErica Hartig Dubreuil, UplandMr. Robert & Mrs. Kaye Hiatt, Mill ValleyMr. Austin E. Hills, San FranciscoMr. Sean A. Johnston, San FranciscoMr. George Kennedy, Santa CruzMr. Hollis G. Lenderking, La HondaMr. Ray & Mrs. Lynn Lent, San RafaelLinda Lee Lester, GilroyMr. Bruce M. & Mrs. Cynthia Lubarsky,San FranciscoMs. Loretta A. McClurg, San MateoMr. William S. McCreery, HillsboroughMr. Fielding M. McGehee III & Dr. RebeccaMoore, San DiegoMs. Mary Meeker, New York, NYDrs. Knox & Carlotta Mellon, Carmel HighlandsMr. Holbrook T. Mitchell, NapaMr. Steve Moore, Los AltosMr. Mark A. Moore, BurlingameMr. Ken Moore, Los AltosMr. Richard Moscarello, Westlake VillageMr. Peter Johnson Musto, San FranciscoConstance Peabody, San FranciscoRick & Laura Pfaff, San FranciscoDr. Edith & Mr. George Piness, Mill ValleyMrs. Cristina Rose, Los AngelesMr. Adolph Rosekrans, Redwood CityMrs. Charlotte Schultz, San FranciscoMr. H. Russell Smith, PasadenaMr. & Mrs. Steven L. Swig, San FranciscoJohn & Andrea Van de Kamp, PasadenaMr. A.W.B. Vincent, Monte Carlo, MONACODavid & Rene Whitehead, SebastopolMr. Peter Wiley, San FranciscoMr. Walter J. Williams, San FranciscoMrs. Alfred S. Wilsey, San FranciscoMs. Sheila Wishek, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Richard C. Wulliger, Pacific PalisadesMr. Paul M. Wythes, Palo AltoMr. & Mrs. Lee Zeigler, San Francisco$500 to $999Ms. Judith Avery, San FranciscoMr. Milton Axt, San FranciscoMr. Ted Balestreri, MontereyMs. Marie Bartee, San FranciscoMr. Michael & Mrs. Marianne Beeman,WoodlandJanet F. Bollinger, SacramentoMr. Ernest A. Bryant, III, Santa BarbaraMr. Ted Buttner, SunolMrs. Park Chamberlain, Redwood CityMs. Lisa Chanoff, San FranciscoMr. Robert Coleman, OaklandMr. & Mrs. John C. Colver, Belvedere-TiburonRenate & Robert Coombs, OaklandMr. David Crosson & Ms. Natalie Hala,San FranciscoMs. Karen D’Amato, San CarlosMr. & Mrs. William Davidow, WoodsideMr. & Mrs. Joseph E. Davis, Laguna BeachMr. Lloyd De Llamas, CovinaFrances Dinkelspiel, BerkeleyMr. & Mrs. Frederick K. Duhring, Los AltosMr. & Mrs. Gordon Fish, PasadenaMr. & Mrs. William S. Fisher, San FranciscoMrs. Donald G. Fisher, San FranciscoMr. Bill S. & Mrs. Cynthia Floyd, Jr.,Portola ValleyMs. Myra Forsythe, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Launce E. Gamble, San FranciscoMs. Pam Garcia & Mr. Peter Griesmaier, OaklandMr. Harry R. Gibson III, South Lake TahoeDr. Erica & Mr. Barry Goode, RichmondMr. & Mrs. Richard W. Goss II, San FranciscoMs. Lucy Hamilton, Lexington, KYMr. & Mrs. Joe Head, San JoseMr. & Mrs. Alfred E. Heller, KentfieldMr. & Mrs. Robert E. Henderson, HillsboroughMs. Ruth M. Hill, Daly CityJanice & Maurice Holloway, San FranciscoZachary & Elizabeth Hulsey, BurlingameMrs. Katharine H. Johnson, Belvedere-TiburonMr. & Mrs. G. Scott Jones, Mill ValleyMr. Douglas C. Kent, DavisMr. David B. King, FremontMr. Robert Kleiner, Mill ValleyMrs. E. Lampen, San FranciscoMs. Judy Lee, Redwood CityMr. Bill Leonard, SacramentoMrs. Betsy Link, Los AngelesMr. Robert London Moore, Jr., Verdugo CityMr. Robert S. Macfarlane, Jr., Olga, WAMs. Rosemary MacLeod, Daly CityNeil MacPhail, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Leonis C. Malburg, VernonMr. Stephen O. Martin, San MateoMs. Cathy Maupin, San FranciscoMr. Michael McCone, San FranciscoMrs. David Jamison McDaniel, San FranciscoMr. Ray McDevitt, Mill ValleyMrs. Nan Tucker McEvoy, San FranciscoMr. Robert Folger Miller, BurlingameMr. George A. Miller, San FranciscoMrs. Bruce Mitchell, BurlingameMr. Lawrence E. Moehrke, San RafaelMrs. Albert J. Moorman, AthertonSusan Morris, Belvedere-TiburonMr. Tim Muller, San Francisco73

