CASANFRA-L Archives

Archiver > CASANFRA > 2003-09 > 1063140600


From: "Ruth Skewis" <>
Subject: RE: [CASANFRA] San Francisco 1906 Earthquake
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:50:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20030909180302.99796.qmail@web41701.mail.yahoo.com>


Sorry this is so long - but it is interesting... R -

Interesting subject you brought up - I have a copy of Gladys Hansen and
Emmet Condon's book "DENIAL OF DISASTER - The untold Story and Photographs
of the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire of 1906". This is a fantastic 160
page coffee table size book with SO many facts and the best collection of
pictures that I've seen. I'm sure many of you already have a copy - but for
those who don't and have an interest in this subject, you should have one!
I got mine from Amazon.com for $29.95 in August, 2000. There are many
other excellent books on this subject - but it you only want one - this is
the book!

Here are a couple of quotes about the damage caused by the fire vs the
earthquake and the reasoning behind some of these stories/decisions at the
time.

Chapter 3 "Politics of Disaster" - Page 107

"John Caspar Branner, writing in the March 1913 edition of the "Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America" complained of the lack of detailed
information on past California Earthquakes. A Stanford professor of
geology, Brenner had been a member of the 1908 State Earthquake
Investigation Commission". In this article he said, "A major obstacle to
the proper study of earthquakes was the attitude of many persons,
organizations and commercial interests toward earthquakes in general. The
idea back of this false position is that earthquakes are detrimental to the
good repute of the West Coast, and that they are likely to keep away
business and capital, and therefore the less said about them the better.
Shortly after the earthquake of April 1906 there was a general disposition
that almost amounted to concerted action for the purpose of suppressing all
mention of that catastrophe........ we were advised and even urged over and
over again to gather no such information, and above all not to publish it.
'FORGET IT the less said, the sooner mended, and there hasn't been any
earthquake', were the sentiments we heard on all sides".

Chapter 3 (still) - page 111

"Exactly one week after the earthquake, the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE wrote of
a meeting of the San Francisco Real Estate Board where a resolution was
passed that the phrase 'the great earthquake', should no longer be employed.
It would be known as 'the great fire'. Clearly, real estate in San
Francisco would not be worth much if subject to periodic 'acts of God' in
the form of disastrous earthquakes."

Chapter 3 (still) - page 124

"One of the controversial aspects of the struggle, the 'FALLEN BUILDING'
clause, held insurance companies harmless for fire damage following the
earthquake collapse of the building. The clause contained in the standard
policy forms used throughout the United States and Canada read, 'If a
building, or any part thereof, fall except as the result of fire all
insurance by this policy on such building or its contents shall immediately
cease.'"..... "Chairman Atwood of the Fire Underwriters' Adjustment
Committee said, 'The insurance companies are prepared with proofs where
earthquake losses are in dispute... abundance of photographic matter is in
our hands. It will be used to insure fairness on both sides. Incidentally
it may be considered as an extraordinary thing that in the first 2000 claims
submitted to insurance men in San Francisco, after the earthquake and fire,
every man, who filed a claim. swore that his property was uninjured by the
earthquake. I say, this is extraordinary.'" This part of the article goes
on and on with more quotes and comments on this dispute.

The pictures in this book are really outstanding - you definitely get a feel
for the disaster - no matter the cause.

Now for (in my opinion) the best historical novel about this subject - see
AFTERSHOCKS, by Richard Wheeler. It IS a novel - but is based on facts that
the author found in his research.

To long, sorry - but the subject interests me. My grandparents (and very
young parents were in this disaster. I have some snapshots that my
Grandfather Grady took. I don't know the photographic process at that
time - the pix are all sort of blue now - but they look lots like some of
the pix in this book.

Hope you find this interesting and helpful regarding the question of what
caused the most damage....

Ruth
_______________________________________
Ruth(Grady)Skewis - California (USA)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanne Moore [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:03 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [CASANFRA] San Francisco 1906 Earthquake
>
>
>
> I did not see the program; that's interesting about the theory
> that the earthquake caused more damage than the fire. My
> grandfather was there, and according to what he said, it was the
> fire that caused most of the damage.
>
> wrote:Did anyone see the Discovery
> Station program about the 1906 S.F. Earthquake?
> According to Gladys Hanson;there were at least 3000 people killed in the
> Quake. Another 500 were shot by the Army.Discovery Chanel claims
> that most of
> the damage was caused by the earthquake rather than by fire,and
> this was a
> cover-up in order to collect fire insurance.The program had some
> great pictures
> of the damage caused by fire and earthquake.For those people
> researching San
> Francisco;this show is worth seeing
>
> ==== CASANFRA Mailing List ====
> Visit The USGenWeb Project, San Francisco
> http://www.sfgenealogy.com

This thread: