A Nation Unremembered:

The Chinese Immigrants in Chicago,

1870-1920

Ilyssa Tuttelman

History Honors Thesis

University of Florida

Advisor: Dr. Steven Noll

Spring 2017

1 Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Noll. Thank you for your unwavering motivation, guidance, and support during the thesis writing process. I could not have imagined a better advisor and mentor for my history honors thesis. In addition, I thank you for your support during the application process to Graduate School.

I would also like to thank Dr. Kroen for shaping my writing over the years and making me a better student. It is hard to believe there was a time before UF in Cambridge where I did not have you to make me a better, more efficient writer. I could not have gotten through the thesis process without you.

Thank you to the entire University of Florida History Department. This department is fantastic and provides all students, including myself, with so many opportunities and professors who truly care about their students. I have never had a History professor who did not challenge me and help me. It is my goal to one-day return to contribute academically to this department.

Last but not least, thank you to my parents. Thank you for reading all my drafts, for debating historical theories with me, and for the unrelenting support and confidence in my endeavors.

Everything I have accomplished, I owe to you both.

2 Abstract

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and anti-Chinese sentiments were widely felt in the city of Chicago from 1870-1920; however, history forgets this and focuses on areas affected by the Gold Rush – California, and major immigration ports – New York. The outcome of the 2016

United States Presidential election and the resulting racist uprisings targeting specific religions and peoples can be directly correlated to the treatment of the Chinese in Chicago and nationwide from 1870-1920. This occurred for instance with the passage of the Scott Act, which acted as an extension of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and created a travel ban for Chinese immigrants, which left about 20,000 Chinese immigrants either stranded within the United States, or elsewhere. The Scott Act has similarities to President Trump’s 2017 Executive Order: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States; which also resulted in thousands of displaced immigrants and a travel ban for certain groups.

3 Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..P. 5

Chapter One………………………………………………………………………………...…..P. 9

Chapter Two……………………………………………………………………………….….P. 20

Chapter Three……….………………………..…………………………………………….…P. 35

Chapter Four……….………………………..……………………………………..……….…P. 44

Conclusion …………………………………………………...…………………………….…P. 49

Work Cited……………………………………………………………………………….……P. 52

4 Introduction - A Scapegoat Nation: the Chinese in Chicago, 1870-1920

“I made up my mind that if our civilization…was to continue, Chinese immigration must be stopped, and I saw in the people the power to enforce that.” - Denis Kearney, anti-Chinese politician, 1889.

A year prior to the creation of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Congress created the Bureau of

Immigration.1 This was meant to uphold the statute of 1891 which aimed to prevent the entry of:

“mentally disturbed persons, persons suffering from a “loathsome or contagious” disease, paupers, persons convicted of a felony or infamous crime or misdemeanor of moral turpitude, and polygamists.2 Chinese immigrants in particular were a community living in a diaspora. They came to the United States tempted by the possibility of a new life due to the California Gold

Rush. However, it is necessary to realize that America was not the first place the Chinese went.

The Chicago Tribune and Harper’s Weekly databases indicate that beginning in 1867, Chinese were emigrating from China to places like Cuba. These Chinese, nicknamed “coolies,” also sought gold and employment in Australia and Peru. They were sent by agents and “only males are sent, and they generally contract for eight years.”3 The average coolie was “industrious, docile, faithful, efficient, and works for small wages, as is to be expected of those who can live at home upon two dollars a year.”4 Furthermore, there are direct parallels between the view of the

Chinese coolies in those countries and in the United States, specifically in Chicago. Twenty years before the passing of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, Americans felt that the Chinese would be an “unnatural addition to this country.”5 By 1885 there was a full-blown Anti-Chinese

1 Roger Daniels and Otis L. Graham, Debating American Immigration, 1882-Present (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001) 14. 2 Ibid, 14. 3 “The Cooly Importation,” Harper’s Weekly, Aug. 31, 1867. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Items/Item008.htm. 4 “Coolies,” Harper’s Weekly, Aug. 14, 1869. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/. 5 Ibid.

5 Hysteria in America. In Harper’s Weekly it is noted that nativist intolerance of Chinese coolies led to violence, destruction of property, riots, and even massacres.6 This spread across the United

States, as exemplified by the Rock Springs Massacre of 1885, Seattle Riot of 1886, and the

Chinese Massacre of 1871 in Los Angeles.

7

6 “The Anti-Chinese Hysteria of 1885-1886,” Harper’s Weekly, 1998-1999. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/2KeyIssues/TheAntiChineseHysteria.htm. 7 “The Anti-Chinese Riot at Seattle, Washington Territory,” Harper’s Weekly, Mar. 6, 1886. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Illustrations/096AntiChineseRiotMain.htm.

6 This is a Harper’s Weekly depiction of the anger, terror, and chaos during the Seattle Riot of 1886. In the article related to the picture, the author speaks of the increased violence spreading across the northwestern United States at the time, against the Chinese:

Since the disgraceful butchery of Chinese in Wyoming several months ago the anti-Chinese feeling in the extreme Northwest has become more violence and more nearly universal.8 The specific mistreatment of Chinese coolies in Chicago is rather unknown. Despite this, the impact and effects felt in Chicago from 1870-1920 are quite noteworthy and crucial to understanding the xenophobic characteristic of this time period. The centralized mistreatment, and blaming of the Chinese immigrants is a concept displayed in the United States still today.

The outcome of the 2016 United States presidential election and the resulting racist uprisings targeting specific religions and peoples can be directly correlated to the treatment of the Chinese in Chicago and nationwide from 1870-1920.

In my thesis, I will discuss the evolution and connection between American and Chinese politicians, and activists to the overall Chinese crisis in Chicago. This anti-Chinese hysteria began in California and was spread because of a specific activist – Denis Kearney. Kearney was a member of the Workingmen’s Party of the United States and traveled throughout the country delivering speeches about the problem of the Chinese. One of his most noteworthy speeches was in Faneuil Hall, Boston on August 5th, 1878 where he describes “a natural and popular uprising of the [Chinese] people.”9 The influence of Denis Kearney and his speeches was widespread across the United States and contributed to the violence that erupted in Chicago. The Chinese moved to Chicago because it was a large city, farm from the California Gold Rush, with

8 “Anti-Chinese Riot at Seattle,” Harper’s Weekly, Mar. 6, 1886. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Items/Item095L.htm. 9 Denis Kearney, “Kearney at Faneuil Hall,” Aug 5th, 1878. https://archive.org/stream/SpeechesOfDennisKearneyLaborChampion1878/78-kearney- speechesofdeniskearney#page/n1/mode/2up.

7 significant economic opportunities. The Chinese were not only restricted to travel, living, and labor circumstances by the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act they were also deemed a problem by

President Grover Cleveland himself. In 1888 Cleveland claimed that, Chinese immigrants provided “an element ignorant of our constitution and laws, impossible of assimilation with our people, and dangerous to our peace and welfare.”10 Although a political leader of a working-class party in California, Denis Kearney had great influence on the situation of the Chinese coolies in

Chicago. Kearney made speaking tours in which he spoke with Presidents about what should be done regarding the Chinese. In response to the increased hatred towards Chinese immigrants,

Chicago Chinese American Wong Chin Foo rose up in defense of his people; however, Illinois

State Attorney opposed him and helped to create a divide and intra-ethnic conflict within the

Chinese coolies in Chicago. This escalated into the murder of Chin Wai by Moy Dong Chew in

1908. Fighting, attacks, and murders continued to escalate as the circumstances for the Chinese worsened due to Kearney’s activism and laws passed by the United States Congress. This cyclical series of events continued well into the 1920s: the more government restrictions were placed on the Chinese, the more they would fight within their own community, and as a response the government would place even more restrictions again.

10 Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: Norton & Company, Inc., 1990) 215.

8 Chapter One - Denis Kearney: A California Politician Waging War on the Chinese

Although the President of the Workingman’s Party of California, Denis Kearney had great influence on the situation of the Chinese coolies in Chicago as well. In 1877, he organized the Party with a platform opposing Chinese immigrants and pushing for the Chinese Exclusion

Act. The following year in 1878 he began traveling the United States giving speeches to the working class about the threat caused by the Chinese coolies. Kearney gave a speech covered by the Indianapolis Times in 1878 in which he argued that America could only be entirely Chinese or American. Kearney claimed that the Chinese were the cause of major issues in America:

They brought a crisis of unparalleled distress on forty millions of people, who have natural resources to feed, clothe and shelter the whole human race.11 One of his most noteworthy speeches was in Faneuil Hall, Boston on August 5th, 1878 where he described “a natural and popular uprising of the [Chinese] people.”12 Partially in response to Kearney, some Chinese migrated to Chicago because it was a large city, with significant economic opportunities. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act restricted Chinese movements, but the influence of Denis Kearney and his speeches was widespread across the

United States and contributed to the violence that erupted in Chicago.

Denis Kearney delivered speeches in California every Sunday for three years to crowds of around 2,000 native white workers. He “focused on uniting the poor and workingmen”13 and eventually started his nationwide speaking tours where he chose his speech locations carefully.

Some dubbed him uneducated, some followed him wholeheartedly, but what all could agree on was that Kearney was an outgoing advocate for safer working environment and better wages for native workers; which appealed to many laborers. He incited anger among his listeners by ending

11 Jesse Haney, “Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion,” Nov 27, 2016. https://archive.org/details/SpeechesOfDennisKearneyLaborChampion1878. 12 Ibid. 13 John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 52.