donorsMr. & Mrs. Peter J. O’Hara, SonomaDr. Ynez Viole O’Neill, Los AngelesMr. & Mrs. W. Robert Phillips, YountvilleMr. Kevin M. Pursglove, San FranciscoMrs. Wanda Rees-Williams, South PasadenaMr. James Reynolds, BerkeleyMs. Carol Rhine-Medina, San FranciscoMr. Daniel W. Roberts, San FranciscoMr. Allen Rudolph, Menlo ParkMr. Michael Rugen & Mrs. Jeannie Kay,San FranciscoMr. Paul Sack, San FranciscoFarrel & Shirley Schell, OaklandMrs. Teresa Siebert, CarmichaelMs. Margaretta Taylor, New York, NYMr. Robert Telfer, San MateoMs. Catherine G. Tripp, San RafaelJane Twomey, San FranciscoMr. Richard C. Warmer, San FranciscoMr. Bill C. & Mrs. Jeanne Watson, OrindaMr. Paul L. Wattis, Jr., PaicinesStein & Lenore Weissenberger, Mountain ViewKathleen Weitz, San FranciscoMr. Steven R. Winkel, BerkeleyMr. Daniel Woodhead, III, San Francisco$250 to $499Mr. Matt Adams, San FranciscoMr. Richard Anderson, Redwood CityMr. George H. Anderson, HollisterDr. & Mrs. Michael J. Antonini, San FranciscoMr. Scott C. Atthowe, OaklandMr. & Mrs. Peter Avenali, San FranciscoMr. Richard Banks, Santa BarbaraMr. & Mrs. George D. Basye, SacramentoKaty & John Bejarano, San MateoMary Ann & Leonard Benson, OaklandMr. Robert Bettencourt, CoyoteMs. Lynn Bonfield, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Dix Boring, San FranciscoBetty Borne, San FranciscoMs. Barbara Bottarini, San FranciscoMr. DeWitt F. Bowman, Mill ValleySusan Brandt-Hawley, Esq., Glen EllenMr. Neal Brockmeyer, La Canada FlintridgeMrs. William H. V. Brooke, San FranciscoMs. Carmelita Brooker, EscondidoMr. Mark Brown, Walnut CreekMr. & Mrs. William Cahill, RossMs. Christina E. Carroll, San FranciscoMr. Curt & Mrs. Robin Canton, BerkeleyMr. Alfred Cavanaugh, San FranciscoMr. Gordon Chamberlain, Redwood CityMr. Fred Chambers, San FranciscoMr. Michael Charlson, OaklandMr. & Mrs. Herman Christensen, Jr., AthertonDr. James & Dr. Linda Clever, Mill ValleyMr. John Coil, Santa AnaMr. David J. Colt, San FranciscoMr. Darrell Corti, SacramentoMr. Jeff Craemer, San RafaelMr. Brandyn Criswell, Saint HelenaMrs. Suzanne Crowell, San MarinoMr. & Mrs. Gerald B. Cullinane, OaklandMr. Keith Cunningham, PortlandMs. Gail C. Currey, San FranciscoMr. Bill Davidson, Redwood CityMr. & Mrs. R. Dick, HealdsburgMr. Gilmore F. Diekmann, San FranciscoMs. Laura Bekeart Dietz, Corona Del MarMr. & Mrs. William G. Doolittle,Carmel By The SeaMr. David Drake, Union CityMr. David A. Duncan, Mill ValleyMr. John East, SaratogaMr. Robert M. Ebiner, West CovinaMs. Elsbeth L. English, West CovinaMr. & Mrs. Robert F. Erburu, West HollywoodJacqueline & Christian Erdman, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. John Fisher, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. James C. Flood, San FranciscoHelene & Randall Frakes, San FranciscoMr. Perry Franklin Fry, San FranciscoMr. Michael S. Gagan, Los AngelesMr. & Mrs. Milo Gates, Redwood CityMr. Karl E. Geier, LafayetteMr. Thomas R. Gherini, San MateoMr. George T. Gibson, SacramentoMr. & Mrs. John Stevens Gilmore, SacramentoDr. & Mrs. George J. Gleghorn,Rancho Palos VerdesMr. J. Jeffrey Green, MontereyMr. Fred F. Gregory, Palos Verdes PeninsulaMr. James Grieb, PacificaMrs. Richard