(Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2006). See also Cecilia Tsu,
Garden of the World: Asian Immigrants and the Making of Agriculture in
California’s Santa Clara Valley (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013),
40–46; Sylvia Sun Minnick, Samflow: The San Joaquin Chinese Legacy
(Fresno, CA: Pa norama, 1988); Adrian Praetzellis, Uncovering Sacramento’s
Chinese Pioneers (Washington, DC: U.S. General Ser vices Administration,
1999); Zhengde Wen, “Breaking Racial Barriers: Wo Kee Com pany:
276
NOTES TO PAGE 38
A Collaboration between a Chinese Immigrant and White American in
Nineteenth- Century Amer ica,” Chinese Amer i ca: History and Perspectives
2005, ed. Laurene Wu McClain (San Francisco: Chinese Historical Society
of Amer ica, 2005), 13–17. For Chinese laundries, see Bottoms, The
Aristocracy of Color, 140; for vegetable peddlers, see Chan, This Bitter- sweet Soil, 87–89; for Chinese domestic servants, see Andrew Urban, “An
Intimate World: Race, Migration, and Chinese and Irish Domestic
Servants in the United States, 1850–1920” (Ph.D. diss. University of
Minnesota, 2009); for selling alcohol to Indians, see SPI, September 30,
1878; SPI, May, 1879; for intermarriage with Indians, see SPI, February 1,
1880; Daniel Liestman, “Inter- Ethnic Relations: Chinese and American
Indians in the Nineteenth Century West,” Western Historical Quarterly 30,
no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 327–349; for Chinese in white congregations, see SPI,
August 28, 1879; SPI, November, 22, 1879; on “ imagined communities,” see
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and
Spread of Nationalism (New York and London: Verso, 1991).
68. For examples of interracial intimacy, see Beth Lew- Williams, “ ‘Chinamen’
and ‘Delinquent Girls’: Intimacy, Exclusion and a Search for California’s
Color Line,” Journal of American History 104, no. 3 (December 2017):
632–655; Mary Ting Lui, The Chinatown Trunk Mystery: Miscegenation,
and Other Dangerous Encounters in Turn- of- the- Century New York City
(Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2007); Mae Ngai, The Lucky
Ones: One Family and the Extraordinary Invention of Chinese Amer i ca (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010); Peggy Pascoe, Relations of Rescue: The
Search for Female Moral Authority in the American West, 1874–1939 (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Nayan Shah, Stranger Intimacy:
Contesting Race, Sexuality and the Law in the North American West
(Berkeley: University of California, 2012); SPI, June 19, 1881; SPI, April 16, 1882.
69. USC / WT, 1880.
70. Calculations by Trevon Logan in collaboration with John Parman and
the author on Steven Ruggles, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Josiah
Grover, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series:
Version 6.0 [Machine- readable database], Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, 2015. For segregation mea sure ment by house hold heads, see
Trevon D. Logan and John M. Parman, “The National Rise in Residential
Segregation,” The Journal of Economic History 77 no. 1 (March 2017):
127–170.
NOTES TO PAGES 38–43
277
71. “Principal Chinese Business Firms: San Francisco, Sacramento, Stockton,
Marysville, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Portland, Virginia City, Nev.,
Victoria, B.C.” (Wells Fargo and Com pany, 1882). To compare Chinese in
New York, see Lui, The Chinatown Trunk Mystery, 58.
72. Dooner, Last Days of the Republic, 127, 171 180–181.
73. “Investigation by a Select Committee of the House of Representatives
relative to the Causes of General Depression in Labor and Business; and as
to Chinese Immigration” 46th Congress 2d. Sess. Misc. Doc. No. 5
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, December 10, 1879), 283.
74. White, “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own,” 102, 320–323; for local
examples, see SDC, October 27, 1885; SDC, October 24, 1885.
75. SDC, October 27, 1885; see also Tacoma Daily News, January 5, 1886.
76. Gwendolyn Mink, Old Labor and New Immigrants in American Po liti cal
Development: Union, Party, and State, 1875–1920 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1986), 86.
77. SFCH, November 10, 1877.
78. Daily Morning Call, November 26, 1877; SFCH, November 30, 1877;
Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion (New York: Jesse Haney &
Co., 1878).
79. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 183; For anti- Chinese movements outside the
United States, see Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, Drawing the Global
Colour Line: White Men’s Countries and the International Challenge of Racial
Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 15–48; Chang,
“Circulating Race and Empire,” 678–701; Peter W. Ward, White Canada
Forever: Popu lar Attitudes and Public Policy toward Orientals in British
Columbia, 3rd edition (Montreal and London: McGill- Queen’s University
Press, 2002); John Fitzgerald, Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White
Australia (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2007).
80. Speeches of Dennis Kearney, 13.
81. Pacific Appeal, November 24, 1877, January 19, 1878; SFCA, November 10, 1877; Daily Morning Call, July 22, 1877.
82. Wynne, Reaction to the Chinese in the Pacific Northwest, 76, 83, 492.
83. SPI, October 2, 9, 10, 1876; SPI, January 24, 1877; SPI , March 19, 1877, July 26, 1877; SPI, December 1, 15, 24, 1877; SPI, January 12, 31 1878; SPI, June 7, 1878; SPI, May 1, 1880; SPI, May 29, 1882. Unfortunately, there is little scholarship on Chinese– Native American relations in the nineteenth
century. It is clear that vari ous Native American individuals and tribes
participated in anti- Chinese vio lence, but there has been no systematic
278
NOTES TO PAGES 43–45
study to explain this pattern. See Daniel Liestman, “Inter- Ethnic
Relations: Chinese and American Indians in the Nineteenth Century
West,” Western Historical Quarterly 30, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 327–349;
Jordan Hua, “ ‘They Looked Askance’: American Indians and Chinese in
the Nineteenth Century U.S. West” (honors thesis, Rutgers University,
2012); Cari M. Carpenter and K. Hyoejin Yoon, “Rethinking Alternative
Contact in Native American and Chinese Encounters: Juxtaposition in
Nineteenth- Century U.S. Newspapers,” College Lit er a ture 41, no. 1
(Winter 2014): 7–42. For Canada, see Renisa Mawani, Colonial
Proximities: Crossracial Encounters and Juridical Truths in British Columbia,
1871–1921 (Vancouver and Toronto: University of British Columbia Press,
20019). For theoretical approaches to this nascent study, see Jody A. Byrd,
“Arriving on a Diff er ent Shore: U.S. Empire at Its Horizons,” College
Lit er a ture 41, no. 1 (Winter 2014): 174–181.
84. Wynne, Reaction to the Chinese in the Pacific Northwest, 47–53.
85. On the judicial invalidation of California statutes, see Hirota, Expelling the
Poor, 88–91; Kurashige, Two Faces of Exclusion, 22.
86. Miller, Unwelcome Immigrant, 71–74. For Oregon, see Margaret Holden,
“The Rise and Fall of Oregon Pop u lism: legal theory, po liti cal culture and
public pol
icy, 1868–1895” (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1993),
202–218.
87. For variations of the “California thesis,” see Gary Y. Okihiro, Columbia
Guide to Asian American History (New York: Columbia University Press,
2001), 73–99.
88. 41st Cong. 2nd sess. Congressional Globe 5125 (1870). See also 41st Cong.
2nd Sess. Congressional Globe, 5156 (1870).
89. 43rd Cong. 2nd sess. Congressional Rec ord, appendix 44 (1875).
90. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 71; Hing, Making and Remaking Asian Amer i ca
Through Immigration Policy, 23; “An Act supplementary to the acts in
relation to immigration,” (The Page Act) chap. 141, 18 Stat. 477
(March 3, 1875); Sucheng Chan, “The Exclusion of Chinese Women,
1870–1924,” Entry Denied: Exclusion and the Chinese Community in
Amer i ca, 1882–1943, ed. Sucheng Chan (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1991), 94–146.
91. For the workings of the Page Law, see Elizabeth Sinn, Pacific Crossing:
California Gold, Chinese Migration, and the Making of Hong Kong (Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013), 248–249.
92. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 90.