9 every speech with “The Chinese Must Go!”14 People wanted a scapegoat for political, social, and economic issues of the Gilded Ages. Kearney “visited Lynn, [Massachusetts] the city of soles…to address the shoemakers and others of the laboring class.”15 He presented white

Americans with a simple solution to their aforementioned problems: blame the Chinese. People clung to his anti-Chinese sentiments and rallied behind him. In Lynn he said: “we must be united in heart and purpose to break the laws of unjust legislation, which favor the few to the detriment of the many.”16Among his speaking locations, Denis Kearney spoke at Faneuil Hall in Boston where he connected to the audience by drawing examples of the coolie problem in California. A coolie was different from a free laborer. He claimed the Chinese coolie came to America with the “vague notion of cheap and easily exploitable labor that was almost inextricably linked to

Asians, and particularly to Chinese.”17 Kearney argued that the jobs should have gone to the white Americans instead of “a band of leprous Chinese pirates, brought them to California, and now uses them as a knife to cut the throats of honest laboring men in that State.”18 The Chicago

Tribune reported on his Faneuil Hall speech on August 7th, 1878, saying that the Hall was

“overflowing with people.”19 This article also claimed that the speech was “made up of some glittering generalities, probably prepared in advance by Kearney’s reportorial secretary.”20 One of his powerful quotes to a crowd of white American laborers was:

Fellow workingmen. Awake! Arise! Your work begins anew! We will teach these thieves and bondholders what workingmen can

14 Ibid, 52. 15 Jesse Haney, “Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion” (New York, 1878) 14. 16 Ibid, 15. 17 Elliot Young, Alien Nation: Chinese Migration in the Americas from the Coolie Era Through World War II (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014) 46. 18 Jesse Haney, Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion (New York, 1878) 7. 19 “Kearney in Boston,” The Chicago Tribune, Aug. 7, 1878. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1878/08/07/page/4/article/kearney-in-boston. 20 Ibid.

10 do…We will drive these moon-eyed lepers back by steamship and by sail.21 Ironically enough when Kearney stood at a podium in St. Louis, Missouri he was

“illuminated by Chinese lanterns.”22 He did not urge the working class white Americans to resort to violent means against his Chinese opponents, however, he tried earnestly to persuade them to fight back legally against the Chinese coolies. Kearney believed they must take back their economic and socio-cultural security. However, once Kearney resulted to encouraging violent means and said to resist the Chinese even “if they have to fight knee deep in blood.”23 Through his speeches, Denis Kearney sought to have a direct impact on elections at all levels by influencing voters to pick representatives who agreed with his anti-Chinese views. He cautiously wrote the speeches “as to never specifically call for violence.”24 Kearney continued to urge people to vote “to ameliorate the condition of the working masses.”25 He would work to enrage his audiences by asking them rhetorical questions about the Chinese gaining power over the working Americans. An example being: “the question is, are Chinese to occupy this country?”

Kearney would elaborate to enthrall the people by reminding them: “the Chinese Government has sent an Embassy to this country to establish Consulates in California.”26 Due to the fact the population “450,000,000 in China,”27 Kearney insinuated that more Chinese people would come and increase their problems. He even went so far to disparage and claim that he could “smell them afar off.”28 Kearney in speeches offered a simple solution to the problem - simply not hiring the Chinese immigrants because they were literally disgusting and unclean. He went so far

21 Ibid,13. 22 Ibid, 22. 23 Ibid, 24. 24 John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 52. 25 Jesse Haney, Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion (New York, 1878) 13. 26 Ibid, 13. 27 Ibid, 13. 28 Ibid, 13.

11 as to insinuate that people would get leprosy from the Chinese washing their clothes and spitting on them. 29 At times people did not believe or follow him despite his best efforts. Then in

October 1877, he marched with thousands of supporters to the home of Charles Crocker, Central

Pacific Railroad executive in the Nob Hill. At this demonstration, he gave Crocker an ultimatum to remove Chinese workers from his railroad. With this, he achieved his goals of gathering the masses behind him.30

31

George F. Keller published this political cartoon on May 11th, 1878 validating Kearney’s speeches about the Chinese coolies in California. Upon close analysis, you can see the letters

DK, for Denis Kearney, on the hat of the donkey. Keller’s cartoon shows the overall conflict against the Chinese being led by Kearney. It also asks a vital question: “who keeps them?”

Meaning, where should the Chinese go so that they will not bother anyone.

29 Ibid, 13. 30 John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 56. 31 “The Chinese Must Go, But Who Keeps Them?” The San Francisco Illustrated Wasp, May 11, 1878. https://thomasnastcartoons.com/2014/02/14/the-cinese-must-go-but-who-keeps-them-11-may-1878/.

12 Not only did Kearney give speeches to workers, he met and had involvement with multiple Presidents over his anti-Chinese sentiments. Kearney met with President Rutherford B.

Hayes (1877-1881) to discuss labor issues and the Chinese immigrant problem. At a time when people could request to speak with the President, Kearney arrived at the White House, asked to see the President, and announced he did not think he would have “to go through much red tape” to speak to him.32 In their meeting, Kearney then directly asked President Hayes if he received his document “from California on the Chinese question.”33 President Hayes explained that this was not the first communication he has been presented with. He elaborated that: “preponderance of testimony is against the Chinese.”34 While speaking to Hayes, Kearney explained what he believed was happening in the Chinatowns around the United States. He told the President that he hoped the President was not viewing Chinese labor as a money generating mechanism like the businessmen who hire them do. Kearney carried on with “a long description of the evils of

Chinese cheap labor.”35

In 1880, the Angell Treaty was signed between the United States and China to “signify the close of completely free Chinese immigration.”36 This Treaty was undoubtedly connected to and partially caused by the speeches and influence of Denis Kearney.37 Moreover, President

Arthur was the president under which the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882. The Chinese

Exclusion Act declared: “the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof.”38 Six years following its passage,

32 Jesse Haney, Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion (New York, 1878) 27. 33 Ibid, 27. 34 Ibid, 27. 35 Ibid, 27. 36 John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 57. 37 Ibid, 57. 38 United States Congress, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, 1.

13 President Cleveland claimed that the Chinese were “impossible of [being able to complete the process of] assimilation with our people, and dangerous to our peace and welfare.”39

40

This is a political cartoon titled “And Still They Come!” by The Wasp 5 from August-

December 1880, in reaction to the continuous influx of Chinese immigrants despite legislation prior to the Chines Exclusion Act; such as the aforementioned Angell Treaty of the same year.

Although he represented the Workingman’s Party of California, Denis Kearney created conflict and tensions for the Chinese living in Chicago. Prior to speaking in Chicago about the

Chinese problem, he delivered a speech in Hewitt, Texas about what businessmen and laborers should do about the Chinese laborers competing for jobs.41 In particular for “the shoe manufacturers, the bosses of Chicago… are going to import 1,500 pig-tailed lepers into

39 Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: Norton & Company, Inc., 1990) 215. 40 “And Still They Come!” The Wasp 5, Aug.-Dec. 1880. https://thomasnastcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/chinese-must-go-but-who-keeps-them-11-may-1878.jpg. 41 Jesse Haney, Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion (New York, 1878) 16.

14 Chicago.”42 Kearney stated that he felt that “not only the lepers will be driven out of here, but the men also who are instrumental in bringing them there.”43 Kearney provided a huge attraction for socialists in America, due to his own working class political affiliations. Initially, “trades unions of Chicago have not entered into Mr. Kearney’s missions here with that spontaneity of enthusiasm which was probably looked for.”44 Interestingly enough, he actually struggled to get the Chicago people to stay for the entire speech.45 Kearney asked the audience to “prove to the authorities of Chicago that the workingmen are both manly and dignified;”46 meaning that they were worthy of remaining in employment over the Chinese. Denis Kearney impacted the Chinese in Chicago greatly due to his enthusiasm and initial rejection from the audience to drive out the

Chinese. He wanted white residents of Chicago to engage in collective labor activism to improve their plight: “My simple mission to Chicago at this time is to encourage those men that are on a strike for bread and butter.”47 Even though Kearney did not directly advocate for violence against Chinese workers, property damage and riots in Chinese business areas were connected to his speeches.48 He and other Workingman’s Party of California officials were arrested a few times, which in turn, attracted loyal members to the Party to join the cause.49

August 31, 1867 editorials of the magazine, Harper’s Weekly’s show that Denis Kearney was not alone in this mindset. People before him had spoken out against the Chinese as they felt that they were “not needed as laborers; and their introduction into a section of the country in

42 Ibid, 16. 43 Ibid, 16. 44 Ibid, 19. 45 Ibid, 20. 46 Ibid, 20. 47 Ibid, 21. 48 John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 52. 49 Ibid, 53.

15 which the traditions and habits of…could result only in establishing a new form of slavery.”50 It was also believed that the adding of more Chinese people to the United States would perhaps be the most disadvantageous occurrence for the working class.51 People even compared the Chinese coolies being imported to be laborers to the African slave-trade and said that “if it was an incalculable blunder as well as crime to allow”52 the that, then why “tolerate the cooly importation?”53 They were derogatorily referred to as the yellow dragons in Harper’s Weekly editorials. Following Denis Kearny’s speeches these yellow dragons were drawn to depict negative stereotypes and widely circulated:

54

50 “The Cooly Importation,” Harper’s Weekly, Aug. 31, 1867. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Items/Item008.htm. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid 53 Ibid 54 Thomas Nast,“Celestial,” Harper’s Weekly, Feb 2, 1881. https://thomasnastcartoons.com/tag/1881/.

16 In this Harper’s Weekly cartoon published in 1881, the Chinese noted as “the yellow dragon” is seen confronting Uncle Sam or the average American citizen.

