Chinese To "Strike" Over Possible Ban of Their White Women English Tutors After Elsie Sigel Murder

 The wisdom of allowing young white women to help immigrant Chinese men learn English at Sunday Schools was seriously questioned following the discovery in New York City in June, 1909 that one such teacher, 19 year old Elsie Sigel, had disappeared. She was found murdered and stuffed in a steamer trunk in the apartment of a Chinese, Leon Ling, a restaurant waiter with whom she had had a love affair.  Jealousy was thought to be a possible motive as police found love letters from Sigel to another Chinese restaurateur, Chu Gain. 

The incident created considerable anxiety over the ever present dangers that Chinese men presented for white women. 

Newspapers inflamed the panic with articles and depictions such as the one above from the Brooklyn Eagle on June 25, 1909 that branded all Chinese men as predators lurking to attack white women.

One church in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, decided to consider using males in place of the females who had been tutoring Chinese men in English on a one-to-one basis.  In protest, in August, 1909, the 7 or 8 Chinese attending the Sunday School at this church threatened to "strike" or boycott the classes if the plan was implemented, a threat which led the church council to reverse their decision.

News of this decision stirred a heightened outburst of anti-Chinese rhetoric. A letter in an Atlanta newspaper proclaimed, "These carrot-faced little opium fiends are as treacherous as a be hog, and care no more for the Christian religion than a monkey cares for rhetoric," and argued there should be a lunatic asylum for the person responsible for "furnishing every lousy Chink who sneaks into this country with a special young female to teach him how to get to heaven."

The editor added a note for good measure:  "Greensburg's need is not peculiar to itself. These lunatics are not all in Pennsylvania."

 "Echoes of the Sigel Murder"   Jeffersonian (Atlanta, GA) February 3, 1910   Volume  7   Issue   5 Page 16

An intense nationwide manhunt ensued for several years and Leon Ling sightings occurred across the nation when an unfamiliar young Chinese man was spotted in a region. A month later, reports circulated that the Chinese government had officially approved for the Denver Chinese Free Masons, labelled 'Denver Chinks' in the newspaper, to conceal Leon Ling, a rumor denied by the Chinese consul in New York.

Two years after the murder, in June, 1911, it was reported that the Chinese Lothario had been apprehended in a chop suey joint in upstate New York and that a speedy resolution to the case would occur."

That news proved overly optimistic, and the search continued.  Several months later news came on November 23, 1911 that another Chinese assumed to be Leon Ling was sighted in Texas.  

However, this lead, like several others, was false. Leon Ling was never found, and the murder remained unsolved.  

Historian Mary Ting Yi Lui examines the case and its implications for social and sexual relations between Chinese and non-Chinese in depth in her book, The Chinatown Trunk Mystery: Murder, Miscegenation, and Other Dangerous Encounters in Turn-of-the-Century New York City

Postscript: Sept. 17, 1919

A chivalrous Chinatown offered a white woman an umbrella during a rainstorm because he said "New York Missions taught him to be courteous to white women."  To which the judge who fined him $50. commented, "The Sigel murder would have never  occurred if Chinese were not allowed to address white women."

Postscript 2: July 6, 1909

The Sigil murder put all Chinese laundrymen under the eye of suspicion.  In New York Chinese secret societies took the precaution of posting warnings (in Chinese) in Chinese laundries warning  Chinese men not to engage in conversation with white women.

Over Count of Chinese in the Census: Part 2

In an earlier and lengthy post on this blog about how to use the newly released 1940 Census to search for Chinese immigrants, about halfway through the entry under the heading, "Some Strange Findings" I noted that I had found a few instances of a serious over-count of the number of Chinese in a few communities where I was searching for some other purpose.

As noted in that earlier post, the Census uses classification codes for recording information during face to face visits to households.  Thus, in recording the race of the respondent, a code of C2 stood for Colored and C4 for Chinese.  However, I found several instances where the count given for Chinese did not seem valid.  Checking the original census record sheets online, I discovered that the codes had been accidentally reversed, and C2's got counted as Chinese and C4's as Colored, thus inflating the number of Chinese.  

Recently, while on a search for a different reason, I found yet another example in the 1940 Census for Perry County, Alabama.  As shown below, there were about 40 names, none of which "appear" to be Chinese, a suspicion confirmed by examination of the actual online record sheets that revealed they were all African American or in the term used in 1940, Colored.

This problem did not begin with the 1940 Census as I also recently found the same error had occurred in a much earlier census.  The 1910 Census listing for Summerville, Georgia, shown below indicated there were 21 Chinese (only labelled as C on this summary table, but the names in the list do not 'appear' to be Chinese. An online check of the actual record sheets confirmed that none of the 21 were Chinese but were Colored.

I did not check samples from the 1920 or 1930 census, but given that this over count of Chinese occurred in some locales for 1910 and 1940, it is reasonable to assume that the same error may have occurred in those intervening Censuses, and possibly even in some prior to 1910.   I only found the tip of the iceberg, but the exact size of the unseen part of the iceberg remains to be determined. 

Categorizing Chinese

People of Chinese ancestry... are they white? colored? oriental? mongoloid? The categorical labels placed on them have varied over time, place, and purpose.

Consider a study by Jian Li of the Chinese in Charleston, South Carolina at the beginning of the 20th century as an illustration. Chinese were listed in the white section of the Charleston City Directory but Census enumerators most often listed them as Chinese, but sometimes as Mon (Mongolian) or white.

There were only 3 marriages for which certificates could be found although there were probably common-law arrangements between Chinese men and women of other races. Of the three marriage licenses found, one involved a Chinese married to a white woman (1901), another a Chinese married to a black woman (1913) and  one with a Chinese, described on the license as "brown," married to a "brown" woman (1919).

Children of mixed race parentage were considered white if they had Chinese fathers and white mothers and they attended white schools. In contrast if the fathers were Chinese and the mothers were racially mixed, they were classified as black and attended private black schools.  However, children of mixed parentage varied in their self- identification, with some seeing themselves as black, others as mixed, and still others as Oriental or Chinese.

When they died, the death certificate identified them as either white or Chinese but they were buried in the white cemeteries.

1927 Historic Gong Lum v. Rice Mississippi School Segregation Case

Long before the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision in which the U. S. Supreme Court overturned school segregation, there was the Gong Lum v. Rice case decision in which the 1927 U. S. Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's exclusion of a Chinese American girl, Martha Lum, from attending a white school in Rosedale, MS.

Also pre-dating Brown v Board of Education was the 1941 School Board in Clarksdale, MS. denial of a petition supported by the Clarksdale Baptist Church pastor and 88 citizens for admission of the 7-yr old daughter, May (Magen) of Henry and Edith Jue to a white school for the 1941-2 school year. However, the School Board reconsidered and in the fall granted her conditional admission to a white school in Rosedale.

These two Mississippi cases were not the first instances where a Chinese American child was denied the right to attend a white school.

As far back as 1859, Chinese in San Francisco were not allowed to attend white schools.  In fact, San Francisco did not fund any schools at all for Chinese until the landmark 1885 Tape v. Hurley case.  The city lost the case but managed to still exclude Chinese from white schools by building them the Oriental School, a segregated "Chinese Primary School." 

In 1913, objections arose in Covington, Kentucky when Pong Dock applied to attend a white school.


The Hartford, Kentucky paper wrote on Nov. 12, 1913, "The little chubby fellow is an oriental, who, with his brother, intends to make the city of Covington their home in America.  He is fourteen years old... born in America, but his parents took him to China when he was three years old....Two months ago they sent him back to America...He is the first Chinese youth ever to apply for admission to the public schools of Coving.  But to what school does her belong?"  In the end, the Attorney General decided over objections of some white parents that Pong could attend a white school.






And prior to that case in 1910, a young girl from China, Mei Ling Soong, in Macon, Georgia, was denied admission to a white public school.

Interestingly, 33 years later, in 1943 she returned to Macon, as Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, to receive an honorary doctorate from Wesleyan Women's College before throngs of admirers. She was in the U.S. to speak to the U.S. Congress to gain support against Japan during WWII, and to visit Chinatowns to raise money for China.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I WAS AT THIS HISTORIC OCCASION IN MACON, WHERE MY FAMILY WAS THE ONLY CHINESE IN TOWN, AND I AND MY SIBLINGS WERE SUMMONED TO THE EVENT FOR A PHOTO OP, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT RECALL THAT WE ACTUALLY GOT CLOSE TO HER.

Challenges in Obtaining and Using Census Records of Chinese

 Census records are valuable for many reasons. For governments, they are essential for planning.  For historians, demographers, and sociologists, they provide data for research.  And for genealogists, they can inform family histories. But Census records are only as useful as they are complete and accurate or they may lead to faulty conclusions.

Today, most Americans are somewhat familiar with and accepting of the importance of cooperating with census takers.  But in the early years, people were unaccustomed to such procedures and may also have been suspicious and reluctant to answer questions from strangers at their doors.