M. Griffith, Jr., Belvedere-TiburonMs. Jeannie Gunn, BurbankCharles & Ginger Guthrie, RichmondMr. & Mrs. Timothy J. Hachman, StocktonMr. Noble Hamilton, Jr., GreenbraeMr. & Mrs. L. W. Harris, Jr., CarmelCarl & Jeanne Hartig, Alta LomaMr. & Mrs. David Hartley, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Scott M. Haskins, San FranciscoMrs. Barbara Hayden, PasadenaMr. Warren Heckrotte, OaklandMr. Edward Helfeld, San FranciscoMs. Stella Hexter, OaklandMs. Linda K. Hmelo, San FranciscoCharles D. Hoffman, San FranciscoMr. Eric H. Hollister, Palo AltoMr. William L. Horton, Los AngelesMr. Stephen H. Howell, San FranciscoMr. William Hudson, San FranciscoMr. Robert C. Hughes, El CerritoMr. Richard Hyde, Belvedere-TiburonMrs. Lon F. Israel, Walnut CreekMrs. Sylvia G. Johnson, Los AltosMs. Carol G. Johnson, Redwood CityMr. Charles B. & Dr. Ann Johnson, HillsboroughJames & Paula Karman, ChicoHarold Kellman, FremontMr. Wayne T. Kennedy, San CarlosSusan Keyte, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. George S. Krusi, OaklandMr. Michael Kurihara, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Gary F. Kurutz, SacramentoIrmgard Lafrentz, San JoseCorrine & Mike Laing, CarmichaelJudith Laird, Foster CityMr. Wade Lamson, LafayetteMr. & Mrs. William C. Landrath, CarmelDrs. Juan & Joanne Lara, PasadenaMr. Jeri Lardy, El Dorado HillsMr. & Mrs. Jude P. Laspa, San FranciscoMr. Leandro Lewis, HealdsburgJerri Lightfoot, FremontMrs. Robert Livermore, Danville74California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

Ms. Janice Loomer, Castro ValleyMr. Tim Madsen, Santa CruzMr. John J. Mahoney, Pleasant HillFrancis R. Mahony, III, June LakeMr. & Mrs. Thomas H. May, OakvilleMr. John McBeth, LafayetteWm. C. Corbett, Jr. & Kathleen McCaffrey, FairfaxMs. Mary Ann McNicholas, AlamedaMs. Rachel Metzger, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Burnett Miller, SacramentoMr. & Mrs. O’Malley Miller, PasadenaGuy Molinari, Upper Saddle River, NJMs. Alicia Morga, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Joe W. Morganti, BerkeleyMs. Elaine Myers, San FranciscoAndrew T. Nadell, M.D., San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Richard Nelson, VallejoWilliam & Carland Nicholson, RossMs. Joanne Nissen, SoledadMrs. Katherine Norman, OrindaMr. Stanley Norsworthy, FresnoMs. Mary Ann Notz, BurlingameMr. Thomas E. Nuckols, South PasadenaMs. Harriett L. Orchard, CarmichaelMs. Kathleen O’Reilley, San MateoDr. Thomas J. Osborne, Laguna BeachMs. Diane Ososke, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Richard C. Otter, Belvedere-TiburonMs. Mary J. Parrish, San FranciscoMr. Warren Perry, San FranciscoJames Brice & Carole Peterson, PleasantonDr. & Mrs. John O. Pohlmann, Seal BeachMs. Bonnie J. Portnoy, San RafaelMr. Herbert C. Puffer, FolsomMs. Janice Ransley, LafayetteMr. Richard W. Reinhardt, San FranciscoMr. Terence Riddle, San FranciscoDaimar Robinson, Salt Lake City, UTMr. Robert E. Ronus, Los AngelesJeanne Rose, San FranciscoMrs. Benjamin H. Rose III, San FranciscoMr. Rudolfo Ruibal, RiversideMs. Mona Rusk & Mr. Thomas E. Farr, LafayetteMs. Susan Sesnon Salt, Borrego SpringsMrs. A. Sawyer, AthertonMr. Bernard Schulte, Jr., OrindaMr. Jacob Gould Schurman, IV, San FranciscoRev. Thomas L. Seagrave, San MateoMr. Robert J. Sehr, Jr., AlamoMr. & Mrs. Frederic Shearer, Essex, UKMr. David Sheldon, Menlo ParkMr. John B. & Mrs. Lucretia