Historical Footnotes
8. Vigilance Defies the Governor
Link to Start / Introduction / Table of Contents
8. Vigilance Defies the Governor
This is the fourth in a longer series of Historical Footnotes to California Republic dedicated to the two San Francisco Vigilance Committees. To start with the first Footnote in this series, click here.
After the report of the Grand Jury, declining to prefer charges against the Vigilance Committee for its unlawful public executions, San Francisco was completely in its hands. The Committee spent its energies rounding up the Sydney Ducks and other criminals, interrogating and deporting them. The process became easier as most criminals decided it was best to simply flee on their own terms. But they found little refuge in the vast interior of California. Inspired by the great Committee, the towns of Stockton, San Jose and Sacramento formed their own vigilance committees in cooperation with the San Francisco one.
By mid-August 1851, after two months of Committee rule, San Francisco was remarkably relieved of crime. There'd been but two executions, but these had been apparently sufficient to strike terror into hundreds. Only two convicted criminals remained in custody, both of whom confessed to burglary and arson, and were sentenced to be hanged.
At this point, the state Governor stepped in. He called upon the citizens of San Francisco to support the legally constituted authorities in resisting "the despotic control of a self-constituted association, unknown and acting in defiance of the laws." This sudden interference from the highest tier of government confused the whole community, and only more so after the Committee published, the next day, a notice claiming that the Governor, when meeting with its leadership, had privately approved of all its doings. This strange hypocrisy turned out to be a trick because the Governor at once proceeded to command the San Francisco County Sheriff to recover the two prisoners from the Vigilance Committee Rooms before they could be hanged. The vigilantes guarding them were so surprised by the arrival of the sheriff and his deputies that they allowed the prisoners to be removed without a fight.
Three days later, the Vigilance Committee took revenge. Three dozen members broke into the San Francisco jail, took back their prisoners and, fleeing back with them, hung both out of the upper windows of the Battery Street Committee Rooms before six thousand cheering citizens.
This bold flourish marked the end of the Committee. No legal actions were pursued against its members. San Francisco had expelled the Sydney Ducks, and the Governor of California had been bested in authority by the Vigilance Committee leadership. The Committee closed its rooms and its members returned to their own businesses. But it did not officially dissolve. As late as 1854, three years later, we read from leading editors of San Francisco papers that the Vigilance Committee was thought to be in hibernation, prepared to reappear and reassert control should it be necessary once again.
This final point is most important because the Vigilance Committee that took control of San Francisco in 1856, five years after the initial one, claimed to be the same or its immediate successor. Yet that later Vigilance Committee, far more powerful even than the first and posing a far greater challenge to elected government, was not dealing with a crime wave but was riding massive public indignation at the political and moral culture of The City. San Francisco bent completely to its will, supporting it enthusiastically, very largely because the earlier Committee had been so effective and admired in reflection.