In 1880, the New York Tribune described some of the experiences in gaining cooperation from residents in answering questions from census enumerators, especially among groups such as the Chinese, many who did not speak or understand English. (Note the often patronizing side comments)

 "The Chinese as a class jealously guard against intrusions into their habitations but the Census Commission, however, opened all the doors yesterday. A person unacquainted in the district might easily enough ask one of the Chinamen all the questions and then 10 minutes afterwards, meeting the same Celestial in another house, innocently endeavor to repeat the examination.  They all look alike.  Most of them were dressed in blue blouses and trousers some more black gowns of material resembling cambric;  and others had discarded entirely the blouse for the costume and short hair,  “Allee samee Melican man.”  Nearly all the Chinese live in basements or first floors. If a door happened to be unlocked the proprietor usually appeared with the proprietor appeared with a gruff, “what wantee.”

A census enumerator in New York Chinatown, 1930. (He may only be asking directions, not counting heads).

"Upon showing him the formidable, official looking book, however, and explaining the object of the visit in very “pigeon English,” the callers were invariably treated with distinguished consideration and in many places were escorted through the house. Some places were plainly furnished, most of them were shockingly dirty, and nearly all were pervaded with the sickening odor of opium smoke. Some of the dialogues with Chinamen were very amusing. When asked if they were married, many of them would answer first, “No,” and then qualify the answer by adding, "not married in America, married in China.”  None of them appeared to be particularly lonesome, however, but nearly everyone of them expressed his intention to return to China as soon as he made "plenty money.”

When asked how enumerators were selected to count Chinese, an official pointed out in another newspaper article in 1880 how difficult it was finding people who could speak Chinese. One Chinese-speaking applicant was not hired because he could not write English even though he could speak it. Also, since the district where most Chinese lived also had many white people, he felt that a Chinese enumerator would not be able to get good cooperation from whites.

While his concerns were probably valid, the use of non-Chinese enumerators evoked the same problems counting Chinese. Moreover, they often confused the given and surnames since they are in reverse order to American names and the phonetic transcription of Chinese names was inconsistent. These problems, in addition to occasional poor pensmanship, make it difficult for genealogical and family history research which require names, and not just demographics and counts, of the residents.

Chinese to the South 3. As Cheap Labor Replacement

A leading labor contractor, Cornelius Koopmanschap, who had earlier success importing Chinese to help build the Central Pacific Railroad made a proposal in 1869 at a Memphis convention of Southern planters to bring Chinese farm laborers to the South to replace black labor lost when slavery ended. He maintained that the Chinese were not only cheaper, but also more reliable workers, but there was also opposition that feared a large influx of Orientals.

        The initial enthusiasm soon waned as Chinese who came did not like to work in the fields, preferring to start their own businesses in grocery stores in the Mississippi Delta and other parts of the South such as Augusta, Georgia. Other Chinese opened hand laundries in many towns in the region.  Competing sources of labor, both black and white, complained about the flood of cheap Chinese labor.

      A Savannah Georgia newspaper article in 1869 indicated that another contractor already had orders for over 600 Chinese for the region around Savannah. In 1874, another article confirmed that 14 Chinese laborers had arrived recently and were working in the rice plantations.

       Resentment was evident among competing sources of labor at the arrival of the Chinese.  In 1884, the Chinese in Augusta tried to defuse the tension by denying that the number of Chinese in their city was in the hundreds as the opposition claimed and insisting that there were no more than 30 Chinamen in the area.

        The Chinese population in the Deep South up until well beyond the middle of the 20th century was never very large.  Some moved to other parts of the country where there were larger Chinese communities, but other Chinese came to the South from northern states and as far away as California seeking economic opportunities.  In many cases, later arrivals were relatives of the earlier generation recruited to come help in the family grocery stores, laundries, and eventually restaurants.

Two Opposing Views of Chinese in early 1900s

Among the many problems faced by immigration officers in processing Chinese immigrants was the language barrier. They did not speak or understand Chinese and most of the immigrants did not speak or understand English.  Hiring Chinese as translators was necessary but the immigration officers were unsure if  they would give accurate or honest translations during interrogations. They worried that some Chinese translators would help a Chinese immigrant pass the interrogation either out of compassion or even bribery.

An extreme example, perhaps, of the suspicion that Immigration officials had of Chinese is found in this 1900 letter in which an official in upstate New York despairs that an "honest Chinaman" interpreter can ever be found, even if we go to Heaven to search for one.

In marked contrast, is the praise a newspaper article heaped upon Chinese children in their native attire, many wearing queues, at the Oriental School in San Francisco in 1908 (at that time Chinese were not permitted to attend white schools).  The journalist fairly gushes over the adorable, intelligent, and polite little Chinese children who show great respect for their teacher.

Today, over a century later, in some respects these opposing attitudes persist. Incoming Chinese immigrants are still looked upon with some suspicion but Chinese school children are admired as model students.

Far Reaching Impact of Gong Lum v. Rice (1927) Supreme Court Ruling

Although this landmark U. S. Supreme Court case, Gong Lum v. Rice (1927) dealt with a challenge to the exclusion of Chinese children from a white school in Mississippi, it had an impact that extended far beyond Chinese or Mississippi.

