Did Henry Ward Beecher Oppose Chinese Exclusion for Humanitarian or Economic Reasons?

Henry Ward Beecher, one of the most famous men in America around the time of the Civil War, was a clergyman, noted orator, and social reformer who championed the abolition of slavery, advocated women's suffrage, and opposed the exclusion of Chinese immigrants.

In an interview in 1880, on the eve of the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, about his views of who was his preferred candidate for U.S. president, he was also asked about his views on the violence and mistreatment of Chinese in the west. While he was outspoken in deploring the efforts to drive Chinese out of California, his position was not entirely idealistic.  He considered the economic impact, arguing that California needed cheap labor and that driving the Chinese out would set the state back 100 years.

When the reporter pointed out that Chinese were moving to the east, Beecher welcomed this development, "... and let them come We want them."

Again, Beecher was not motivated by idealism, arguing that "we need some foreign element like the Chinese among us to do that labor of the more menial kind that we Americans are getting above doing.

Beecher again revealed economic exploitation as his motivation or opposing Chinese exclusion in his conclusion... ç

Interracial Marriages IV. Children Viewed As "Half-Caste"

Mixed race marriages between Chinese and whites were regarded very negatively until well after the middle of the last century because of the strong prejudices against Chinese.

Of the few marriages of Chinese men to white women in the late 19th century in New York, most were to Irish women, exceeding those to Chinese women by a ratio of 8:5 partly because there were so few Chinese women in America.

Irish were considered white, but they at the low end of the socioeconomic ladder as were the Chinese. Whereas Chinese men had few opportunities to marry Chinese women, Irish women had many Irish men as potential husbands but some of them preferred marrying Chinese than Irish men.

As suggested in a cartoon in the British magazine, PUCK, Irish women could count on a Chinese husband (Ching-A-Ling) to be a good housekeeper who could do the laundry and entertain any children whereas if she married an Irish man, she would have to support a lazy husband.

Mixed Chinese-white children were seen as half-caste and looked down upon.

An Unexpected 1880s Plea: The Chinese Must COME!

     When one thinks about what kind work early Chinese immigrants did, most people think of railroad labor, mining, and farming, followed later by hand laundries and small restaurants.

    It is a surprise, however, that domestic service such as "houseboy" was the third most frequent work for Chinese, more common than laundry work, according to the 1870 census.

   Many Chinese, especially boys too young to be merchants, found work as domestic servants or houseboys for middle class and affluent white families. They performed the domestic tasks usually assigned to women such as cooking meals, washing and ironing clothes, and providing childcare.  Although many of them became "part of the family," they were essentially slaves to their masters and mistresses.  Some missionaries returning from China brought young boys who had served as domestics in their households  in China with them to America. 

   Historian Andrew Urban noted that white middle class families prized having Chinese servants, often in preference to white servants.  “Unlike single white women who were constantly leaving service to assume unpaid domestic labor as married women in their own homes, a Chinese bachelor—often a misnomer, since many immigrants had wives in China—could be counted on to stay in a situation for a longer period of time. Chinese men did not pose the same liability therefore when it came to time spent hiring and training.”

     In the East, Irish were the main competitor for Chinese seeking domestic work. However, Irish had reputations as unreliable or demanding in dealing with the terms of employment whereas Chinese were regarded as compliant, obedient, and docile servants who would follow their employers’ orders diligently. White employers came to assume Chinese immigrants had an innate, racial disposition to servility, overlooking that racism had excluded them from most other forms of labor. 

   

     In marked contrast to the cry of exclusionists in the 1870s that “the Chinese must go,” many white housewives felt just the opposite, wanting more Chinese who could serve the role of domestic servant, as illustrated in an 1880  "Help wanted" cartoon by Joseph Keppler published in Puck Magazine.

       One distinct advantage of domestic service for Chinese was the advocacy of white employers in dealing with immigration issues, travel arrangements, and other problems that most immigrants had to deal with themselves or with translators. They also had more opportunities to learn English and American customs than Chinese living in Chinatowns, advantages that enabled many of them to leave domestic work later to open businesses, gain higher education, and enter professional careers.

       

      Interestingly, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, originally a ten-year ban, but extended for another decade in 1892 with the Geary Act, created a shortage of available Chinese to serve as domestic servants, leading some white housewives to exasperation at the lack of Chinese for domestic labor. A 1902 Oakland, California newspaper commentary noted that the scarcity of Chinese candidates for domestic work created a seller's market in which Chinese made demands and negotiated favorable work conditions before accepting employment. 

