Washington Press, 1961), 26; Thomas Burke, “A Plea for Justice.”
65. Burke, “A Plea for Justice.”
66. Burke’s decisions run counter to the trend observed by Matthew Jacobson
and David Roediger that Irish immigrants and Irish Americans denigrated
black and Chinese workers to elevate their own racial status. Matthew Frye
Jacobson, Whiteness of a Dif er ent Color: Eu ro pean Immigrants and the
Alchemy of Race (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999);
David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the
American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991). Other historians have
also argued that Irish workers drove the anti- Chinese movement; see Mary
Roberts Coo lidge, Chinese Immigration (New York: Holt, 1909), 270;
Miller, The Unwelcome Immigrant, 195–199; Alexander Saxton, Indispensable
Enemy: Labor and the Anti- Chinese Movement in California (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1971), 27–30; Neil Shumsky, The Evolution of
Po liti cal Protest and the Workingmen’s Party of California (Columbus: Ohio
State University Press, 1991), 28, 220. Though Irish workers and Irish
Americans were involved in the anti- Chinese movement, there is no
evidence that the Irish led the movement or viewed it as ethnically based.
Rather, it appears that East Coast and nativist presses focused on Irish
involvement primarily out of ethnic bias. The Monitor, July 24, 1869, and
August 6, 1870. In violation of the whiteness thesis, Irish leaders actively
NOTES TO PAGES 159–164
309
recruited African Americans to the anti- Chinese movement. See Daily
Morning Call, July 22, 1877; SFCH, November 20, 1877.
67. Nesbit, He Built Seattle, 190–191; SDC, November 6, 1885.
68. Thomas Burke to Hon. H. F. Beecher, February 15, 1886, box 22, file 17,
TB.
69. Thomas Burke to Louisa Ackerson, February 21, 1886, reel 10, TB;
Arthur S. Beardsley, draft manuscript (1959), box 1, file 37, Washington
State Historical Society, Olympia; unknown author, “Or ga nized Militia in
the Chinese Incident in Seattle,” box 1, file “Military Affairs: Chinese
Riots,” Watson Squire Administration, Washington State Archives,
Olympia.
70. Wynne, Reaction to the Chinese in the Pacific Northwest, 274; Clarence
Bagley, History of Seattle, 468.
71. Ibid., 469–470.
72. Contemporaries and historians disagree on who took the first shot. From
the evidence presented at the subsequent trial, it was most likely the
militiamen. Nesbit, He Built Seattle, 203–204; Hunt, Washington West of
the Cascades, 1:305.
73. Nesbit, He Built Seattle, 203; Hunt, Washington West of the Cascades, 1:306; Territory vs. Thomas Burke et al., case file no. 4864 (King County, 1886),
WSA / TDC.
74. Haller, “Diary,” February 9, 1886, box 4, vol. 2.
75. Squire, “Squire, Watson Carvosso, 1838–1926,” 21.
76. Thomas Burke to Louisa Ackerson, February 21, 1886.
77. Thomas Burke to Rev. J. F. Ellis, February 17, 1886, reel 10, TB; see also
Thomas Burke to unknown, February 15, 1886, reel 10, TB.
78. King County Bar Association, “Resolutions Adopted at a Meeting of the
King County Bar, Held in Seattle, Wash. Ter. February 27th, 1886,”
Special Collections, University of Washington, Seattle. It is unclear how
large a role Burke played in drafting these resolutions, but the similarity
between the resolutions and his speech the previous November is
striking.
79. Territory vs. Thomas Burke et al.
80. Ibid.
81. When Burke became counsel for Great Northern, he made Chin Gee Hee
the labor contractor and general agent. Madeline Yuan- yin Hsu, Dreaming
of Gold, Dreaming of Home: Transnationalism and Migration (Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press, 2000), 159–160.
310
NOTES TO PAGES 165–171
82. Haller, “Diary,” November 5, 1885, February 7, 9, 1886, box 4, vol. 2.
83. J. W. Sprague to President Grover Cleveland, December 17, 1885, in Squire,
Report of the Governor, app. 31; Washington Territory Legislature to
Congress, “Concerning the evils arriving from the Presence of Chinese
on the Pacific Coast and Praying for Suitable Legislation to Remedy the
Same,” January 29, 1886, 49th Cong., HR49A- H9.1, National Archives,
Washington, DC.