As reported in the Trenton Evening Times on Nov. 21, 1927, the high court decision had implications for policies at a school in Toms River, New Jersey. Only a few months earlier in June, the State Commissioner of Education had ordered that "colored children of the district who had been grouped in special classes at South Toms River" be readmitted to the school at Toms River. He maintained that special grouping should be imposed only on criteria other than religion, nationality, or color.

However, in the wake of the adverse outcome of the Gong Lum v. Rice case, the new School Commissioner immediately stated on Nov. 27 that the court ruling would permit local school boards "to exercise the right of segregation if they so desire."

Although this article dealt with only one instance, in all likelihood, the Supreme Court ruling for Mississippi encouraged consideration of and, in many places, implementation of restrictions on equal access to schools in many other communities.  It would not be until a quarter of a century later that the U. S. Supreme Court would finally rule against school desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision.

A 1929 Mississippi Miracle Revived By Social Media

A tornado ripped through the tiny town of Duncan, MS. in 1929, "wiping it off the map," according to one newspaper account.  At least 35 deaths occurred including everyone in the Fong grocery store family, save a 4-year old boy, William Joe Fong, who miraculously survived.  Several Chinese grocery store families came to the rescue and helped raise him.  He attended and lived at the Chinese Mission School in Cleveland, MS., went on to serve in the Navy, and settled in California where he married and started a family.  After a successful career as a pharmacist, he enjoyed his retirement in Sunnyvale, CA. until he died in 2007.

Now out of the blue, a long-time Delta resident, Linda Gatewood Bassie,* posted on Facebook the photograph below that was found on the street after the 1929 Duncan tornado.  I was familiar with the story of the orphan Chinese survivor of Duncan from prior research and knew it had to be William Joe Fong. As seen in the chain of posts below, Chinese who grew up in the Delta confirmed the identification and filled in details. Eventually, Carol Fong, William's widow, was informed of the discovery of this photograph, which she gratefully acknowledged, noting it was one that her family had never previously seen.

Facebook has many criticisms, some of which are valid, but here is one example of a positive outcome that was generated through it that would not have otherwise likely to have occurred.

* Linda Gatewood Bassie is the same sharp-eyed person who located, and posted on Facebook,  the 1924 Rosedale School 3rd-4th grade photograph showing Berda and Martha Lum, who were denied admission to a white public school, as described in an earlier post on this blog, an incident that led to the 1927 Gong Lum v. Rice U. S. Supreme Court case.

Small Town Chinese Life: Example of Joplin, MO.

Early Chinese immigrants initially settled on the west coast, but gradually moved to areas in the middle of the country, partly to escape the violence inflicted on "Chinatowns" during the late 1800s in the western states. In the communities where they settled, they were often the only, or among few, Chinese so that they suffered cultural isolation as well as racial prejudices. Moreover, they were not safe from physical violence as they were robbed, assaulted, and even killed.  

For example, in Joplin, Missouri the 1870 U.S. Federal Census listed no Chinese immigrants but in 1880,  at least one Chinese immigrant,  27 year old Lum Wong lived there was described as, “servant – clerk in store.”    A few years later, in1883, an advertisement appeared in the Joplin Daily Herald for a Chinese Laundry. Soon five other Chinese immigrants are listed as residents of Joplin. Due to anti-Chinese prejudices, they were not allowed to work in the mines and had to eke out their living in whatever activities they could find open to them so most, if not all, worked in the laundry business.

In the following decades the Chinese population in Joplin grew and some moved from laundries to open Chinese restaurants, often bringing relatives from China to work as cooks and waiters.

Life was difficult enough without the additional burden of racial prejudice that sometimes led to violence toward them. Some were robbed, assaulted verbally and physically, and even killed. In 1909 one restaurant owner was working late at his restaurant one evening when four strange men entered and sat down as if they were going to order a meal. Without warning, the men jumped to their feet and attacked the Chinese with a blackjack, beating and choking him into unconsciousness.
One evening in January, 1916, a free-for-all erupted at the Shanghai Low restaurant after a patron refused to pay for his dinner. When confronted by the owner of the restaurant, the man put on a pair of brass knuckles and hit him. Chinese wait staff rushed to the rescue which prompted other diners to join the fray. Brass knuckles, a knife, and several chairs were used in the ensuing melee. Sixty year old Jung Ginn was seriously injured when someone hit him over the right eye with a pair of brass knuckles.

Although this example cites the plight of Chinese in Joplin, Missouri in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it is not intended to single out this town. Similar mistreatment of Chinese occurred in many other small towns. In fact, a current website, Historic Joplin, to its credit, acknowledges this terrible past treatment of Chinese immigrants.