Walling Off Chinese Immigrants

       Building walls to prevent immigrants entering the United States illegally is a hot topic under the Trump administration, but this approach is not a new idea.  In 1870, the concept was considered, but never implemented, as a way to prevent hordes of Chinese immigrants coming into the country. 

     

     The current talk of border walls today focuses on our southern border with Mexico, and is directed primarily against illegal entries of Mexicans and Central Americans. However, there is now growing concern that Chinese are also being smuggled across the southern border just as they were over a century ago.

        In addition during the late 1800s, there was concern about Chinese entering the U. S. across our northern border from various points across Canada which was receiving less scrutiny. 

        This 19th century fear of Chinese entering from Canada has largely vanished now and Chinese Canadians probably prefer staying on their side of the border.

         But how effective can physical walls be to prevent those "wily" Chinese from illegal entry? As suggested in the cartoons from Puck at the end of the 19th century, Chinese are like chameleons, able to change their appearance easily and pose as Spaniards, anarchist, Irishmen, Sicilian, English wife-hunter, or  yacht racer." Whereas these disguises are rather unlikely, many Chinese crossed the southern border disguised as Mexicans, back in the day when Mexicans, but not Chinese, were allowed to cross the border freely.

Why Were Chinese "Coolies "Crossing the Missouri" in 1870?

         Is this 1870 drawing published in Harper's Weekly of Chinese "coolies" crossing the Missouri River an accurate rendering of an historical event or a figment of the artist's imagination? Aside from the mistaken use of the term, coolie, which did not apply to 19th century Chinese immigrants, where is this orderly single file line of Chinamen coming from and going to?

The Missouri River, referred to in the caption, flows through Omaha, Nebraska, the starting point for the Union Pacific Railroad which by 1870 had been extended westward to link at Promontory Summit, Utah with the Central Pacific Railroad coming from Sacramento, California to create the transcontinental railroad that linked the U. S. "from sea to shining sea."

Since the transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869, a year before the depicted scene occurred, the Chinese would not be headed west.  Therefore, the scene must be showing Chinese railroad workers after the transcontinental railroad was completed who were coming from Utah to Omaha, and possibly then to further destinations. The label under the drawing reads,

        “Chinese railroad workers crossing the icy Missouri River."

The accompanying text in Harper's Magazine describes the scene of a "Mongolian Invasion" of 250 Chinese workers who had worked on the transcontinental railroad and were now crossing the Missouri River "on a plank walk across the uneven ice on the river to reach Council Bluffs, Nebraska, which was not their final destination. They were headed to Texas to work on railroad construction there. The "celestials," as Chinese were often called in the mid to late 19th century, crossed the river "carrying their baggage on poles balanced over the shoulder, in true Oriental fashion."

Leavitt Burnham, who drew the sketch, was a land surveyor in Nebraska for the United States Government in 1869. In 1870 he passed the bar and practiced law until 1878 when he was appointed Land Commissioner for the Union Pacific Railway company in Omaha.

What might have been Burnham's purpose or thinking behind this drawing? Was he illustrating how Chinese were moving across the country, and not just the Missouri River, to settle in the mid-sections of the United States? The year of the drawing, 1870, is accurate insofar as there were very few Chinese in the midwest or South before that year. However, it is somewhat simplistic to think that the Chinamen marched single file across the river, carrying bamboo poles across their shoulders to balance containers of baggage on each end.

Newspaper Reports of the 1943 Repeal of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act

The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act barring entry of laboring class immigrants from China had a devastating impact of Chinese in America that lasted for decades as it was not repealed until 1943.
During these 61 years, many Chinese families remained separated, with some members in the U. S. and others in China, unable to be reunited. The bachelor societies that were the result of the law denied family formation and the benefits of families for communities. Gambling, opium smoking, and prostitution were some of the consequences for bachelor societies.

Although the repeal of the Act in 1943 was no more than a symbolic and political gesture, permitting the entry of only 105 Chinese each year, from the rest of the world, nonetheless it was an important improvement in the status of Chinese in America and cause for celebration in Chinese communities.