Sias, San FranciscoMs. Jan Sinnicks, PetalumaMr. Keith Skinner, BerkeleyMs. Harriet Sollod, San FranciscoMr. Martin & Mrs. Sherril A. Spellman, FremontMr. Robert & Mrs. Susan Spjut, San FranciscoMr. Sanford D. Stadtfeld, SausalitoMr. Issac & Mrs. Madeline Stein, AthertonMr. & Mrs. Moreland L. Stevens, NewcastleMr. Daniel E. Stone, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Stephen L. Taber, San FranciscoMr. & Mrs. Anson Blake Thacher, OjaiMr. Arnold Thackray, Menlo ParkMs. Lynne Tondorf, Daly CityMr. Richard L. Tower, San FranciscoMr. Thomas Tragardh, San FranciscoMs. Marilyn Tragoutsis, San MateoMr. Gerald F. Uelmen, SaratogaMr. Christopher VerPlanck, San FranciscoMr. Don Villarejo, DavisMr. Paul A. Violich, San FranciscoMr. Peter Wald, San FranciscoMs. Barbara J. Webb, San FranciscoJosh Weinstein & Lisa Simmons, Santa MonicaMs. Willy Werby, BurlingameMiss Nancy P. Weston, Scotts ValleyWalter & Ann Weybright, San FranciscoKathleen W. Whalen, SacramentoMr. Warren R. White, San FranciscoMr. Thomas J. White, OaklandMr. Ed & Mrs. Patti White, Los AltosMrs. J. Wiest, RiversideMrs. Edwin Woods, Santa MariaMs. Nancy C. Woodward, CarmichaelMr. Robert A. Young, Los AngelesMs. Deborah Zepnick, CalabasasCORPORATE, FOUNDATION& GOVERNMENT SUPPORT$200,000 and aboveCouncil on Library & Information Resources,Washington D.C. / The Andrew MellonFoundation, New York$50,000 to $199,000San Francisco Foundation, San FranciscoThe S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, San Francisco$10,000 to $49,999Bland Family Foundation, Saint Louis, MOGrants for the Arts, San FranciscoSherwin-Williams, Richardson, TXThe Barkley Fund, Menlo ParkThe Bernard Osher Foundation, San FranciscoUnion Bank of California Foundation,Los AngelesUnitedHealthcare, Cypress$1,000 to $9,999Cal Humanities, San FranciscoChanel, Inc., New York, NYDerry Casey Construction, Inc., San FranciscoDodge & Cox, San FranciscoGordon & Betty Moore Foundation, Palo AltoHearst Corporation, San FranciscoJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJLouise M. Davies Foundation, San FranciscoMoore Dry Dock Foundation, San FranciscoSansome Street Advisors, San FranciscoSilicon Valley Community Foundation,Mountain ViewThe Alice Ross Carey Fund for Conservation,San FranciscoThe Chrysopolae Foundation, San FranciscoThe Consulate General of Switzerland inSan Francisco, San Francisco$250 to $999Band of Angels, LLC, Menlo ParkChevron Texaco Matching Gift Program,Princeton, NJCypress Lawn Memorial Park, Daly Cityht Lehmann Consulting, SausalitoJRP Historical Consulting LLC, DavisLeona & Donald Davis Fund, GreenbraeLimoneira Company, Santa PaulaMacTon Foundation, Los Angeles2Raymond K. & Natha Ostby Foundation, SaratogaStanley Stairs, Esq., New York, NY75

donorsIN KIND DONATIONSDennis Agatep Photography, OaklandKirk Amyx, San FranciscoAmyx Photography, San FranciscoAnchor Brewing Company, San FranciscoAnchor Distilling Company, San FranciscoApertifs Bar Management, Santa RosaBarbary Coast Conservancy of the AmericanCocktail, San FranciscoBelfor Property Restoration, HaywardDavid Burkhart, San BrunoJohn Burton, Santa RosaCavallo Point, SausalitoChandon, YountvilleHafner Vineyard, Alexander ValleyH. Joseph Ehrmann, San FranciscoDrakes Bay Oyster Company, InvernessEvvy Eisen, Point Reyes StationElixir Cocktail Catering, San FranciscoElixir Saloon, San FranciscoDaniel Godinez, Half Moon BayHearst Ranch Winery, San