It is extremely ironic and hypocritical being that Denis Kearney himself was an immigrant from Ireland. Kearney immigrated due to the Potato Famine in 1847 and got married and started a business. Following the Panic of 1873 he became active in workingman’s groups.55

Kearney quickly rose in popularity and amongst the ranks of the Workingman’s Party of

California because he related to the white Americans struggling to maintain jobs and provide for their families. This translated quite well into his speeches:

Due to the presence of thousands of employable Chinese, there also developed an animosity on the part of Whites toward the Chinese for taking jobs that many White workers thought should be theirs;56 However, due to his strong willed attitude and disdain of the Chinese, even President

Hayes thought that Kearney was from Massachusetts because of his speeches at Faneuil Hall.57

For why would an immigrant himself being working continuously nationwide to stop immigrants from entering the country. Additionally, the Chinese were not just seeking employment and a new life in the United States. They also sought gold and employment in other countries like

Australia, Cuba, and Peru. They were sent by agents and “only males are sent, and they generally contract for eight years.”58 By 1885 there was a full-blown Anti-Chinese Hysteria in America. In

Harper’s Weekly it is noted that the intolerance of the Chinese coolies led to violence, destruction of property, riots, and even massacres.59 Another source of civil unrest about the

55John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 51-52. 56 Ibid, 52. 57 Jesse Haney, Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion (New York, 1878) 27. 58 “The Cooly Importation,” Harper’s Weekly, Aug. 31, 1867. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Items/Item008.htm. 59 “The Anti-Chinese Hysteria of 1885-1886,” Harper’s Weekly, 1998-1999. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/2KeyIssues/TheAntiChineseHysteria.htm.

17 Chinese was the connotation that Chinese women came to America “for the purpose of prostitution.”60 Some Chinese women did come to America to be with their husbands or for economic opportunities, however, the fact that the Chinese population in America was 95% male did not help white American assumptions.61 By 1887, the Chinese Government even offered to forbid its citizens from immigration to the United States.62

The distinctive aspect of Denis Kearney’s speeches, involvement with Presidents, and general encouragement for anti-Chinese views was his providing white working class Americans a rationale for their economic, social, and political problems. Mainly, Kearney believed that the solution to the Chinese predicament was through politics, where politicians like himself who would vote to change the regulations for the Chinese. He sought the working class to ensure that

Congress was not “all lawyers and bankers”63 whom did not “know about the wants of the workingman.”64 When elections in California were held, members of the Workingman’s Party of

California won many seats.65 By 1878 Kearney emphasized the need for white working class

Americans to be able to:

Live like men in this free land, without the contamination of slave labor, or die like men, if need be, in asserting the rights of our race, our country, and our families.66 Not only did Kearney compare the Chinese immigrant population being brought in comparable to the Atlantic slave trade, he also viewed it as contaminating the work force. In a

1878 speech, Kearney said that the Chinese coolie came from “the slums of Asia” to be brought

60 John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 55. 61 Ibid, 55. 62 “Our Relations with China,” Harper’s Weekly, October 6, 1888. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Items/Item105.htm. 63 Jesse Haney, “Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion” (New York, 1878) 8. 64 Ibid, 8. 65 John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 53. 66 Denis Kearney, “Our Misery and Despair,” Feb 27, 1878. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5046/%7C.

18 to America’s labor market;67 even so, many bills were established in an attempt to halt Chinese immigration in the years to come. This included the Fifteen Passenger Bill, which made it illegal for a ship to have more than fifteen Chinese people heading towards the United States.68 This was a major win for Denis Kearney and the Workingman’s Party nationwide as it was a step in the direction of limiting laborers emigrating from China. Additionally, this proved that Kearney himself had influenced the American government with his anti-Chinese beliefs.

67 John Soennichsen, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011) 53. 68 Ibid, 56.

19 Chapter Two - Wong Chin Foo: A Chinese American Responds to Denis Kearney’s War

Wong Chin Foo, a Chinese-American with more privileges than most Chinese immigrants, witnessed the victimization of his fellow people and chose to fight back against

Denis Kearney and the American government. Foo was born Wong Sa Kee and baptized by the time he was twenty by an American missionary, Sallie Little Homes.69 Due to his achieving to

American citizenship in 1874 before the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act, he was able to travel between China and America. 70 At the time due to regulations placed on Chinese immigrants, this was quite rare to be able to travel so freely. Foo spent some time in America before returning to China for about three years. Foo fled China in 1873 from the turmoil associated with the Qing (Manchu) Dynasty, leaving behind his wife and child. Wong Chin Foo also proclaimed himself the first Chinese Christian missionary to America. 71 His migration was also during the migration of Chinese coolies who faced attacks from Denis Kearney. However,

Foo did in fact have an American citizenship. He moved to New York in 1874 and started the newspaper: Chinese-American, which failed rather quickly. Foo was the first to coin the term

Chinese American and from 1873-1887, he worked to better the conditions of the Chinese and even confronted Denis Kearney’s verbal attacks on his people. Foo wanted to get people’s attention through his newspaper, as he wanted to prove the Chinese were good, relatively innocent people. He countered people’s rumors when he offered a $500 reward to anyone that could prove that the Chinese people actually ate rats;72 as he claimed it was untrue and he “never knew that rats and dogs were good to eat until I learned it from Americans.”73 Wong Chin Foo

69 “The Forgotten Story of the “First Chinese American,”” Bucknell University, http://www.bucknell.edu/x81224.xml. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 “Quotations From Wong Chin Foo,” First Chinese American, accessed Jan. 16, 2017, http://firstchineseamerican.com/quotations.htm.

20 dealt head on with Denis Kearney viewing him as the number one of the enemy of the Chinese in

America.74

Formal action against the Chinese became legal when President Chester A. Arthur signed

The Chinese Exclusion Act on May 6, 1882. Intended to last until 1892, the act explained that one of the main reasons for the creation was that Chinese laborers were a threat to the country.

The main points highlighted in this Act center around the banning of Chinese laborers from entering the United States for the next ten years. If you brought a Chinese laborer to the United

States, you committed a crime. Chinese laborers already in the U.S. had to have a passport. From this point on, Chinese immigrants could not be American citizens. The Chinese laborers cannot use a false certificate or passport to enter or stay in the United States. This, however, did not apply to diplomatic or Government Chinese people. The Chinese Exclusion Act primarily targeted both skilled and unskilled workers.75 The Act explains that one of the main reasons for its creation was the assumption that Chinese laborers were a threat to the country, due to their ability to compete for the jobs of the white working class. From careful analysis of the Act, I believe that this was due to a certain level of xenophobia and racism towards the Chinese laborers. Much of Kearney’s advocacy against the Chinese had carried on through this Act. In

1878, Kearney delivered a speech on the Chinese question where he blamed the Chinese for

American problems.

We have permitted them to become immensely rich against all sound republican policy, and they have turned upon us to sting us to death. They have seized upon the government by bribery and corruption. They have made speculation and public robbery a science. The have loaded the nation, the state, the county, and the city with debt. They have stolen the public lands. They have grasped all to themselves, and by their unprincipled greed brought

74 Eric Liu, A Chinaman’s Chance One Family’s Journey and the Chinese American Dream (New York: PublicAffairs, 2014) 153. 75 United States Congress, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. 1-3.

21 a crisis of unparalleled distress on forty millions of people, who have natural resources to feed, clothe and shelter the whole human race.76 The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 embodied the sentiments of Denis Kearney and as a result, prompted Wong Chin Foo to enter politics and to take the necessary action to defend his fellow Chinese coolies. 77 He began with a bilingual newspaper in New York City in 1883. He filled the newspaper with “poems, sketches, and articles on Chinese culture and Buddhism”78 in order to properly educate the masses. Foo also released a statement on the politicians behind the anti-Chinese legislation:

You must remember that the politician who lords it over you to- day is an arrant coward, and trims his sails to every breeze that blows. When you don’t vote and don’t wish to vote, he denounces you as a reptile; the moment you appear at the ballot box you are a man and a brother and are treated (if you consort with such people) to cigars, whiskies, and beers.79 The Chinese Exclusion Act also highly disrupted the traditional Chinese family. It was difficult to create a second generation once in America because the Chinese were no longer allowed to bring their families to America with them. The only women that could enter were specifically the wives of teachers, tourists, students, and merchants.80 Occasionally, the second- generation women of Chinese that were allowed into the United States were able to marry and return to China. For example, Lillian of Moy Dong Chow was wed to “Yusheng Wong, a visiting student from China. They eventually re-settled in China, where Yusheng achieved a high-level government position.”81 Lillian studied at the University of Illinois in Champaign as she wanted

76 Denis Kearney, “Our Misery and Despair,” Feb 27, 1878. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5046/%7C. 77 “The Forgotten Story of the “First Chinese American,”” Bucknell University, http://www.bucknell.edu/x81224.xml. 78 Juan Gozalez, Joseph Torres, News for All the People: The Epic Story of Race and the American Media (New York: Verso, 2011) 132. 79 “Quotations From Wong Chin Foo,” First Chinese American, accessed Jan. 16, 2017, http://firstchineseamerican.com/quotations.htm. 80 Ibid, 81. 81 Ibid, 85.

