Women in the 1906 San Francisco Relief Camps: Protest, Leadership, and Survival

In the gray dawn of April 18, 1906, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake shattered San Francisco, and the fires that followed consumed nearly five square miles of the city. Within days, thousands of homeless residents—many of them women and children—streamed into makeshift camps erected in public squares and parks. Jefferson Square, Lafayette Square, and the Ingleside grounds became home to a new society of tents and wooden cottages. Here, women from all walks of life—wealthy matrons with diamond earrings, Irish working-class mothers, Chinese merchants’ wives, and African American refugees—found themselves under canvas, confronting not only the disaster but also the politics of relief. In these camps, women would emerge as leaders, protesters, and organizers, challenging the men who administered the city’s recovery.

What Happened?

The earthquake struck at 5:12 a.m. on April 18, 1906. The fires that followed burned for three days, leaving more than 200,000 people homeless. The city’s relief committee, directed by the military and civilian volunteers, established more than twenty refugee camps in parks and open lots. These camps were managed by the Department of Camps, under the command of Lieutenant Henry T. Scott, who exercised strict control over the refugees and the distribution of aid.

Women entered the camps in great numbers. Many came with children, husbands, and elderly relatives, having lost everything. In the camps, they were assigned tents or wooden “earthquake cottages”—small homes built with relief funds. The camps were not idyllic havens; they were crowded, muddy, and subject to strict rules. Women often had to pay rent on the cottages, a policy that sparked resentment.

Key events involving women include:

• November 3, 1906: Mary Kelly, an Irish working-class mother at Jefferson Square camp, refused to pay rent on her earthquake cottage. Lieutenant Henry T. Scott led ten policemen to forcibly lift the cottage off its site, evicting her. This confrontation was the culmination of Kelly’s long-running protests against relief policies.
• October 1906: Mrs. J.W. Scott, a wealthy woman adorned with diamonds, led a mass meeting at Lafayette Square to protest the relief committee’s plan to move refugees to a distant site at Thirteenth and Fourteenth Avenues. She was a resident of Tent 1, Section G.
• Throughout the summer: Middle-class white women and Chinatown business leaders mobilized resources to support the less privileged, often filling gaps left by official relief efforts.

How It Was Seen at the Time

Contemporaries saw the relief camps as a great equalizer, a place where “the rich and the poor” were thrown together. But the reality was more complex. Many wealthy San Franciscans viewed the camps as “hotbeds of socialism” and wanted them removed from their neighborhoods as quickly as possible. The presence of a wealthy woman like Mrs. J.W. Scott leading a protest was seen as newsworthy precisely because it challenged the assumption that relief camps were only for the poor.

“The meeting was led by Mrs. J.W. Scott, one of the refugees of the camps who lives in Tent 1, Section G. Mrs. Scott was well—almost handsomely attired. In her ears sparkled brilliant diamonds, at her throat was a valuable diamond sunburst, and rich gems sparkled on her white hands.” — San Francisco Call, October 1906

The press often framed women as either pathetic victims or as “heroines” who maintained domestic order in the camps. The image of the “jeweled woman” leading a protest captured the public’s imagination, suggesting that the camps were not the equalizing force that many hoped for. Instead, they were a microcosm of the city’s social tensions.

Historical Snapshot

Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness accounts provide vivid details of women’s experiences. The San Francisco Call described Mrs. J.W. Scott’s protest in October 1906, noting her jewels and her role as a leader. Her account shows that even the wealthy were not immune to the city’s relief policies, and that they used their status to demand better treatment.

Another account comes from the case of Mary Kelly, a middle-aged mother from the Irish working class. As a resident of Jefferson Square camp, Kelly often protested official relief methods. She refused to pay rent on her earthquake cottage, leading to her eviction. The incident was described in a later study of the camps, which noted that she was “a middle-aged mother from the Irish working class” who had been in the camp since April. Her defiance was a rare example of a woman directly challenging the relief authority.

The Calisphere photograph of the Camp Ingleside women’s section shows women in long skirts and aprons, tending to laundry and children, a daily reality that rarely made the newspapers. These women were not just passive victims; they worked to maintain some semblance of normalcy.

Different Perspectives

Working-Class Women

Working-class women like Mary Kelly had the most to lose. They had no savings to fall back on and were dependent on relief. They were the most likely to protest the policies that they saw as unfair, such as the rent for the cottages. Their protests were often direct and confrontational, as seen in the eviction of Kelly.

Wealthy Women

Wealthy women like Mrs. J.W. Scott were also refugees, but they brought with them their social status. They used their influence to challenge the relief committee’s decisions, and they also organized private relief efforts. Their actions were often reported with a sense of awe, as the “jeweled woman” leading a protest.

Middle-Class White Women

According to the study Saving San Francisco, middle-class white women mobilized resources for the less privileged. They worked as volunteers in the camps, distributing food and clothing, and often acted as intermediaries between the refugees and the relief authorities.

Chinatown Business Leaders

The same study notes that Chinatown business leaders organized relief for their community, which was often overlooked by the official relief efforts. They provided food and shelter to the Chinese residents who were otherwise excluded from many of the camps.

Daily Life

Daily life in the camps was a mix of communal effort and hardship. The tents were often crowded, with families of five or more living in a single tent. Women were responsible for cooking, cleaning, and caring for children. They used communal water taps and outdoor latrines. The Camp Ingleside photograph shows a row of tents with laundry hanging out to dry, a sign of the constant struggle for cleanliness in the muddy conditions.

Women also took on the role of the camp’s social leaders. They organized to the distribution of food and clothing, and they often served as informal counselors for other refugees. The relief committee provided basic rations, but women often supplemented them with their own resources or by foraging in the ruins of the city.

How Historians See It Today

Modern historians have challenged the long-held myth that the 1906 disaster erased social differences. In Saving San Francisco, historian Andrea Rees Davies argues that the relief policy actually reinforced social hierarchies. She shows that policy makers directed aid to groups that enjoyed high social status before the disaster, and that the relief camps became sites of social conflict. The story of Mary Kelly and the “jeweled woman” are evidence that women were not just victims but active agents who challenged the relief system.

Emily Neis’s study of “Conflicting Definitions of Relief” further highlights the case of Mary Kelly, showing that working-class women’s protests were not just about material needs but also about the dignity of the poor. The relief camps were a microcosm of the city’s social tensions, and women were at the center of the struggle.

Aftermath

As the city began to rebuild, the camps were gradually dismantled. By the end of 1907, most of the camps had been closed, and refugees were moved to more permanent housing, including the “earthquake cottages” that were sold or moved to lots. Women who had led protests, like Mrs. Scott, returned to their homes, but the experience had a lasting impact. The disaster had changed the city’s social landscape, and the role of women in public life had been temporarily expanded. The camps had given women a new role as public figures, and many continued to be involved in civic affairs after the camps were gone.

The primary sources of the 1906 relief camps—the newspaper reports, the photographs, and the official records—reveal that women were not passive victims of disaster. They were active agents who shaped the relief process, challenged authority, and worked to maintain the dignity of their families. Their stories remind us that even in the most extreme circumstances, human resilience and social action are never far from the surface.