.
6 THE EXCLUSION CONSENSUS
1. Charles Denby to Thomas Bayard, October 10, 1885, USDS / DDO;
Charles Denby to Thomas Bayard, enclosure from the Chinese Foreign
Office, October 9, 1885, USDS / DDO; Charles Seymour (U.S. consul) to
James D. Porter (assistant secretary of state), March 7, 1886, doc. 52,
American Diplomatic and Public Papers: The United States and China,
series 2, vol. 13, ed. Jules Davids (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources,
1979), 193.
2. Charles Denby to Foreign Office, March 7, 1886, enclosure tele gram,
in Charles Denby to Thomas Bayard, March 10, 1886, USDS / DDO;
Shanghai Courier, July, 1886, enclosure, in Charles Denby to Thomas
Bayard, August 10, 1886, USDS / DDO.
3. Charles Denby, China and Her People: Being the Observations, Reminiscences
and Conclusions of an American Diplomat, 2 vols. (Boston: L. C. Page,
1906).
4. Charles Denby to Thomas Bayard and enclosures, March 10, 1886,
USDS / DDO; Imperial Court to Zhang Zhidong (Chang Chih- tung),
March 9, 1886, pt. 3, item 7, ZS, 112; Zhang Zhidong to the Imperial
Court, memorial, June 16, 1886, pt. 3, item 14, ZS, 115–119.
5. Negotiation for the Protection of the Chinese in the United States,
March 18, 1887, doc. 64, The United States and China, series 2, vol. 13,
277.
6. Charles Denby to Thomas Bayard, August 10, 1886, USDS / DDO.
7. As quoted by Shanghai Courier, December 2, 1886, enclosure, in Charles
Denby to Thomas Bayard, December 6, 1886, USDS / DDO.
8. Kornel Chang, Pacific Connections: The Making of the U.S.- Canadian
Borderland (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012), 4–5; Amy
Kaplan, The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 15.
NOTES TO PAGES 172–174
311
9. Jean H. Baker, Afairs of the Party: Po liti cal Culture of Northern Demo crats
in the Mid- Nineteenth Century (New York: Fordham University Press,
1998), 198–211.
10. As quoted by Andrew Gyory, Closing the Gate: Race, Politics, and the Chinese
Exclusion Act (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 149.
11. Gerrit W. Gong, The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 6; Brett Bowden, The Empire of Civilization:
The Evolution of an Imperial Idea (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2009), 103–107, 121; Michael Schaller, The U.S. and China: Into the
Twenty- First Century, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002),
13; Gordon H. Chang, “Whose ‘Barbarism’? Whose ‘Treachery’? Race and
Civilization in the Unknown United States– Korea War of 1871,” Journal of
American History 89, no. 4 (March 2003): 1331–1336, 1362–1365; Br
yna
Goodman and David S. G. Goodman, eds., Twentieth- Century Colonialism
in China: Localities, the Everyday, and the World (New York: Routledge,
2012), 1–20; Teemu Ruskola, “Canton Is Not Boston: The Invention of
American Imperial Sovereignty,” American Quarterly 57, no. 3
(September 2005): 859–888.
12. David L. Anderson, Imperialism and Idealism: American Diplomats in
China, 1861–1898 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985);
Michael H. Hunt, The Making of a Special Relationship: The United States
and China to 1914 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983); Delber L.
McKee, Chinese Exclusion versus the Open Door Policy, 1900–1906: Clashes
over China Policy in the Roo se velt Era (Detroit: Wayne State University
Press, 1977).
13. 13 Cong. Rec., 2616 (1882).
14. As quoted by Charles Callan Tansill, The Foreign Policy of Thomas F.
Bayard, 1885– 1897 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1940; New York:
Kraus, 1969), 151. Citations refer to the Kraus edition.
15. A. A. Hayes, “The Retiring Chinese Minister,” Harper’s Weekly, April 17,
1886; Ching- Hwang Yen, Coolies and Mandarins: China’s Protection of the
Overseas Chinese during the Late Ch’ing Period (1851– 1911) (Singapore:
Singapore University Press, 1985), 221–229.