22 to create a career when she returned to China. She never returned to Chicago due to lack of family there.82 Due to massacres, robberies, and anti-Chinese riots, many fled from the western part of the United States to Chicago for safety. Surprisingly, the Chinese Government refused to protest the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Chinese that came to Chicago did however come to people’s attention during the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893 when white working class realized the magnitude of their population.83

The senators involved in passing the Chinese Exclusion Act themselves debated the legality and fairness behind the act. Senator Sherman had ties to businesses involved with the construction of the Pacific Railroads, who hired thousands of Chinese immigrants to complete their work.84 He served on the Committee of Foreign Relations, which was charged to find a resolution for the influx of Chinese laborers specifically.85 When the Geary Act was proposed in

1882 a Conference Committee met. This included Senate members: Sherman, Dolph, Morgan,

Chipman, Geary, and Hall from the House of Representatives.86 Senator Sherman of Ohio completely rejected the Geary Bill due to the fact it went against the Treaty of 1880 by banning

Chinese immigration entirely.87 Sherman and Illinois Representative Robert Hitt further discussed the fairness of the Chinese Exclusion Act after its passing. Specifically, in regard to the regulations placed on the Chinese coolies in America, Senator Sherman says that the need for a certificate or passport of sorts to allow Chinese immigrants in and out of the United States is degrading. “He must carry it [the approval form] around with him, or be liable instantly and

82 Ibid, 85. 83 Ibid, 105. 84 Winfield S. Kerr, Josh Sherman: His Life and Public Services, Volume 2 (Boston: Sherman, French & Company, 1908) 297. 85 Ibid, 182. 86 Ibid, 297. 87 Ibid, 298.

23 always to arrest…like a convict.”88 The Chinese government “agrees that the Government of the

United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it.”89 In 1883, Wong Chin Foo would not back down and began to aim for Kearney’s attention by comparing his Chinese heritage to Kearney’s Irish roots:

I belong to the most ancient empire on the globe. You, by your own statement, belong to the most dependent and ill-treated nation of serfs ever deprived of its liberties. The flag of my country floats over the third greatest navy in the world…The ambassadors and consuls of my nation rank at every court in Europe…The race which I represent is centuries old in every art and science.90 In 1887, Wong Chin Foo began to confront politicians. Kearney was one of the biggest advocates for legislation against the Chinese. He even was quoted at the time as saying that the

“Chinese [must go.]”91 In 1887, Foo began to confront Kearney through staged appearances at Kearney’s speeches, and Chinese rallies. When Kearney would not debate with him, he gathered his friends and went to one of Kearney’s lectures at Cooper Union in New York City in 1887.

They were the best dressed in the audience and sat front row and laughed out loud at Kearney.92

He challenged Kearney to debate and Kearney refused. In 1887, Foo challenged Kearney again – while Kearney aimed to gather support for “a new bill pending before Congress aimed at plugging loopholes that remained after passage of the Exclusion Act.”93 The New York World even encouraged both Denis Kearney and Wong Chin Foo to debate the new bill in person. At one of Kearney’s speeches while he continued to discuss at length how Chinese were not able to

88 Louis Albert Banks, Our Brother in Yellow: Sermon Delivered in the First M.E. Church, Boston, Sunday Morning May 21, 1893 (Boston: Lee and Shepard Publishers, 1893) 7. 89 Ibid, 298. 90 “Quotations From Wong Chin Foo,” First Chinese American, accessed Jan. 16, 2017, http://firstchineseamerican.com/quotations.htm. 91 “The Forgotten Story of the “First Chinese American,”” Bucknell University, http://www.bucknell.edu/x81224.xml. 92 Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 152. 93 Ibid, 149.

24 be citizens by a law, Foo called out “it must have been an Irishman who made the law.”94 Foo continued by sending letters and publishing statements to get Kearney’s attention: “I belong to the most ancient empire on this globe….”95 Kearney would not respond to a letter Foo sent him.96

Furthermore, in his parodical essay: Why Am I a Heathen? (1887) Foo responds to the

Chinese Exclusion Act and calls for its repeal. It is a direct assault on Kearney’s attacks on his people. He elaborates by discussing Denis Kearney directly and at length. “Suppose Denis

Kearney, the California sand-lotter, should slip in and meet me there, would he not be likely to forget his heavenly songs, and howl once more: “The Chinese must go!” and organize a heavenly crusade to have me and others immediately cast out into the other place?”97 Foo had his downfalls and at times would be overzealous in his attempts to unite the Chinese Americans; attacking those who did not aid him on his crusade. He would elaborate and claim that

Americans had “shortcomings while holding China up as a shining counterexample.”98

94 Ibid, 152. 95 Eric Liu, A Chinaman’s Chance One Family’s Journey and the Chinese American Dream (New York: PublicAffairs, 2014) 113. 96 Ibid, 115. 97 Judy Young, Gordon H. Chang, H. Mark Lai, Chinese American Voices: From the Gold Rush to the Present (California: University of California Press, 2006) 73. 98 Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 216.

25 99

This is a Harper’s Weekly portrayal of Wong Chin Foo. At a time where Foo was involved in much controversy of confronting Denis Kearney and publishing essays in defense of his Chinese people, he was highly important. Foo was portrayed in magazines and newspapers across America, viewed as a counterpoint to Kearney’s xenophobia.

When China would not agree to the Bayard Treaty “which would have prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States for a twenty-year period,”100 Congressman

William L. Scott proposed an act to do so. In 1888, the Scott Exclusion Act was passed which left about 20,000 Chinese unable to reenter the United States.101 This was a major strike against the Chinese by the American government, which strengthened the provisions of the Chinese

99 “A Connecticut Yankee in the Court of Wu Chih Tien,” Common-Place, Oct. 2010. http://www.common-place- archives.org/vol-11/no-01/hsu/. 100 Doyce B. Nunis, Jr., Denis Kearney, and J. Bryce, The Demagogue and the Demographer: Correspondence of Denis Kearney and Lord Bryce (California: Pacific Historical Review, 1967) 277. 101 “Scott Act (1888),” Harper’s Weekly, 1998-1999. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/2KeyIssues/ScottAct.htm.

26 Exclusion Act. Of course, it absolutely delighted Denis Kearney who claimed it was passed because of him.102 Kearney then stated that his “next fight will be to get Canada to pass an anti-

Chinese exclusion law.”103 By this point, Kearney had declared that he left California politics to save the United States from the Chinese immigrants. In doing so, he created the concept of the

Chinese question which had to be answered immediately – and was done so through acts of

Congress.104 However, Kearney stated in a letter to British journalist Lord Bryce that doing so was worth it as he was successful. He told Bryce that from 1877-8: “in less than one year I succeeded in lifting the Chinese from a local to a great national question.”105 Just four years later, more legislative action against the Chinese was taken; in 1892, the Geary Act was passed by

Congress to extend the Chinese Exclusion Act for another ten years. To Kearney and his followers, this new bill was a success as it was a call to rally in defense of themselves and the lack of citizenship of the Chinese. Ultimately, Foo sought to represent the Chinese people in

America during the increasingly tense and violent times. He proclaimed that:

There is hardly an American in China who…would not sign a petition to Congress for the repeal of the Geary Act, if one or two prominent American citizens here would take the matter up. Not from any fear that the Chinese government may be induced to institute some reprisals if the Geary Act is actually put into force…but from a spirit of justice toward China.106 On September 22, 1892, Chinese and Americans alike protested at Cooper Union in

Manhattan “to form the Chinese Equal Rights League to contest the legality of the Geary Act.”107

The Chinese released a statement stating their purpose in formation of the group. They chose

102 Doyce B. Nunis, Jr., Denis Kearney, and J. Bryce, The Demagogue and the Demographer: Correspondence of Denis Kearney and Lord Bryce (California: Pacific Historical Review, 1967) 277. 103 Ibid, 277. 104 Ibid, 284. 105 Ibid, 284. 106 Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 210. 107 Huping Ling, Chinese Chicago: Race, Transnational Migration, and Community Since 1870 (California: Stanford University Press, 2012) 44.

27 their words carefully and referred to themselves not as citizens of the United States, but residents whom:

Claim a common manhood with all other nationalities, and believe we should have that manhood recognized according to the principles of common humanity and American freedom.108 Wong Chin Foo not only faced Kearney but went straight to the legal aspects of the anti-

Chinese laws and restrictions: Congress and the senators behind the anti-Chinese legislation.

Foo then confront Congress as the first Chinese person to do so. Foo went against the congressmen behind the Geary Act when he met with Congressman Thomas Geary to discuss the inequalities of the Geary Act on January 26, 1893. Geary asks Woo “what law your Chinamen want enacted.”109 Woo responded strongly that: “we want to restore the condition of affairs that existed before the passage of the Geary Act.”110 He elaborated and said: “we want a law that won’t photograph us…we do not wish to be treated as criminals”111 – referring to the required photographs and certificates of the Geary Act. Despite this, Geary felt that it was considerate considering former conditions for the Chinese in which he claims “the Chinese were harassed by arrest and imprisonment.”112 Because of him, it is brought to the Supreme Court for discussion.

Geary said back to Foo: “If the law is barbarous…you should assist in its enforcement and its own barbarity will soon bring about its repeal.”113 Moreover, Wong Chin Foo spoke at the

Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1893 and caused part of the Geary Act to be annulled. He was

108 Ibid, 45. 109 Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 213. 110 Ibid, 213. 111 Ibid, 213. 112 Ibid, 213. 113 Ibid, 216.

28 able to get rid of the requirement for Chinamen to need photographs on their passports.114 Foo delivered a statement on the Geary Act a year after its passing:

Is it then a crime to be a Chinaman? Shall I be dragged from my bed at midnight because I shall refuse to be photographed? No, I will not be photographed against my will like a criminal. I would be hanged first.115 Through the creation of the Chinese Equal Rights League, Wong Chin Foo developed

“legislative strategy, spoken at mass meetings to garner support for its positions, and assumed the presidency of the new organization.”116 In addition to the League, Foo kept delivering speeches. In 1893 he delivered a speech Is It a Crime to be a Chinaman?: in which he asked “is it then a crime to be a Chinaman? Shall I be dragged from my bed at midnight because I shall refuse to be photographed?”117 He answered his own questions and said: “No, I will not be photographed against my will like a criminal. I would be hanged first.”118 Sensing a need for aid in Chicago, Wong Chin Foo relocated to help the Chinese coolies there. Six Companies then agreed to boycott the Geary Act requiring a photograph and citizenship certificate119 after

100,000 Chinese people could not get certificates in May 1893 due to the Geary Act.120 Foo also addressed the required proof of allowance for Chinese people to be in the country. Overall, he wanted to represent the Chinese immigrants whom he felt deserved citizenship and fair treatment in American society:

114 Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 216-217. 115 “The Forgotten Story of the “First Chinese American,”” Bucknell University, http://www.bucknell.edu/x81224.xml. 116 Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 216. 117 “The Forgotten Story of the “First Chinese American,”” Bucknell University, http://www.bucknell.edu/x81224.xml. 118 Ibid. 119 Elliot Young, Alien Nation: Chinese Migration in the Americas from the Coolie Era Through World War II (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014) 148. 120 Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 217.