One would not expect as much positive impact for the rest of American society, as the changes to immigration would not have much effect on nonChinese.  Evidence that the repeal on Dec. 17, 1943 was of no special significance to most Americans can be seen in newspaper reports, three examples of which are shown below.

The report of the repeal was buried among the advertisements for movies in the Idaho Register on Dec. 19, among the comic strips in a Pennsylvania paper on Dec. 21, and on the front page at the very bottom of an El Paso, TX. paper on Dec. 18. Clearly, the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act was not considered newsworthy by the American press.

The Barber of Chinatown

Before the 1911 Chinese Revolution overthrew the Qing Dynasty, Chinese immigrant men wore "queues" or a long braided tail of hair at the back of the head as a sign of allegiance to the Manchu. 

It was often mocked by white Americans, and a source of torment for Chinese men.









How did Chinese men have their hair cut? Since they were not welcome in white barber shops, nor did the Chinese wish to patronize white or black barbers, they faced a problem.  An interpreter told the reporter that his countrymen were afraid that they might be decapitated or otherwise injured by colored tonsorial workers.

                               


In 1896, therefore, when Moy Lee opened a "tonsorial parlor" in Washington, D. C., there was occasion for rejoicing according to a local newspaper article that publicized his arrival.

Moy Lee was described as a "dapper little fellow, who struts about his shop proudly attired in a sky blue pea jacket and flowing nether garments of a rather loud pattern."

Guide to Survival English for Chinese Immigrants

New Chinese immigrants who knew little or no English were at a great disadvantage in everyday business and social interactions. One approach to helping them was to publish common phrases or expressions in Chinese along with the English equivalents.  One example is "An ANglo-Chinese General Conversation and Classified Phrases" book by Yee Shu-Nam published in San Francisco by the Service Supply Company.  It bears no date of publication but probably it was published in the early 20th century.  This well-intentioned phrasebook was of dubious value as any user of the guide would probably have difficulty searching through it for the appropriate expression quickly and it could only cover a very limited number of situations.

Take for example, the scenario below which presents a hypothetical dialogue between a non Chinese speaking customer in a Chinese restaurant and the Chinese manager when the patron received pork chops when he had ordered chop suey!

"Poster Boy" for Angel Island Chinese Detainees: The Complex File of Jeong Hop

Chinese immigrants entering the U. S. on the west coast between 1910 and 1940 were detained for quarantine at the Angel Island Immigration Station, where they also underwent intensive interrogations to determine if they were eligible for admission. Because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was in effect from 1882 to 1943, laborers were inadmissible whereas it allowed merchants and their family members to enter if they could provide documents and answer questions about their family and living conditions in their home villages in China.  Chinese devised the "paper son" (or paper daughter) method by which a laborer might purchase the identity papers of someone, most times a fictitious person eligible to enter.

The above photograph of a young Chinese, probably no more than 12 years old and wearing slippers and an ill-fitting suit is the only photograph I have ever seen of an actual interrogation. It is used in many articles about Angel Island Chinese immigration. 

The anxiety that this "poster boy" must have felt during this ordeal must have been overwhelming because one false answer and he might be denied entry and deported.  Since my parents both underwent these detailed and lengthy interrogations, I cringe seeing this photograph as I can imagine that they must have been in the same situation have to face the Immigration officer, a guard, and a transcriber. This young boy must have been able to speak English because there was no translator in the room.

But who was this boy and was he a "paper son" pretending to be someone else or was he the actual son of a merchant?  Did he gain admission or was he deported?  If admitted, where did he live, work, and die?

The December 2017 Angel Island Newsletter included an announcement of a forthcoming 2018 documentary, Chinese Exclusion Act, by Ric Burns and Li-Shin Yu that describes the paper son method in vivid detail.  My attention was drawn to the announcement that was illustrated with a  copy of the Identity Certificate of Jeong Hop, a 10-year-old who arrived at Angel Island claiming to be the "son of a  son of a native."

At first glance of the photo, due to his youthfulness, I wondered if he might possibly the same boy in the 1923 interrogation photo. That would be a very long shot if it were true. However, the certificate showed that Jeong Hop did not arrive at Angel Island  until September, 27, 1940 and he was detained for 2 months until Nov. 25, 1940 when he was admitted.  

As an interesting aside, he may have been one of the last Chinese to leave Angel Island because the facility was closed on November 5, 1940, they processed subsequent immigrants at a location in San Francisco.  So, we still do not know the name and fate of the 1923 "poster boy."