SimeonKappa, Daly CityKatzgraphics, San FranciscoLa Boulange Café & Bakery, San FranciscoLagunitas Brewing Company, PetalumaLoyola Marymount University, Los AngelesLuxardo, San FranciscoKevin & Nancy Lunny, InvernessRichard Ramos, San MateoSafeway, San FranciscoSentinel, San FranciscoSt. Regis, San FranciscoSquare One Organic Spirits, San FranciscoThe Candy Store, San FranciscoTrader Joe’s, San FranciscoUnited States Bartenders GuildWhitehead & Porter LLP, San FranciscoWorking Girls Café, San FranciscoCALIFORNIA LEGACYCIRCLEestate gifts receivedNorth Baker, TiburonElise Eilers Elliot, Marin CountyMuriel T. French, San FranciscoJ. Lowell Groves, San FranciscoLouis H. Heilbron, San FranciscoArthur Mejia, San FranciscoMs. Mary K. Ryan, San Francisco76California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

OFFICERSROBERT CHATTEL, Sherman Oaks, PresidentR. THOMAS DECKER, San Francisco, Executive Vice PresidentSTEPHEN LeSIEUR, San Francisco, Vice PresidentTHOMAS R. OWENS, San Francisco, Vice PresidentCRISTINA ROSE, Los Angeles, Vice PresidentLARRY GOTLIEB, Sherman Oaks, SecretaryJOHN BROWN, Riverside, TreasurerBOARD OF TRUSTEESMELINDA BITTAN, Los AngelesALBERT CAMARILLO, Palo AltoIAN CAMPBELL, Los AngelesJON CHRISTENSEN, Palo Alto/Los AngelesTONY GONZALEZ, SacramentoFRED HAMBER, San FranciscoROBERT HIATT, Mill ValleyGARY KURUTZ, SacramentoSUE MOLINARI, San FranciscoBEVERLY THOMAS, Los AngelesHAROLD TUCK, San DiegoRALPH WALTER, Los AngelesBLANCA ZARAZÚA, SalinasCALIFORNIA HISTORICALFOUNDATION BOARDDEWITT F. BOWMAN, Mill Valley, PresidentBILL McCREERY, HillsboroughEDITH L. PINESS, Mill ValleyDAVID BARRY WHITEHEAD, San Franciscoon the back coverThis paper-crane assemblage was created by San Francisco-based graphicdesigner Kit Hinrichs for the exhibition “The Art of Gaman: Arts and Craftsfrom the Japanese American Internment Camps, 1942–1946,” which was firstshown at the Museum of Craft and Folk Art in San Francisco (November 2,2006–February 25, 2007) before touring the United States.Crafted in the traditional Japanese art of origami (“folding paper”), the flag isarranged over a May 3, 1942, federal notice giving residents of Japanese ancestryone week to evacuate their homes. Such announcements were posted onbuildings and telephone poles throughout California following America’s entryinto World War II.Forced to leave their homes along the West Coast for guarded camps in remoteinland areas, about 120,000 ethnic Japanese lived as prisoners without rights—though two-thirds were U.S. citizens. In Hinrichs’s assemblage, the paper cranesrecall the barbed wire that imprisoned both the internees and democracy itself ina time of heightened security.Charles Wollenberg examines the internment controversy in his essay, “‘DearEarl’: The Fair Play Committee, Earl Warren, and Japanese Internment” (pages24–53).Courtesy of Kitt Hinrichs; www.studio-hinrichs.comPRESIDENTS EMERITIJAN BERCKEFELDT, LafayetteMARIBELLE LEAVITT, San FranciscoROBERT A. McNEELY, San DiegoCARLOTTA MELLON, Carmel HighlandsEDITH L. PINESS, Mill ValleySTEPHEN L. TABER, San FranciscoJOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Los AngelesEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EMERITUSMICHAEL McCONE, San FranciscoSPECIAL ADVISORHUELL HOWSER, Los AngelesFELLOWSWILLIAM N. DAVIS JR., SacramentoRICHARD H. DILLON, Mill ValleyCHARLES A. FRACCHIA, San FranciscoROBERT V. HINE, IrvineGLORIA RICCI LOTHROP, PasadenaJAMES R. MILLS, CoronadoJAMES JABUS RAWLS, SonomaANDREW ROLLE, San MarinoEARL F. SCHMIDT JR., Palo AltoKEVIN STARR, San FranciscoFRANCIS J. WEBER, Mission HillsCHARLES WOLLENBERG, Berkeley79