29 We represent, and speak for the 150,000 Chinamen in this country who are no longer emigrants, but bona fide residents of the United States; Chinamen who have their families and their business interests in this country, who understand and abide by its laws, who have to a considerable extent been educated in your schools, and converted to your religion, who are opposed to the Geary Bill not only because it requires of them impossibilities, and puts upon them cruel and unusual punishment, but because it classes them with thieves and criminals, it requires them to be photographed precisely like criminals and to furnish witnesses who saw them land from ten to forty years ago. We do not ask for favors; we appeal for simple justice.121

122

This is an example of a required document approving Chinese residency in the United

States. Following the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act – these were required and highly sought after. The Act itself spoke of this required certificate, like the one pictured above, and said:

121 Ibid, 212. 122 “History 457: Week 5: Civil War & Chinese Exclusion,” US History Scene, Feb. 2017. http://ushistoryscene.com/article/history-457-week-5/.

30 The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and re-enter the United States upon producing and delivering the same to the collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese laborer shall seek to re-enter; and upon delivery of such certificate by such Chinese laborer to the collector of customs at the time of re-entry in the United States said collector shall cause the same to be filed in the custom-house anti duly canceled.123 These certificates included basic information, a photograph, and government signature and seals of approval. “If such Chinese laborer shall fail to return to such vessel before her departure from port the certificate shall be delivered by the master to the collector of customs for cancellation.”124 The Chinese also had to have their identity for the certificate proved “by the

Chinese Government in each case.”125 It was also illegal to forge a certificate “and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in a penitentiary for a term of not more than five years.”126

The same year, he revived his failed New York newspaper and called it “Meihua xinbao,”

Chinese American. On June 24, 1893, it began to be published and take off immediately.127 In

1896, Foo made a speech on Chinese enfranchisement against Denis Kearney: “We want Illinois, the place that Lincoln, Grant and Logan called their home, to do for the Chinese what the North did for the negroes.”128 The following year, Wong Chin Foo protests - against class legislation and the mistreatment of the Chinese.129 In an article by Wong Chin Foo: “Experience of a

Chinese Journalist,” Foo lectured “to correct popular misconceptions about his people.”130

123 United States Congress, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. 1-3. 124 Ibid, 1-3. 125 Ibid, 1-3. 126 Ibid, 1-3. 127 Huping Ling, Chinese Chicago: Race, Transnational Migration, and Community Since 1870 (California: Stanford University Press, 2012) 44. 128 “The Forgotten Story of the “First Chinese American,”” Bucknell University, http://www.bucknell.edu/x81224.xml. 129 “Wong Chin Foo Protests Against Class Legislation,” The Chicago Tribune, Dec. 27, 1897. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1897/12/27/page/8/article/wong-chin-foo-protests-against-class-legislation#text. 130 Phillip Lopate, Writing New York: A Literary Anthology (New York: Washington Square Press, 1998) 268.

31 131

This is an example of Wong Chin Foo’s newspaper: Chinese American. It was printed in

Chinese to attract his fellow coolies and distributed widely.

He carried on his work through his Equal Rights League. On July 27, 1893, the Chinese

Equal Rights League published the Appeal of the Chinese Equal Rights League to the People of the United States for Equality of Manhood. Following, on September 1st, 1892 the English-

131 “You May Not Know About The First Chinese Americans, But You Should,” The Huffington Post, Jul. 7, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/chinese-american-exhibit_n_5528081.html.

32 speaking Chinese of the Eastern States called a meeting about what to do about the xenophobic tendencies of the United States as a whole.132

We, the citizens of the United States, in mass meeting assembled, do hereby resolve and declare that the said bill is monstrous, inhuman and unconstitutional; and we hereby pledge ourselves to the support of that protest against the said bill which has been entered by the Chinese Equal Rights League of New York City.133 They argued that the Chinese are no different from other nationalities in the United States at the time. As a result they believed that they “have that manhood recognized according to the principles of common humanity and American freedom.”134 In this the Chinese Equal Rights

League said that the Geary Bill “is made to humiliate every Chinaman.”135 Despite that, the

League argued on behalf of the Chinese people argued that they still “love and admire the

[United States] Government, and look with joy to her instrumentality in promoting every good.”136 The Chinese Equal Rights League in this piece even says that they wish for any more

Chinese to enter the United States in support of their people being persecuted.137

The need for Foo’s work was revived when the United States took imperial control of the

Philippines in 1898 and the Chinese were blamed for opium being brought into America. In

1880, a treaty with China was signed which “stipulated that US citizens should not be allowed to import opium into China, and vice versa;”138 due to this, the Chinese coolies were again blamed for problems and disorder in the United States. The Chinese were already stereotypical opium buyers and sellers with their connections with British imperialism in China itself.139 It was

132 Chinese Equal Rights League, Appeal of the Chinese Equal Rights League to the People of the United States for Equality of Manhood (New York: Bible House, 1893) 1. 133 Ibid, 2. 134 Ibid, 2. 135 Ibid, 2. 136 Ibid, 3. 137 Ibid, 3. 138 David T. Courtwright, Dark Paradise (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2001) 78. 139 Ibid, 65.

33 believed that 9 out of 10 or 1 out of 166 Chinese immigrants were addicted to smoking opium.140

The Chinese invested in the opium trading business because it was a way to make money to send back to China and eventually move there to be with their family;141 however, after the United

States gained the Philippines in 1898, “it also assumed responsibility for the 70,000 Chinese residents there, many of whom smoked opium.”142 By this point, Foo’s work was necessary to defend the Chinese for their alleged opium connections. Wong Chin Foo dubbed himself a

Confucian missionary as he moved to Chicago in the early 1890s to continue to fight to save the reputation and quality of life of the Chinese coolies in America. “The moral depravity of some

Chinese is not a result of their lack of Christian principles, but rather a product of the forced opium trade.”143 In 1896, Wong Chin Foo had not forgotten the struggles of his people in

Chicago, and even compared it to the hardships of African American slaves.

140 Ibid, 65. 141 Ibid, 66. 142 Ibid, 79. 143 “The Routledge Companion to Asian American and Pacific Islander Literature,” Rachel C. Lee, accessed January 29, 2017, https://books.google.com/books?id=gKzAAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

34 Chapter Three: Wong Chin Foo and State Attorney Kern Clash Over the Moy Family

The Moy family was known amongst the Chinese community for being the “King of

Chinatown”144 in Chicago. During the 1870s-1880s, there were violent uprisings and occurrences throughout America, even amongst the Chinese community in Boston. As a result, Chinese citizens in Chicago had negative feelings towards them as well. This tension spread across the

United States and was seen in the Rock Springs Massacre of 1885, Seattle Riot of 1886, and the

Chinese Massacre of 1871 in Los Angeles. By 1893, Wong Chin Foo is the leader of the Wongs faction, prosecuting the Moys faction. Moy Dong Chew himself, also known as Hip Lung, a prominent Moy family member, came to Chicago in the mid-1870s. He became one of the most important Chinese citizens in Chicago. He became known as “Opium Dong”145 in the area where they settled in Chinatown of Chicago. The Moys started their own businesses and named it the

Hip Lung Ying Kee Company and opened a laundry in 1884 on South Clark Street. The Moy family’s business “became the nucleus of the first Chinatown in Chicago.”146 Moy Dong Chew rose in prominence as “Moy was a chronic politician, and everything he said must be evaluated as part of a calculated strategy of social relations.”147 Wong Chin Foo began involvement with the criminal activity and conflict within the Chinese in America through his position as the unspoken “Mayor of Chinatown.” Illinois State Attorney Jacob Kern was connected to the Moys, which led to possible biased treatment and leniency during criminal court cases that upset Wong

Chin Foo.148

144 Tan Chee-Beng, Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora (New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2013) 70. 145 Adam McKeown, Chinese Migrant Networks and Cultural Change: Peru, Chicago, and Hawaii, 1900-1936 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001) 199. 146 Ibid, 199. 147 Ibid, 198. 148 Huping Ling, Chinese Chicago: Race, Transnational Migration, and Community Since 1870 (California: Stanford University Press, 2012) 37.

35 Beginning in 1891, there was tension between Chinese groups in Chicago. The tension was displayed over the World’s Fair in Chicago. This was seen when the Hip Lung Company was trying “to obtain certain privileges at the World’s Fair”149 of 1893. They wanted positions and special treatment for the World’s Fair:

Hip Lung, the wealthiest Chinese merchant in Chicago, together with several influential Chinese of Canton, San Francisco and New York, have applied for space at the World’s Fair for a big tea house.150 However, it was given to a rival family instead. The rivalry escalated after the Hip Lung family was not given the privileges they so desired at the World’s Fair.151 Hip Lung had two hundred and seventy three workers and actors brought to perform at the World’s Fair as a representation of his business and dominance of Chicago’s Chinatown.152 The World’s Fair inevitably drew large crowds of people, especially immigrants to Chicago.