16. Thomas Bayard to L. Q. Lamar, November 7, 1885, Letter Book, vol. 194,
Thomas Bayard Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
17. Walter LaFeber, The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion,
1860–1898, 35th anniversary ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1998), 20; Chang, Fateful Ties, 49–89.
312
NOTES TO PAGES 175–178
18. Thomas Bayard to Cheng Tsao Ju, February 18, 1886, Notes to the Chinese
Legation in the United States, 1834–1906 (microfilm copy), RG59 M99,
roll 13.
19. Thomas Bayard to Charles Denby, December 26, 1885, Letter Book, vol. 195,
Thomas Bayard Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
20. Charles Denby to Thomas Bayard, August 11, 1886, USDS / DDO; Denby
to Bayard, March 10, 1886.
21. Zhang Zhidong (Chang Chih- tung) to the Imperial Court, Memorial,
June 16, 1886, pt. 3, item 14, ZS, 115–119. See also Zheng Zaoru (Cheng
Tsao Ju) to the Imperial Court, Tele gram, February 16, 1886, pt. 3, item 6,
ZS, 111–112; The Board of San Francisco Chinese Consolidated Benevolent
Association to the General Department, Tele gram, February 17, 1886, ZS, 112.
22. Denby to Bayard, March 10, 1886.
23. Zhang Yinhuan (Chang Yin- haun) to Imperial Court, August 14, 1886, pt.
2, item 21, ZS, 94–96; Zhang Yinhuan to American Foreign Ministry,
August 14, 1886, pt. 2, item 22, ZS, 96–98; “Regulations of Chinese Labor,”
1886, pt. 2, item 23, ZS, 98–99; Zhang Yinhuan to Imperial Court,
memorial, May 18, 1888, pt. 3, item 22, ZS, 123–124. For the Bayard- Chang
(Bayard- Zhang) Treaty, see Tansill, The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard;
John A. Grenville and George Berkeley Young, Politics, Strategy and
American Diplomacy: Studies in Foreign Policy, 1873–1917 (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1966); Yen, Coolies and Mandarins; Shih- Shah Henry
Tsai, The Chinese Experience in Amer i ca (Indianapolis: Indiana University
Press, 1986); Charles J. McClain, In Search of Equality: The Chinese Strug gle
against Discrimination in Nineteenth- Century Amer i ca (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1994), 191–192; Adam M. McKeown, Melancholy Order:
Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2008), 162–171.
24. Yen, Coolies and Mandarins, 236.
25. As quoted in McKeown, Melancholy Order, 162–163.
26. As quoted in Tsai, The Chinese Experience in Amer i ca, 8–12; Kil Young Zo,
Chinese Emigration into the United States (New York: Arno, 1978), 8–34.
27. Yen, Coolies and Mandarins, 235–236; Zhang Yinhuan (Chang Yin- haun) to
Imperial Court, August 14, 1886; Zhang Yinhuan to American Foreign
Ministry, August 14, 1886; “Regulations of Chinese Labor,” 1886; Zhang
Yinhuan to Imperial Court, May 18, 1888.
28. The Foreign Office to the United States Minister, August 3, 1886, doc. 54,
American Diplomatic and Public Papers: The United States and China, series
2, vol. 13, 211.
NOTES TO PAGES 178–183
313
29. Denby to Bayard, August 11, 1886, USDS / DDO.
30. Charles Denby, China and Her People, 110–111; Charles Denby to Thomas
Bayard, August 11, 1886.
31. Tansill, The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, 146; Arthur William
Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, 1644–1912, vol. 1, A– O
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943), 60–3; Yen,
Coolies and Mandarins, 234–242.
32. Thomas Bayard to Zhang Zhidong (Chang Chih- tung), January 12, 1887,
doc. 60, American Diplomatic and Public Papers: The United States and
China, series 2, vol. 13, 261.
33. Zhang Yinhaun to Qing Court, report, August 14, 1886, pt. 2, item 30, ZS,
102–140; “An Act to indemnify certain subject of the Chinese Empire for
losses sustained by the vio lence of a mob at Rock Springs, in the Territory
of Wyoming,” chap. 253, 24 Stat. 418 (February 24, 1887) ; Tansill, The
Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, 147.
