Chinese Immigration:
Origins and Opinions

Politics

"A Matter of Taste" From Harper's Weekly Vol. 23.  Photo Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, 
University of California, Berkeley.  [MTP/HW: Vol. 23: 212].

            Western politicians began introducing bills in Congress to limit Chinese immigration as early as 1867.  However, until the mid 1870s, the anti-Chinese rhetoric brought to Congress by California Congressmen was ineffective.[1]  Congress passed the first restrictive law toward the Chinese with the Page Law in 1875.  The Page Law, passed by President Grant, banned Asians from entering the United States involuntarily for labor purposes and prohibited Asian women from coming to practice  prostitution.  Passage of the law was a small victory for anti-Chinese supporters in California, but on a national level issues of Chinese restriction were placed on the back burner.[2]  In 1876 the Chinese question resurfaced because of the presidential campaign.[3]  Both Democrats and Republicans had anti-Chinese ideas on their tickets.[4]  Although it was an election issue, nothing dramatically changed in regard to Chinese immigration.  In order to bring the issue of Chinese restriction to the forefront, the entire nation had to become involved. 

In an attempt to rally the support of the eastern working class, Dennis Kearney headed east in 1878 to publicize the dangers of Chinese immigration.[5]  Kearney’s efforts were met with mixed reviews.  His support came from the working class and members of labor unions.  However, most saw Kearney’s trip as a complete failure.[6]  The press had a field day denouncing him.  The Boston Transcript called Kearney “a blatant booby” and the Democratic Chicago Times called him “a flatulent little brat”.[7]  Even the labor force had doubts about his message. 

                        It is not enough to say the Chinese must go…for one working man I should

                        hate to give up my situation to a Chinaman or anybody else who offered to

                        do my work as well for a fourth of my wages.  If the proposition to drive the

                        Chinaman into or beyond the Pacific is so shocking to every preconceived

                        idea of justice or wisdom, so hostile to the glorious traditions of this free

                        land, that I want something more than Mr. Kearney’s keynote…Kearney

                        should rely on reason and not prejudice.[8]

Kearney may have been a failure, but overall he made politicians throughout the United States realize Chinese exclusion was indeed an issue.[9]  

"The Ides of March": From Harper's Weekly, Vol. 24.  Photo Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, University 
California, Berkeley.  [MTP/HW: Vol. 24: 177].

            Several bills were introduced to slow down Chinese immigration between 1878 and 1879.  One such bill was the Fifteen Passenger Bill.  The theme of this bill was no vessel should take more than fifteen Chinese passengers aboard if the vessel has the intention of bringing them to the United States.[10]  James Blaine championed this bill:

                        We have this day to choose…whether our legislation shall be in the interest

                        of the American free laborer or the servile laborer from China…You cannot

                        work a man who must have beef and bread and would prefer beer, alongside

                        a man who can live on rice.  It cannot be done![11]

Blaine, a Republican from Maine, was initially the only Congressman east of the Rockies to support Chinese exclusion and of course legislators from the west believed this was the greatest bill ever introduced.  Eventually, Congressmen across the country began supporting the Fifteen Passenger Bill in the name of working class Americans.[12]  Representative Edwin Willits, a Republican from Michigan stated, “My chief reason for supporting such a measure is that I believe it in the interest of American labor.”[13]  

"James Blaine Protecting White Labor" From Harper's Weekly, Vol.23.  Photo Courtesy of the Bancroft 
Library, University of California, Berkeley.  [MTP/HW: Vol. 23: 221]

            A great deal of sentiment against the bill also existed.  Congressman like Hannibal Hamlin and George Frisbie Hoar, both from New England, believed the bill went against the American ideal of equal rights for all men.  Some also asserted the bill was against the Burlingame Treaty and reintroduced ideas of know-nothingism.[14]  The Cincinnati Enquirer stated the bill was nothing but “flimsy flapdoodle” and the New York Tribune asked, “Why should a nation which did not shrink from three millions of Negroes, get into a panic over a party of one hundred thousand Mongolians?”[15]  William Lloyd Garrison stated his thoughts regarding about the bill:

                        Only fifteen the extent!  Would sixteen put this Republic in jeopardy?  If so what

                        assurance have we that fifteen may be safely tolerated?  Really it is difficult in this

                        case which is the greater, absurdity or injustice?  We have allowed all other peoples

                        to take up their abode with us, notwithstanding their ignorance, destitution, unfortunate

                        training, and difference of race; and they have come by the million…[16]

Despite opposition, the bill passed in both the House and the Senate.  However, on March 1, 1879, President Hayes vetoed the bill saying it was against the Burlingame Treaty and would threaten relations between the United States and China; not once did he mention ideas of rights, equality or justice.[17]

              The Fifteen Passenger Bill produced a significant advance for anti-Chinese legislation.  It may have been vetoed, but now the Chinese problem was definitely a nationwide concern.  President Hayes, also remained aware of the Chinese question, so he appointed James B. Angell to revise the Burlingame Treaty with China in order to put a limit on Chinese immigration to the United States.[18]  In 1880, a new ordinance, the Angell Treaty, was signed.  It allowed the United Stated to regulate the future immigration of Chinese laborers whenever the government thought such immigration “affected or threatened the to affect the interest of that country, or endanger the good order of said country, or of any locality within the territory thereof.”[19]  The Chinese government actually restricted its citizens from emigrating by allowing the United Stated to reduce the number of Chinese immigrants entering the country.  The only thing United States officials could not do was absolutely prohibit the immigration of Chinese.[20]  The Angell Treaty was ratified after only five hours of deliberation.  This exhibited  Congress’ acceptance of the Chinese question.  This treatise marked the end of free immigration of Chinese guaranteed by the Burlingame Treaty, and set the stage for the introduction and consideration of the first Chinese exclusion law.[21]

            During the forty-seventh session of Congress in 1882, Senator John F. Miller, a Republican from California, introduced a bill to suspend the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States.  This would include both skilled and unskilled workers, and the exclusionary period proposed was twenty years.  Miller’s bill also provided for a system of registration, certification, and identification for the Chinese already in the United States.  The bill was debated for eight days and received the support of Western Congressmen and Southern Democrats.  However, some men from the East like George Hoar and Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, Joseph Hawley of Connecticut, and George Edmunds of Vermont, were all opposed to the bill because of its content and its timing, coming so soon after the ratification of the Angell Treaty.  All in all, Democrats and Republicans were united on the issue of Chinese exclusion allowing the bill to pass both houses.  The fate of Miller’s bill now rested in the hands of President Chester A. Arthur.[22]

            Not long after the bill’s passage in Congress, China sent Zheng Zaoru to meet with Secretary of State Frederick T. Frelinghuyesen.  Zheng told Frelinghuyesen that Miller’s bill was a clear violation of the Angell Treaty.[23]  The Chinese minister did not agree with the bill because the twenty year exclusion period was not reasonable, certain classes of skilled labor that were permitted in the United States under the Angell Treaty were included in the bill, and the clauses relating to passports and registration were discriminatory to Chinese.[24]  Zheng also told the Secretary of State if the bill were passed Chinese citizens would hold an unfavorable attitude toward the United States.  Frelinghuyesen relayed the Chinese concerns to President Arthur.[25]  Apparently this paid off because the president vetoed the bill based largely on what Zheng shared with Frelinghuyesen.  Arthur’s main reason for the veto was the exclusionary period of twenty years, which he felt was too long.  He also believed the passport system violated the rights of Chinese in the United States and deemed it unnecessary.  Lastly, President Arthur felt passing this bill would create ill feelings between the two nations, causing trade agreements between China and the United States to be destroyed.  The president did not want to lose access to China’s resources because trade with the East did nothing but benefit the United States.[26]  Congress attempted to override the President’s veto but they fell five votes short of the two-thirds majority.[27]

            People across the nation were outraged by the veto, but the most disconcerted were those living on the West Coast.[28]  San Franciscans stated, “if we can’t stop Chinese immigration by legislation, the people are going to have to begin rising up and use acts of violence.”[29]  Of course, there were those who agreed with President Arthur’s decision.  They rejoiced and held parades because of his sound judgment.  These attitudes generally came from east coast residents, in cities such as New York and Philadelphia.[30]  A Chinese supporter expressed the following about Miller’s immigration bill, “I congratulate our country on the wisdom of the President’s veto…The President’s veto is a just and reasonable one.  We admire his conduct….”[31]  Pacific Coast legislators and inhabitants were ready to take the next step in pushing for Chinese exclusion, and introduced a new bill in Congress with the suspension clause reduced from twenty to ten years.[32]

Created by Jaime Boyle
Graduate Student at American University
History in the Digital Age
Professor Robert Griffith
jaime_boyle@hotmail.com

Last Updated 12/06/03