153

149 “Allege a Conspiracy to Murder,” The Chicago Tribune, Apr. 7, 1893. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1893/04/07/page/5/article/allege-a-conspiracy-to-murder#text. 150 Temple S. Hoyne, The Medical Visitor, Volume 8 (Michigan: University of Michigan, 1892). 151 “Allege a Conspiracy to Murder,” The Chicago Tribune, Apr. 7, 1893. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1893/04/07/page/5/article/allege-a-conspiracy-to-murder#text. 152 “Thirty-Two Chinese Actors Arrive,” The Chicago Tribune, Apr. 26, 1893. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1893/04/26/page/11/article/thirty-two-chinese-actors-arrive#text. 153 “What Remains of the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair,” All That is Interesting, Jan. 13, 2017. http://all-that-is- interesting.com/1893-chicago-fair.

36 This is a portrayal of the Chinese citizens in exhibition at the Chicago World’s Fair in

1893. In it, the Chinese are displaying their customs related to tea consumption. The World’s

Fair was very important for the Chinese to be a part of and to display their unique culture to counteract the societal and political assumptions about them.

Tensions escalated again on March 29, 1893, on 307 South Clark Street, when: Moy Toi

Nye and Ung Yok attacked Wong Aloy. Aloy was a student at Northwestern University in the

Chicago area, and since the incident, went into hiding.154 By April 12, 1893, Wong Chin Foo had come from New York to Chicago to intervene in the court case on the attack. Wong Aloy was under the Wong faction. Sam Moy and Hip Lung supported his attackers. Due to his alliances,

Foo said when he arrived that the Wongs were being persecuted.155 This incident displayed a clash between the Chinese factions in Chicago’s Chinatown and the United States overall. Wong

Chin Foo came to be of assistance on April 2nd, as he believed that one “cannot obtain justice through Mr. Kern in the case of Wong Aloy, in whose interests he came from New York.”156

Justice Clemon gave the accused a $2,000 bond, however, the proceedings were very corrupt:

The prosecution was represented by Attorney John B. Strassburger, who had taken an interest in Wong Aloy and…now harbors him at his home, where the Chinaman is still confined in bed as a consequence of the injuries received.157 Foo felt that State’s Attorney Kern was biased in favor of the Moy faction in legal incidents, which result in the inability to gain justice for any Chinese coolies in Chicago who was not connected to the Moys. Unlike Denis Kearney, Kern agreed to meet Foo. Kern accused

Foo of arriving in Chicago only to disrupt the peace. Foo admitted that he came to Chicago

154 “Allege a Conspiracy to Murder,” The Chicago Tribune, Apr. 7, 1893. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1893/04/07/page/5/article/allege-a-conspiracy-to-murder#text. 155 “X Crory Dropped From The Church,” The Chicago Tribune, Apr. 12, 1893. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1893/04/12/page/2/article/mcrory-dropped-from-the-church#text. 156 “Wong Chin Foo Thinks Kern Opposed to His Family,” The Chicago Tribune, Apr. 16, 1893. http://flps.newberry.org/article/5418479_0090. 157 Ibid.

37 previously “for the purpose of quelling a disturbance among my countrymen and…I succeeded.”158 Following this conversation and further exchanges, Foo announced that the overall situation and competition amongst the Chinese in Chicago was highly corrupt due to monetary control over the government; as being “Mayor of Chinatown” he had a dominance over businesses as a result. Because of his interaction with Kern, Wong Chin Foo believed that State

Attorney Kern was opposed to his family and because of that, he is unable to receive fair treatment from the government and the law itself. Wong Chin Foo returned to Chicago in March of 1893 to intervene in intra-ethnic conflict amongst the Chinese. Kern publicly displayed his dislike for Foo the same year by releasing a statement commenting on Foo’s intentions:

In my opinion Wong Chin Foo is an adventurer. He came to Chicago at this time, I think, for the purpose of stirring up a quarrel among the Chinamen that he might reap benefit from it…I think I understand Chinamen thoroughly, and believing that Wong Chin Foo had come here to create trouble in Chinatown, I thought the surest way of averting it would be to read the riot act on him. I told Wong Chin Foo that if it had been a white man in the case he would have been fined $25 and the case disposed of long ago. They are making a trivial matter the excuse for a bitter factional fight.159 In response, Wong spoke with reporters and said that: “it is impossible for any Chinaman in…Chicago who is not friendly to the Moy family to obtain justice”160 with State Attorney Kern in power. Prior to this, Kern and Foo had met at Kern’s office to discuss Foo’s involvement in intra-Chinese conflict in Chicago. Kern disliked Foo and accused him of “previous disturbances that have taken place in the city. You came here a few years ago and created a dissension among the Chinamen.”161 As hatred towards the Chinese rose and legislation worked against them, the

158 Ibid. 159 Adam McKeown, Chinese Migrant Networks and Cultural Change: Peru, Chicago, and Hawaii, 1900-1936 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001) 200. 160 Ibid, 199. 161 Scott D. Seligman, The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 226.

38 Chinese people themselves in Chicago began to clash among themselves due to the xenophobic pressure. The climax of these confrontations occurred between the Moy and Chin families. At the same time of Wong Chin Foo’s fight against Kearney, the Moy family in Chicago rose to prominence. Wong Chin Foo continued to lead the Wongs against the Moys. He also continued to fight for the credibility and intentions of his fellow Chinese coolies:

We, therefore, appeal for an equal chance in the race of life in this our adopted home – a large number of us have spent almost all our lives in this country and claim no other but this as ours. Our motto is: Character and fitness should be the requirement of all who are desirous of becoming citizens of the American Republic.162 In 1908, conflict struck again between the Chinese groups in Chicago, which led to Wong

Chin Foo’s reemergence and intervention. Chin Wai rejected an offer to join Moy’s group. A few weeks later, on October 16th, 1908 near Kenna Saloon on Clark and Van Buren, Wai was found shot with fourteen bullets in him. Harry Lee, a Chinese laundryman, was identified as a suspect who was “captured while he was fleeing through the Moy store.”163 When Chin Wait was shot, police heard gunshots and blamed Harry Lee, a Chinese laundryman because they found him attempting to hide.164 The murder was compared to that of Julius Caesar and eventually the blame was placed on Moy Dong Chew as Chin Wai was in a rival family and “had refused to join the On Leong and had cut into their profits.”165 This murder was related to a power shift amongst the Chinese in 1908 Chicago Chinatown. Moy Dong Chew went in hiding before the trial for murder.166

162 “The Forgotten Story of the “First Chinese American,”” Bucknell University, http://www.bucknell.edu/x81224.xml. 163 “May Provide Alibi in Chinese Case,” The Chicago Tribune, May 27, 1908. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1908/05/27/page/9/article/may-prove-alibi-in-chinese-case/. 164 Adam McKeown, Chinese Migrant Networks and Cultural Change: Peru, Chicago, and Hawaii, 1900-1936 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001) 207. 165 Tan Chee-Beng, Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora (New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2013) 70. 166 “Chinaman-Ends Long Hiding,” The Chicago Tribune, May 2, 1908. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1908/05/02/page/18/article/chinaman-ends-long-hiding#text.

39 Prior to the attack on Chin Wai, Moy Dong Chew and his son had been threatened by other Chinese factions and even attacked.167 Chin family members used First Ward connections in the trial and explained to the court and the public the power play behind the attack:

Hip Lung…attempted to form a Chinese gambling trust with himself at the head, and when he met opposition, instead of resorting to underselling, secret agreements, and rebating, he simply decided to kill off a few of the independents as an object lesson.168 Hip Lung and Moy Dong Iloy, his brother wanted to form a gambling society – On

Leong Tong. They recruited men in Chinatown, including Chin Foin, Chin Y’et Quay, and Chin

Maun Hing. When these individuals refused to be a part of the gambling ring, Moy Dong Chew and Moy Dony Iloy paid to have them assassinated.169

167 Adam McKeown, Chinese Migrant Networks and Cultural Change: Peru, Chicago, and Hawaii, 1900-1936 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001) 207. 168 Ibid, 206-207. 169 “Chinese Murder a Maze of Plots,” The Chicago Tribune, Jun. 7, 1908. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1908/06/07/page/4/article/chinese-murder-a-maze-of-plots#text.

40 170

This picture of Hip Lung and his son was displayed in The Chicago Tribune during the trial for the murder of Chin Wai. It is interesting to note that since the attacks and murders between the Chinese groups divided amongst family lines, Hip Lung’s son was featured in the photo in the newspaper.

By June 1908 the trial was underway. The defense of the Moys said that Chin Wai: was killed by Dong Ah Quak. The Trial was highly divided amongst the two competing Chinese families as the majority of the prosecution’s Chinese witnesses were Chins, and those for the defense were Moys. The persecution’s interpreter was a Chin and the defense’s was a Moy. The courtroom that held the trial was divided between the Moys and the Chins, who filled the other half of the courtroom.171 On June 1908, The Chicago Tribune reported of the trial of Harry Lee

170 “Chinese Murder a Maze of Plots,” The Chicago Tribune, Jun. 7, 1908. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1908/06/07/page/4/article/chinese-murder-a-maze-of-plots#text. 171 Ibid.