spotlightPhotographerArnold HylenLocationLos AngelesJosephine Baker, Los Angeles, California, 1947, HillStreet Theater; fromerly at S.W. Corner of 8th & HillSilver gelatin printCalifornia History Section,California State Library, SacramentoLos Angeles photographer ArnoldHylen (1908–1987) wrote the followingon the back of this beautifulphotograph of singer JosephineBaker (1906–1975): “Between WW Iand II U.S. born ‘La Bahkair,’ as theFrench called her, was one of the mostfamous stars of the Parisian musichalls. Because of racial insults sufferedduring this visit she terminatedher engagement abruptly and did notreturn to Los Angeles until severalyears later. Local critics agreed she wasone of the most sparkling personalitiesever seen on the local stage—and theywere certainly right.”This dramatic photograph of the AfricanAmerican star is one of approximatelyfive hundred original prints byHylen in the California State Library’sCalifornia History Collection. All havebeen digitized and may be searchedonline. This gentle Angeleno was theart director for the Fluor Corporation,and beginning in the 1940s, spentmany Sundays (his day off) photographingthe vanishing architecture ofdowntown Los Angeles. Sensitive to hiscity’s heritage, he recorded many architecturallandmarks before the bulldozerand wrecking ball of urban developmentchanged forever the face of thecity of Angeles. Fortunately, Hylen carefullylabeled his images and includedadded information, such as his movingcommentary on Baker’s unfortunateexperience. Dawson’s Book Shop ofLos Angeles published two books of hisphotographs, Bunker Hill: A Los AngelesLandmark (1976) and Los Angeles beforethe Freeways, 1850–1950: Images of anEra (1981).Gary F. Kurutz80California History • volume 89 number 4 2012

I See Beauty in This Life:A Photographer Looks at 100 Years of Rural CaliforniaLes Bruhn, Bodega Bay, with “Queen,” won 2nd place, 26th annual Fox WesternInternational Sheep Dog Trials at California Ram Sale, Sacramento, 1964.Photographer unknown, silver gelatin print, 3 x 3 inches. California HistoricalSociety, California Wool Growers Association photographs (PC 014), PC 014.002.tif.Lisa M. Hamilton, Ashley, Riata Ranch Cowboy Girl, Tulare County, 2011,chromogenic print, 24 x 24 inches. Courtesy of the artist.October 28, 2012 through March 24, 2013Galleries of the California Historical SocietyOver the past two years, writer and photographerLisa M. Hamilton has been telling the stories ofrural communities in her multimedia work RealRural. For this exhibition she has delved into thecollections of the California Historical Society toconnect these present-day stories with the past.Featuring close to two hundred photographs, I SeeBeauty in This Life is a combination of large-scalecolor prints by Hamilton and her selections fromCalifornia Historical Society’s vast photographycollections—material dating from the 1880sthrough the mid-twentieth century.This exhibition is part of Curating California, a newprogram through which remarkable Californiansexplore our rich collections with the goal of inspiringa project or exhibition.678 Mission StreetSan Francisco, California 94105Your StateYour HistoryYour Historical Society