NOTES TO PAGES 46–50
279
93. RJSCCI, 309, 364; Chinese Immigration. The social, moral, and po liti cal
efect of Chinese immigration. Testimony taken before a committee of the
Senate of the state of California, appointed April 3d, 1876 (Sacramento: State
Printing Office, 1876), 8; Coo lidge, Chinese Immigration, 48, 109.
94. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 138–141.
95. Ibid., 141; 46th Cong. 2d Sess. Misc. Doc. No. 5 Investigation by a Select
Committee of the House of Representatives relative to the Causes of General
Depression in Labor and Business; and as to Chinese Immigration. Dec 10,
1879 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1879), 257; DAC,
February 14, 1879.
96. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 140, 156, 161.
97. The division was largely regional: northeastern and Atlantic politicians,
who represented regions deeply invested in the China Trade, often sided
against restriction. Kurashige, Two Faces of Exclusion, 48–51.
98. Rutherford B. Hayes, Hayes: The Diary of a President, 1875–1881, Covering
the Disputed Election, the End of Reconstruction, and the Beginning of Civil
Ser vice, ed. T. Harry Williams (New York: D. McKay, 1964), 187–189.
99. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 244–245; Hune, “The Politics of Exclusion,” 14–15.
100. Haiming Liu, “Chinese Exclusion Laws and the U.S.- China Relationship,”
Cal Poly Pomona Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 16 (Fall 2003): 153.
101. The Statutes at Large of the United States of Amer i ca, from December, 1881, to
March, 1883, and Recent Treaties, Postal Conventions, and Executive
Proclamations (Washington, DC, 1883), 22: 826–827.
102. Miller, Unwelcome Immigrant, 92.
103. 13 Cong. Rec., 1974 (1882). See also 13 Cong. Rec., 1672, 1674, 1985 (1882).
104. Nathaniel Deering (R- Iowa) as cited by Gyory, Closing the Gate, 236.
105. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 223–225; Louis A. Coo lidge, An Old- fashioned
Senator: Orville H. Platt of Connecticut (New York: Putnam, 1910), 154–156;
Martin B. Gold, Forbidden Citizens: Chinese Exclusion and the U.S. Congress:
A Legislative History (Alexandria, VA: TheCapitol.Net , 2012), 85–216.
106. 13 Cong. Rec., 1517, 1640, 1670, 1702, 1705, 1707, 1739, 2041, 2171 (1882).
107. Kurashige, Two Faces of Exclusion, 48–51.
108. 13 Cong. Rec., 2551–2552 (1882); Gyory, Closing the Gate, 242–243.
109. 13 Cong. Rec., appendix 127, 2608 (1882).
110. Ibid.; 13 Cong. Rec., 2551–2552 (1882); The Oxford En glish Dictionary defines
“restriction” as “a limitation on action” or a “limiting condition or
regulation,” and dates this meaning back to the fifteenth century. Starting
in the sixteenth century, “exclusion” was understood to mean “shutting
280
NOTES TO PAGES 51–52
from a place, a society, etc.” “restriction, n.” OED Online. Oxford
University Press, accessed September 2012, http:// www.oed .com / view
/ Entry / 164022 ? redirectedFrom=restriction “exclusion, n. ” OED Online.
Oxford University Press, accessed September 2012, http:// www.oed .com
/ view / Entry / 65828 ? redirectedFrom=exclusion. Nineteenth- century Americans also used the contrasting terms “restriction” and “exclusion”
when discussing liquor laws. For example, the Congregational Churches of
Connecticut clarified, “Prohibition is restriction with totality added, or
restriction carried to a point of exclusion.” Minutes of the General
Conference of the Congregational Churches of Connecticut at the . . . Annual
Meeting (Hartford, CT, 1886), 4:773–774.
111. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 245; New York Tribune, April 5, 1882.
112. 13 Cong. Rec., 2606 (1882).