41 on behalf of the Moy faction. He was accused of the murder of Chin Wai and of being hired by

Moy Dong Chew to kill Chin Wai. However, a witness, Louis Cohen of 295 Clark Street claimed he saw Chin Wai get shot and that it was decisively not Harry Lee. Louis Cohen described the scene:

A heavyset Chinaman dressed in oriental garb, approached him [Chin Wai] and drew a revolver, firing at Chin Wai’s breast when about three feet away. Chin threw up his hands, and as he whirled around on his heels another shot was fired. The wounded Chinaman fell on his back. And the murderer, standing directly over him, emptied the one revolver Into his body, threw away the gun, and, drawing another, fired several more shots at the prostrate man. Then he turned and ran.172 The defense of Harry Lee and the Moy faction: Robert Cantwell, Patrick O'Donnell, and

James Kelly wanted their Chinese witnesses to testify in English for practical reasons. This trial, however, the trial was highly biased. While the witnesses for the prosecution were Chins, the defense and interpreters were Moys. Interestingly enough, the jury was white.173 Moy Dong

Chew was charged for conspiracy to murder by Judge Chytraus, Assistant State Attorney

Popham, and Policeman Thomas Stift whom testified.174 On June 17, 1908, Moy Dong Chew and his brother were acquitted. As a result, his dominance over the Moy part of Chinatown was created.175 There was also an attempt to form an uprising to overthrown the “Opium Dong” in

June 1908.

Then, when a housing shortage struck Chicago in 1912, the city wanted to relocate all the

Chinese coolies elsewhere to a less valuable area. This was justified by the need to remove the

Chinese people, their gambling, and related murders occurring in Chicago. The project of

172 Ibid. 173 Ibid. 174 “May Prove Alibi in Chinese Case,” The Chicago Tribune, May 27, 1908. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1908/05/27/page/9/article/may-prove-alibi-in-chinese-case. 175 Tan Chee-Beng, Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora (New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2013) 70.

42 relocating and building new living and working spaces for all of the Chinese would cost about

$200,000. The buildings were ready for five thousand Chinese to move into by November of

1912. Despite the relocation, the Moy legacy continued into the 1920s – Frank Moy was the new

“Mayor of Chinatown” in the late 1920s.176 The police of Chicago advised the citizens that “all good Chinese should do all in their power to rid the world of such a man,”177 referring to Moy

Dong Chew. This continued on until “the last holdouts in the Chinese quarter resisted the impulse to move…forcible eviction drove them out of Clark Street in February 1927.”178 There was a shift in customs and attitudes of the Chinese after being moved out of their original homes in Chicago. One Chinese man, John Kelly explained the change of customs:

The Chinese New Year lasted from one to two weeks. Clark Street was a gay place during these celebrations. There was a mingling of the Tongs – the On Leons and the Hip Sings – and during the festival season guns and hatchets were laid away.179 By 1928, the customs had dwindled and violence amongst the Chinese groups escalated again as a result – there was no more unifying factors or celebrations. In October of 1928, On

Leong was attacked and Eng Pak, a Hip Sing, was murdered in retaliation. This cycle of attacks and avenging murders continued. Frank Moy, the aforementioned May of Chinatown, even wore a bulletproof vest in public due to the amount of death threats he received.180

176 Richard C. Lindberg, Gangland Chicago: Criminality and Lawlessness in the Windy City (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016) 71. 177 Ibid, 70. 178 Ibid, 71. 179 Ibid, 71. 180 Ibid, 71-72.

43 Chapter Four: Chicago Represents Chinese Crisis Across North America

Ultimately the issues, clashes, and violence in Chicago amongst the Chinese people, although unknown by history, shaped the rest of anti-Chinese violence in the United States. The

United States government shifted in attitudes towards the Chinese coolies at the turn of the century. This was known as the beginning of Open Door Policy for this immigrant group.

Despite this, Chinese coolies in Chicago continued to face unique and extreme difficulties. This occurred especially from 1900-1906 with a shift in attitudes towards Chinese people demonstrated in the adoption of relatively lenient policies.181 It was an interesting contrast and in part related to the aftermath of the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago, in which there was the biggest wave of immigrants from 1900-1910: 8,795,386 people. This overlapped with the economic

Panic of 1907. It ultimately was a contributing factor, to the 1907 Act To Regulate the

Immigration of Aliens into the United States.182 This Act contained stronger and more offensive wording refusing entry to “idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous.”183 This was seen how “American protestant societies were represented in China by 276 ordained missionaries, 155 stations, and even more out-stations.”184 By 1905, Roosevelt was distracted by other matters.

In 1907, immigration officer Marcus Braun published a report on smuggling on Chinese

Immigrants from Mexico along an underground-railroad system. This was a bigger issue the

United States Government faced outside intra-ethnic conflict within the Chinatowns, especially

181 Delber L. McKee, Chinese Exclusion Versus the Open Door Policy, 1900-1906: Clashes Over China Policy in the Roosevelt Era (Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 1977) 17. 182 Michael C. LeMay and Elliott Robert Barkan, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History (California: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999) 47. 183 United States Congress, 1907 Act To Regulate the Immigration of Aliens into the United States. 184 Delber L. McKee, Chinese Exclusion Versus the Open Door Policy, 1900-1906: Clashes Over China Policy in the Roosevelt Era (Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 1977) 17.

44 in Chicago.185 This originated in 1890, the Immigration Bureau of the United States was worried about Chinese coolies using the transit system to their advantage; however, the Department of

State said that transit could not restrict the Chinese.186 Marcus Braun, an immigration officer for the United States, examined the United States’ borders in 1907. He felt that there was potential for the United States to be a: “dumping ground of the scum of European and Oriental” 187 countries. Due to Canada’s recently enhanced immigration policies, Canada was not a source of increased Chinese entry to the United States. In contrast, when Braun travelled to Mexico City, he found the U.S.-Mexico border to be insecure.188 Braun also found Chinese immigrants there, using fake Mexican citizenships to get access to the United States.189 The United States and

Mexico did not enforce policies cohesively to combat the waves of immigration via Mexico.190

This draws back to the initial reason that the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 required identification: in 1890, William Windom, the United States secretary of treasury looked into

Chinese immigrants entering the United States illegally. He said that:

The alleged violations appear to consist mainly in the use of fraudulent certificates, in smuggling across the northern and southern frontiers of Chinese laborers, and in the existence of a general system among Chinese residents in this country and Canada for the fraudulent landing of Chinese laborers within the territory of the United States.191 Braun found that this be true in 1907, fifteen years after the passage of the Chinese

Exclusion Act, except with Mexico. He also found that Mexico was home to an underground-

185 Elliot Young, Alien Nation: Chinese Migration in the Americas from the Coolie Era Through World War II (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014) 7. 186 Ibid, 157. 187 Andrea Geiger, Subverting Exclusion: Transpacific Encounters with Race, Caste, and Borders, 1885-1928 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011) 106. 188 Ibid, 106. 189 Elliot Young, Alien Nation: Chinese Migration in the Americas from the Coolie Era Through World War II (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014) 162. 190 Ibid, 180. 191 Ibid, 156.

45 railroad system for the Chinese to enter the United States in addition to the fradulent identification papers.

192

This is an example of Marcus Braun’s exhibits on the Chinese who were traveling from

Mexico to the United States illegally at the turn of the century.

192 Ibid, 7.

46 193

This is a depiction of a Chinese immigrant dressed as a Mexican in order to cross the border into the United States. It was featured in the popular Harper’s Weekly prior to Marcus

Braun’s investigation and supported his ideas about the lack of security in Mexico with regards to the U.S. border.

Meanwhile, as America headed into the Great Depression, there was a shift in focus from the Chinese question to managing the economic disaster in the United States. Overall, there was a shift and decline of Chinese people coming back once they left the United States from 1921-

1930, 24,345 registered entries and 40,376 registered departures leading to a loss of 16,031. At the same time, grew 13,000. But, the difference is found in who is foreign bound or not. In terms of foreign-born Chinese: there was a decline from 1890-1920, yet, population rose 1,000 from

1920-1930.194 By 1930, the Commissioner on General Immigration released a statement about the age of Chinese exclusion:

193 Ibid, 6. 194 Ibid, 155.

47 When, in 1882, laws were placed on the statute books absolutely excluding Chinese laborers, it was like damming up a more or less placidly flowing stream. At every point the flow sought to escape its bounds. Immigration officers were for many years kept busy day and night stopping the leaks. This flow now, after nearly half a century, has fairly subsided. Some of it, however, it should be stated in passing, has formed new channels, and is entering by way of the so-called deserting-seaman route.195 For over half a century, Americans focused on anti-Chinese sentiments. At this time,

America had begun to shift focus and concentrate on the Great Depression and the looming threat of another World War. Additionally, there was a new group of people to exclude: the

Japanese. The xenophobic tendencies of the United States, is cyclical in that matter. Overall, the

Chinese in Chicago during the anti-Chinese era were an instigating, attention drawing, center for xenophobia and racism from 1870-1920 – and history forgets that.

195 Ibid, 154.

48 Conclusion – Relation of the Chinese in Chicago to the 2016 US Presidential Election

That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel. And any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, by direction of the President of the United States, and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States. – The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 The specific mistreatment of the Chinese in Chicago is at times forgotten by history. This is due to the widespread news of the aforementioned massacres in other cities or particularly in

California. Despite this, the impacts and affects felt in the city of Chicago from 1870-1920 are quite noteworthy and crucial to understanding the xenophobic characteristic of this time period. I hope that I have shown my peers, readers, and historians a connection between the treatment: of

Chinese immigrants in Chicago from 1870-1920 to present day life. Due to Chinese-American separation in society, the Chinese banned together and created “the less visible organizations upstairs in the same buildings….merchants, clanship members, religious followers, and those with a political agenda”196 in Chicago. The Chinese-Americans needed some form of unity to use for social gain once in the Chinatowns especially in Chicago. For example, there was the Hung

Mon (Chinese Freemason) Society and the Moy Shee D.K. Association. These chapters became huge and spread across the nation. Being in these organizations gave insurance socially to the

Chinese and the connections they needed to ensure individual and family success in Chicago;197 however, some of these organizations were under suspicion. The Federal Government closed On

Leong Merchants’ Association in Chicago because it was believed was gambling and illegal

196 Ibid, 57. 197 Ibid, 57.

49 taxes involved. In accordance to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 allowing certain Chinese people to enter the United States, government officials from China were allowed Wu Tingfang,

Imperial Chinese Ambassador to the US, traveled to Chicago in 1909. While there, he set up the

Qing Dynasty Overseas Residents’ School for the immigrants.198

Although the conflict and clashes between Denis Kearney, Wong Chin Foo, State

Attorney Kern, and within the Chinese community itself exist now only in historical archives and long has passed; the mistreatment and scapegoating of Chinese immigrants (and other immigrant groups) is a concept that remains in the United States today. Chinese citizens other than the known ones such as Wong Chin Foo and Moy Dong Chew did work together to fight the xenophobia. However, as the theme follows, history forgets them. Following the passing of the

Chinese Exclusion Act, Scott Act, and Geary Act, circumstances for the Chinese immigrants worsened in terms of job availability, citizenship rights or lack there of, and travel capabilities.

