Chinese Immigration:
Origins and Opinions

Pro and Anti-Exclusion

Truth Versus Fiction.  Photo Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
[xF870 C5 C51 v. 2:1]

Debates waged both in and out of Congress over the Chinese exclusion bill.  Many who were pro-Chinese exclusion based their acceptance of the bill on the plight of the American workingman, but in order to gain more support exclusionists added the idea of race to the issue.  Many of the debates led to the use of racial epithets and stressed the idea of white superiority over yellow inferiority.[1]  Many senators referred to the problems they faced during Reconstruction and how the intermingling of races simply did not work.  Senator Jones, a Republican from Nevada stated, “We oppose their coming because our sturdy Aryan tree will wither in root, trunk, and branch, if this noxious vine be permitted to entwine itself around it.”[2]  Senator Morgan of Kentucky testified, “…it has become the solemn necessity on out part to protect the Caucasian race on this continent against the intrusion of the Oriental people.”[3]  Several petitions were also presented in Congress from states throughout over the country begging Congress to pass the exclusion bill.[4]  Those who supported the bill made their points quite clear in regard to its benefits to Americans; specifically noting it would protect the workingman as well as whites.  However, advocates of this piece of legislation still had their work cut out for them because these ideas would not go without opposition.      

            Opponents of the bill could not believe Congressmen were using the race issue to rally support for their cause.  The United States just finished fighting a civil war over the morality of oppressing people on the basis of racial difference.  Many old abolitionists and Radical Republicans understood what it meant to have civil rights.  They believed in the principles of racial equality and opposed Chinese exclusion.[5]  Senator George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts assumed a leadership role with those who were not in favor of exclusion.  The majority of this group came from the Northeast and represented commercial and religious groups.[6]  Henry Dawes, also of Massachusetts, was a prominent adversary of Chinese exclusion.  He asserted “the right of emigration belonged to all humanity” and “the political organization which I am proud to belong to, was summoned into existence for the very purpose of vindicating the equality of the human race upon this continent in all political rights.”[7]  Hoar and Dawes both agreed that the right to move from one country to another was “an American doctrine…this is sacred and principle in our politics.  No man, no state has the right to dispute it.”[8]   

"The Chinese Question" From Harper's Weekly Vol. 15.  Photo Courtesy of the Bancroft 
Library, University of California, Berkeley.  [MTP/HW; Vol. 15: 149]

            The violation of civil rights and the doctrines of the United States were not the only arguments used by the opposition.  The merchant community and those connected with the China trade argued an exclusion law would hamper commercial relations with China.  Trade with China was lucrative and maintaining a good relationship made perfect sense.[9]  Senator Joseph E. Brown of Georgia stated, “China is a vast field open to commerce which ought to be great for white men’s energy and thrift and gain.”[10]  Senator Lapham of New York agreed with Brown when he said:

                  Any legislation which tends to obstruct and restrict immigration from China is contrary to

                  the National Policy which has prevailed since the foundation of the Government: that it

                  would be an unnecessary front to a friendly nation; that would be decidedly prejudicial to

                  the commercial interests of the country, in that it would greatly reduce if not absolutely

                  destroy our growing commerce in China, which promises to be of vast importance to the

                  financial and industrial interests of the United States.[11]

Senator Dawes presented a petition from firms in Boston involved in the China trade asking Congress to consider the effects such legislation would have on international commerce.[12]  Senator Lapham also presented a petition signed by the Board of Trade of the City of New York and others engaged in the China trade.  The petition was also signed by those involved in banking, insurance, dry goods, and the iron trade.  They  pleaded with Congress not to allow a Chinese exclusion bill to pass.[13]  The bill was unfavorable to manufacturing interests and railway corporations on the East Coast because they did not want to lose their opportunity to import cheap labor.[14]

            The clergy, once again, stepped forward to support the Chinese when only a handful would.  Many clergymen were bitter opponents of Chinese exclusion.[15]  The Christian Union, Henry Ward Beecher’s newspaper, was actually requesting Chinese laborers because they were tired of the Irish.[16]  The Boston Congregationalist printed:

                  There is not sufficient evidence of the coming invasion from China to make any

                  restriction necessary.  But were there abundant and conclusive evidence, this bill

                  seems to us to violate our treaty obligations, to be needlessly and dishonorably severe,

                  and to invite reciprocal hostile legislation on the part of the Chinese government.[17]

Congress received a petition from the Methodist Episcopal Church in Waterbury, Connecticut, thanking the President for his veto.  They feared any type of anti-Chinese legislation passed would hinder their missionary interests in China.[18]  Senator Hoar also had memorials signed by pastors of Churches, and some Chinese in their congregations, asking that the exclusion bill not pass.[19] 

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