113. Ibid., 2609.
114. Historians have overlooked the significant difference between these two
bills, calling them “virtually identical.” Gyory, Closing the Gate, 250; The
Statutes at Large of the United States of Amer i ca, from December, 1881 to
March, 1883, and Recent Treaties, Postal Conventions, and Executive
Proclamations (Washington, DC, 1883), 22, 58–61. For diplomatic
concessions for students, see Madeline Y. Hsu, The Good Immigrants: How
the Yellow Peril became the Model Minority (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton
University Press, 2015), 23–54.
115. In the House, ninety Republicans supported the bill and thirty- four
opposed it. In the Senate, eleven Republicans supported the bill and fifteen
opposed. Gyory, Closing the Gate, 251, 253; “An Act to execute certain treaty
stipulations relating to Chinese,” (the Chinese Restriction Act) chap. 126,
22 Stat. 58 (May 6, 1882).
116. 13 Cong. Rec., 1517–1516, 1640, 1670, 1702, 1705, 1707, 1739, 2041, 2171
(1882).
117. Beth Lew- Williams, “Before Restriction Became Exclusion: Amer ica’s
Experiment in Diplomatic Immigration Control,” Pacific Historical Review
83, no. 1 (February 2014): 24–56. In 1882, there was no national consensus
supporting Chinese exclusion, which is why previous scholars have
strug gled to explain how one emerged. See Okihiro, Columbia Guide to
Asian American History, 73–99; Gyory, Closing the Gate, 6–16.
118. 13 Cong. Rec., 2968 (1882); Chinese Immigration to accompany bill H.R.
5804, 47th Cong., H.R. Rep. No. 1017, pt. 2 (1882).
NOTES TO PAGES 53–55
281
.
2 EXPERIMENTS IN RESTRICTION
1. In the years immediately following 1882, Vancouver Island, which was just
across the border in British Columbia, saw a rec ord influx of Chinese
mi grants. Kornel Chang, Pacific Connections: The Making of the
U.S.- Canadian Borderland (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012),
39. For the much more limited migration from Mexico during this period,
see Patrick Ettinger, Imaginary Lines: Border Enforcement and the Origins of
Undocumented Immigration, 1882–1930 (Austin: University of Texas Press,
2009), 55. For later periods, see Elliott Young, Alien Nation: Chinese
Migration in the Amer i ca
s from the Coolie Era through World War II (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014), 176–179; Julia Maria
Schiavone Camocho, Chinese Mexicans: Transpacific Migration and the
Search for a Homeland, 1910–1960 (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2012); Grace Pena Delgado, Making the Chinese Mexican:
Global Migration, Localism, and Exclusion in the U.S.- Mexico Borderlands
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012). A. L. Blake to A. W. Bash,
September 24, 1884, box 110, folder 2, USCS / RDC.
2. For the use of these federal statistics, see Erika Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates:
Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943 (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 44; Bill Ong Hing, Making and
Remaking Asian Amer i ca through Immigration Policy, 1850–1990 (Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press, 1993) , 24, 47. For federal aggrandizement
under “exclusion,” see Daniel J. Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of
Immigration Control in Amer i ca (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton University Press,
2002), 87–113.
3. Paul Kramer, “Imperial Openings: Civilization, Exemption, and the
Geopolitics of Mobility in the History of Chinese Exclusion, 1868–1910,”
Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 14, no. 3 (2015): 317–347.
Chang, Pacific Connections.
4. For border- making at the periphery, see Peter Sahlins, “The Nation in the
Village: State- Building and Communal Strug gles in the Catalan
Borderland during the Eigh teenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Journal of
Modern History 60, no. 2 (June 1988): 234–263.
5. Nicholas R. Parrillo, Against the Profit Motive: The Salary Revolution in
American Government, 1780–1940 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2013), 360–362; William J. Novak, “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American
State,” American Historical Review 113, no. 3 (June 2008): 752–772.
282
NOTES TO PAGES 55–57
6. Desmond King and Robert C. Lieberman, “Ironies of State Building:
A Comparative Perspective on the American State,” World Politics 61, no. 3
(July 2009): 561–562. This phenomenon in immigration control has been
observed more recently in the Minuteman Proj ect along the U.S.- Mexican
border. Leo R. Chavez, The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants,
Citizens, and the Nation (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008),
The Chinese Must Go Page 40