The outcome of the 2016 United States Presidential election and the resulting racist uprisings and particular travel ban of certain populations can be directly correlated to the period of 1870-1920 for the Chinese in Chicago.

It is interesting to note that after half a century of resentment, exclusion, and mistreatment of the Chinese, there was a shift in focusing those tendencies onto the Japanese immigrants as the United States witnessed World War Two on the horizon. In this we can see the cyclical nature of xenophobia in American History. Ultimately though, the intense dislike of

Chinese people in Chicago from 1870-1920, which dissipated in 1930, is forgotten about by history, despite its intricate and serious connections and causation effects on anti-Chinese attitudes nationwide and across North America at the time. I hope that in my work, I have shed light on a people who became forgotten in a major city during a crucial time in American history.

198 Ibid, 60-61.

50 The Chinese immigrants who were so poorly treated in Chicago from 1870-1920 shall no longer remain an archived documental series. They are a lesson for the current and future politicians, citizens, and scholars to remember and learn from. The cyclical xenophobic tendencies have not disappeared, and are very much present; an example being the 2016 United States Presidential election results and reactions to such.

51 Work Cited

Primary Sources

“Allege a Conspiracy to Murder.” The Chicago Tribune. Apr. 7, 1893.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1893/04/07/page/5/article/allege-a-conspiracy-to-

murder#text.

“And Still They Come!” The Wasp 5. Aug.-Dec. 1880.

https://thomasnastcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/chinese-must-go-but-who-

keeps-them-11-may-1878.jpg.

“Anti-Chinese Riot at Seattle.” Harper’s Weekly. Mar. 6, 1886.

http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Items/Item095L.htm.

Banks, Louis Albert. Our Brother in Yellow: Sermon Delivered in the First M.E. Church,

Boston, Sunday Morning May 21, 1893. Boston: Lee and Shepard Publishers, 1893.

“Chinaman-Ends Long Hiding.” The Chicago Tribune. May 2, 1908.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1908/05/02/page/18/article/chinaman-ends-long-

hiding#text.

Chinese Equal Rights League. Appeal of the Chinese Equal Rights League to the People of

the United States for Equality of Manhood. New York: Bible House, 1893.

“Chinese Murder a Maze of Plots.” The Chicago Tribune. Jun. 7, 1908.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1908/06/07/page/4/article/chinese-murder-a-maze-of-

plots#text.

“Coolies.” Harper’s Weekly. Aug. 14, 1869. http://immigrants.harpweek.com/.

Denis Kearney. “Our Misery and Despair.” Feb 27, 1878.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5046/%7C.

52 Hoyne, Temple S. The Medical Visitor, Volume 8. Michigan: University of Michigan, 1892.

http://www.common-place-archives.org/vol-11/no-01/hsu/.

Kearney, Denis. “Kearney at Faneuil Hall.” Aug 5th, 1878.

https://archive.org/stream/SpeechesOfDennisKearneyLaborChampion1878/78-kearney-

speechesofdeniskearney#page/n1/mode/2up.

Kerr, Winfield S.. Josh Sherman: His Life and Public Services, Volume 2. Boston: Sherman,

French & Company, 1908.

“May Provide Alibi in Chinese Case.” The Chicago Tribune. May 27, 1908.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1908/05/27/page/9/article/may-prove-alibi-in-chinese-

case/.

Nast, Thomas. “Celestial.” Harper’s Weekly. Feb 2, 1881.

https://thomasnastcartoons.com/tag/1881/.

“The Anti-Chinese Riot at Seattle, Washington Territory.” Harper’s Weekly. Mar. 6, 1886,

http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Illustrations/096AntiChineseRiotMa

in.htm.

“The Chinese Must Go, But Who Keeps Them?” The San Francisco Illustrated Wasp. May

11, 1878. https://thomasnastcartoons.com/2014/02/14/the-cinese-must-go-but-who-

keeps-them-11-may-1878/.

“Our Relations with China.” Harper’s Weekly. October 6, 1888.

http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Items/Item105.htm.

“The Cooly Importation.” Harper’s Weekly. Aug. 31, 1867.

http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/Items/Item008.htm.

“Thirty-Two Chinese Actors Arrive.” The Chicago Tribune. Apr. 26, 1893/

53 http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1893/04/26/page/11/article/thirty-two-chinese-actors-

arrive#text.

United States Congress. 1907 Act To Regulate the Immigration of Aliens into the United

States.

United States Congress. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

“Wong Chin Foo Protests Against Class Legislation.” The Chicago Tribune. Dec. 27, 1897.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1897/12/27/page/8/article/wong-chin-foo-protests-

against-class-legislation#text.

“Wong Chin Foo Thinks Kern Opposed to His Family.” The Chicago Tribune. Apr. 16,

1893. http://flps.newberry.org/article/5418479_0090.

“X Crory Dropped From The Church.” The Chicago Tribune. Apr. 12, 1893.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1893/04/12/page/2/article/mcrory-dropped-from-the-

church#text.

Secondary Sources:

“A Connecticut Yankee in the Court of Wu Chih Tien.” Common-Place. Oct. 2010.

http://www.common-place-archives.org/vol-11/no-01/hsu/.

Chee-Beng, Tan. Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora. New York: Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group, 2013.

Courtwright, David T. Dark Paradise. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:

Harvard University Press, 2001.

Daniels, Roger and Graham, Otis L.. Debating American Immigration, 1882-Present.

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001.

54 Geiger, Andrea. Subverting Exclusion: Transpacific Encounters with Race, Caste, and

Borders, 1885-1928. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

Gozalez, Juan and Torres, Joseph. News for All the People: The Epic Story of Race and the

American Media. New York: Verso, 2011.

Haney, Jess. “Speeches of Dennis Kearney, Labor Champion.” Nov 27, 2016.

https://archive.org/details/SpeechesOfDennisKearneyLaborChampion1878.

“History 457: Week 5: Civil War & Chinese Exclusion.” US History Scene. Feb. 2017.

http://ushistoryscene.com/article/history-457-week-5/.

LeMay, Michael C. and Barkan, Elliott Robert. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws

and Issues: A Documentary History. California: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999.

Lindberg, Richard C.. Gangland Chicago: Criminality and Lawlessness in the Windy City.

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

Ling, Huping. Chinese Chicago: Race, Transnational Migration, and Community Since

1870. California: Stanford University Press, 2012.

Liu, Eric. A Chinaman’s Chance One Family’s Journey and the Chinese American Dream.

New York: PublicAffairs, 2014.

Lopate, Phillip. Writing New York: A Literary Anthology. New York: Washington Square

Press, 1998.

McKee, Delber L. Chinese Exclusion Versus the Open Door Policy, 1900-1906: Clashes

Over China Policy in the Roosevelt Era. Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 1977.

McKeown, Adam. Chinese Migrant Networks and Cultural Change: Peru, Chicago, and

Hawaii, 1900-1936. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Nunis, Jr., Doyce B., Kearney, Denis, and Bryce, J.. The Demagogue and the Demographer:

55 Correspondence of Denis Kearney and Lord Bryce. California: Pacific Historical Review,

1967.

“Quotations From Wong Chin Foo.” First Chinese American. Accessed Jan. 16, 2017.

http://firstchineseamerican.com/quotations.htm.

Richard C. Lindberg, Gangland Chicago: Criminality and Lawlessness in the Windy City

(Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016) 71.

Seligman, Scott D.. The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo.

Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013.

Soennichsen, John. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing

Group, 2011.

Spence, Jonathan. The Search for Modern China. New York: Norton & Company, Inc., 1990.

“Scott Act (1888).” Harper’s Weekly. 1998-1999.

http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/2KeyIssues/ScottAct.htm.

“The Anti-Chinese Hysteria of 1885-1886.” Harper’s Weekly. 1998-1999.

http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/2KeyIssues/TheAntiChineseHysteria

.htm.

“The Forgotten Story of the “First Chinese American.”” Bucknell University.

http://www.bucknell.edu/x81224.xml.http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmerican

s/Items/Item105.htm.

“The Routledge Companion to Asian American and Pacific Islander Literature.” Rachel C.

Lee. Accessed January 29, 2017.

https://books.google.com/books?id=gKzAAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage

&q&f=false.

56 “What Remains of the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair.” All That is Interesting. Jan. 13, 2017.

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/1893-chicago-fair.

You May Not Know About The First Chinese Americans, But You Should.” The Huffington

Post. Jul. 7, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/chinese-american-

exhibit_n_5528081.html.

Young, Elliot. Alien Nation: Chinese Migration in the Americas from the Coolie Era

Through World War II. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014.

Young, Judy, Chang, Change, Gordon H., Mark Lai, H.. Chinese American Voices: From the

Gold Rush to the Present. California: University of California Press, 2006.

57