As a consolation, I decided to see what I could find out more about Jeong Hop's case and what happened in his application.  I struck gold when I found an interview in 2006 that focused on his memory of his experiences at Angel Island.

The following excerpt of his interview when Jeong Hop was 76 years old shows how complicated family relationships were for some Chinese immigrants who had to use fake names on their false documents.

How did knowing he was using a false name affect Jeong Hop in how they felt about the deception?




Jeong Hop remembers very little about his life in the Angel Island Immigration Station.  Being only 10 years old, he was adaptable and didn't realize that he was being mistreated.  He had no strong expectations aside from knowing that he had to memorize all the family members and their relationship to him and to destroy his 'cheat notes' before he arrived in San Francisco on the President SS Coolidge in 1940.

In the mid-1950s when the U. S. offered a Confession Program, aimed to stop the use of the paper son entry method, which allowed Chinese to reclaim their real family surnames without penalty.  Jeong Hop gave a detailed account of how this affected his relatives.



Jeong Hop pointed out to the interviewer that he actually was already a citizen before he came over because he was the son of a son of a citizen!

He did have strong feelings about the need for his children and grandchildren to know the history of Chinese in America, especially the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which forced Chinese men to live in a "bachelor society" for decades.

Yes, yes, but the relationship is true, so ah... the name is again as I said the same. My

grandfather--. Out of the nine children that he has, every member...of...one of them, and

one of the nine is my true uncle, he came over here to San Francisco. And another one is

my father, he tried coming over. And he did. He was on Angel Island and he passed oral

interrogation, but the paper says when he came over was that he’s supposed to be about

in his twenties, but he was actually in his THIRTIES. So the immigration look at him and

they think he’s much older than he looks, so they got doctors to examine his physical

body and said, “this person is in his THIRTIES.” And my father, through--my

grandfather, through his attorney, got another doctor, who said this guy is in his twenties.

But the immigration won out and so after a stay in Angel Island for about a year, he was

rejected. So again –again my real father, and since he was rejected, I could not come as a

son because he’s ah...he’s not a citizen. So I took them ah... as son of one of the other

nine children. And at that time in 1940, as we were coming, my grandfather went back to

China about in 1938 to bring my brother and I –my brother’s a year younger thac things you brought wit

Chinese American History Mural by James Leong

James Leong, (1929-2011) an internationally known Chinese American artist, was commissioned in 1952 to paint a mural depicting 100 years of the history of Chinese in America to be placed on a wall in the new federally-funded Ping Yuen housing project for low-income Chinese in the heart of San Francisco Chinatown. Starting on the left side of the 5 x 17.5 foot mural, he depicted Chinese immigrant farmers against the background of the Great Wall as they departed to California, leaving their wives and children, to mine for gold and work on building railroads,  followed by sections with iconic Chinese concepts,  such as a Lion dance during Chinese New Year, image of Chinese women who later came to the U.S.,  a WW II Chinese American soldier in front of a display of awarded combat  ribbons standing atop crumbled papers to symbolize the option to drop "paper names," an  image of a Chinese couple and child assimilated to American clothing and lifestyle, with the new Ping Yuen housing facility in Chinatown on the far right. Some traditional Chinese images such as a dragon, pagodas, and a woman wearing a cheongsam are mixed in American attire such as a business suit and tie for a man.

Unfortunately, his vibrant colored  mural was a controversial work, rejected because some Chinese felt it was "Uncle Tom-ish" or disliked the image of a Chinese wearing a pigtail or queue. Furthermore, the 1950s were a time of tense relations between Communist China and the U.S. and the American government thought the mural might have symbolism with political undertones.

Leong was disappointed, and went to Europe to continue as an artist for decades in Norway as well as in Italy, before returning to the U.S. and living in Seattle where he felt more accepted than in San Francisco where he was born. One Hundred Years of History remained at the Ping Yuen housing, not hanging on a wall in honor, but neglected and placed unceremoniously in a recreation room where children inadvertently spilled soda and food on it or hit it with misdirected ping pong balls.  Finally, in the late 1990s it was salvaged by the Chinese Historical Society of America and painstakingly restored by Leong in 2000, as he describes in the video below, and proudly hung on the wall in the Museum Learning Center since 2001.