34. As quoted by Tansill, The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, 150.
35. Historians now estimate thirty- four were killed. R. Gregory Nokes,
Massacred for Gold: The Chinese in Hells Canyon (Corvallis: Oregon State
University Press, 2009).
36. Chang Yen Hoon to Thomas Bayard, August 16, 1887, Notes from the
Chinese Legation 1868–1906 (microfilm), RG59 M98, roll 2.
37. 19 Cong. Rec., 406–422 (1888); 17 Cong. Rec., 6226 (1886); Grenville and
Young, Politics, Strategy and American Diplomacy, 56. The investigation
took place in July 1887.
38. 19 Cong. Rec., 1620 (1888). Senator John Sherman recounted previous
attempts by the Committee of Foreign Relations in 1886 and 1887 to
petition for a new treaty.
39. As quoted in Tansill, The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, 154; Grover
Cleveland to Thomas Bayard, December 18, 1887, Thomas Bayard Papers,
Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Alyn Brodsky, Grover Cleveland:
A Study in Character (New York: St. Martin’s, 2000), app. 2, 454–456;
Richard E. Welch Jr., The Presidencies of Grover Cleveland (Lawrence:
University of Kansas Press, 1988), 65, 72–73.
40. Thomas Bayard to Charles Denby, March 17, 1888, Letter Book, vol. 7,
Thomas Bayard Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; NYT,
March 28, 1888.
41. “Report of the Secretary of State to the President,” in “Message from the
President of the United States,” March 12, 1888, doc. 72, American Diplomatic
and Public Papers: The United States and China, series 2, vol. 13, 294.
314
NOTES TO PAGES 184–188
42. Thomas Bayard to Charles Denby, April 21, 1888, Letter Book, vol. 7,
Thomas Bayard Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; 18 Cong.
Rec., 8364–8367 (1888). The two amendments were as f
ollows: “And this
prohibition shall extend to the return of Chinese laborers who are now in
the United States, whether holding return certificates under existing laws
or not”; “And no such Chinese laborer shall be permitted to enter the
United States by land or sea without producing to the proper officer of the
customs the return certificate herein required,” doc. 76, American
Diplomatic and Public Papers: The United States and China, series 2, vol. 12,
298–299.
43. As quoted by Tansill, The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, 162–163,
165; Thomas Bayard to Grover Cleveland, April 17, 1888, Letter Book, vol.
7, Thomas Bayard Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; “An Act
to Prohibit the Coming of Chinese Laborers to the United States,”
chap. 1015, 25 Stat. 476 – 477 (September 13, 1888).
44. Yen, Coolies and Mandarins, 238; Li Hongzhang to the General
Department, tele gram, July 23, 1888, pt. 3, item 23, ZS, 124; General
Department to Zhang Zhidong, tele gram, July 24, 1888, pt. 3, item 24, ZS,
124; McKeown, Melancholy Order, 169–170; Tsai, The Chinese Experience in
Amer i ca, 82; Yen, Coolies and Mandarins, 238–240. Structural prob lems
within the Chinese government may also have contributed to the lack of
ratification. Shih- shan Henry Tsai, China and the Overseas Chinese in the
United States, 1868–1911 (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1983),
1–3.
45. Grenville and Young, Politics, Strategy and American Diplomacy, 60; NYT,
September 2, 19, 1888; Tansill, Foreign Policy of Thomas Francis Bayard,
165–166.
46. 18 Cong. Rec., 8227 (1888).
47. Ibid; NYT, September 4, 1888.
48. 18 Cong. Rec., 8217, 8364–8367, 8297 (1888).
49. It appears Mitchell understood that since the bill was an amendment to the
Chinese Restriction Act, it would expire in 1892 if not renewed.
50. 18 Cong. Rec . , 8217, 8570 (1888).
51. The General Department to Zhang Yinhaun, tele gram, September 24,
1888, pt. 3, item 29, ZS, 126; Tansill, The Foreign Policy of Thomas F.
Bayard, 167, 173.
52. Charles Denby to Thomas Bayard, September 20, 1888, USDS / DDO.
53. As quoted by Tansill, The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, 179, 171, 174.
NOTES TO PAGES 189–191
315
54. 19 Cong. Rec., 9052 (1888); “A Supplement to ‘An Act to execute certain
The Chinese Must Go Page 45