LaborHistory, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2000

Blindin One Eye Only: Westernand Eastern Knights of Labor Viewthe ChineseQuestion*

ROB WEIR

Historianshave beenquick topoint outthe ease with whichthe Knights ofLabor absorbedGilded Age prejudicesregarding theChinese. In praising theOrder ’s embrace ofuniversal brotherhood with regard toothers, Alexander Saxton writes,ª Only at accepting Chinesedid the Knights generally drawthe line.º 1 Clark Halker notes, ªMuchas the Knights pressedthe limits ofthemeaning ofrepublicanism ¼they could neverentirely escapenotions of racial inferiority ¼[N]on -WesternEuropean immi - grants remained second -classcitizens even amongst theKnights. Chinese workers remained beyondthe pale ¼º 2 Bryan Palmer andGreg Kealey claim that anti -Chinese hysteria wasso pervasive that it ªironically contributedtoward working -class soli- darity.º 3 Philip Foner bluntly wrote,ª The chiefblot ontheK ofL ’srecordon the issue oflabor solidarity wasin thecase of Chinese workers.º 4 Gerald Grobopined that the organization ªneverreceded from its anti -Chineseattitude,º while Catharine Collomp sawChinese exclusion as ª theonly issueabout whichthe Knights ofLabor andthe American Federation ofLabor constantlylobbied theFederal government.º 5 Since1986, mosthistorians have beenquick toadopt the formulation ofGwendolyn Minkwho argues that ªoldlaborº developed a ªjobconscious unionism ¼ suffused with ethnicand race consciousness.ºFor mostof the period from 1875 through 1920, sheargues, new immigrant groups werethe targets ofracist andnativist hatredson the part of more-entrenchedworking -classgroups. 6 Leaving asideMink ’sbackdoor redux

*Thiswork derives from a paper deliveredat the 1996Southwest Labor Studies conference.I wish to thank all ofthe participants fortheir comments, especiallyJudy Yung, RebeccaMead, Rudy Higgens-Evenson, and Dana Frank. As always, thanks to BruceLaurie, who readan earlierdraft and is everhelpful with his suggestions.A specialthanks toAndrewGyory, whose workon the Chinesequestion surpassesall othersin its nuanceand subtlety. Hisadvice and friendship wereinvaluable in revisingthis work. 1AlexanderSaxton, The Indispensable Enemy: Laborand the Anti -Chinese Movement in (Berkeley,CA: Universityof California Press,1971), 40. 2Clark Halker, ForDemocracy, Workers,and God: Labor Song -Poemsand Labor Protest, 1865±95 (Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press,1991), 130. 3GregoryKealey and Bryan Palmer, Dreaming ofWhat Might Be: The Knights ofLabor in Ontario, 1880± 1900 (Toronto: NewHogtown Press, 1987), 150± 151. 4Philip S.Foner, History ofthe LaborMovement in America,Volume II:Fromthe Founding ofthe American Federation ofLabor to the Emergence ofAmerican Imperialism (NewYork: International, 1955),58. 5GeraldGrob, Workersand Utopia: A Study ofIdeological Con¯ict in the American LaborMovement, 1856± 1900 (NewYork: Quadrangle,1961), 58; Catherine Collomp, ªUnions, Civics, and National Identity: OrganizedLabor ’sReactionto Immigration, 1881±1897,º LaborHistory 29(1988), 458. 6GwendolynMink, OldLabor and New Immigrantsin American Political Development: Union, Party,and State, 1875±1920 (Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1986).

ISSN 0023-656Xprint/ ISSN1469 -9702online/ 00/040421±16 Ó 2000Taylor & Francis Ltd on behalfof The Tamiment Institute DOI:10.1080/00236560020007072 422 R. Weir

ofa Commons/Perlman jobconsciousness thesis long repudiatedby social historians, Iwouldargue that her view andothers critical ofGilded Age labor ’sresponseto the Chineseis more neatthan accurate.Applying ablanket anti -Chineselabel tothe Knights lacks nuance,and ignores context.The further eastone traveled from the Rocky Mountains,the less anti -Chinesecampaigns mattered toKnights asmore than amere rhetorical ploy. Asa recentwork by AndrewGyory reveals, from the1870s onwardseastern workers showed considerably lessinterest in therabid anti -Chinese hysteria that soconsumed laborers in theWest. 7 The Knights ofLabor respondedto Gilded Age popular anti -Chinesenativism in various ways.These serve as another reminder that GildedAge ideology andorganiza - tionswere far tooelusive, complex, andelastic tobe neatly labeled. Manya commen - tator has misinterpreted theKnights ofLabor byassumingthat its national leadership spokefor therank and® le.That wasseldom the case. To grasp what members felt,one mustusually look tothe local level. There,how the KOL viewedChinese workers was oftena functionof the composition of one ’slocal assembly,political ideology, and regional identity.

TheKnights and Denis Kearney By1877, California wasawash in aseaof anti -Chinesehysteria. Indeed,tensions had beenbuilding for quitesome time. The ®rstrecorded incident of Caucasian/ Chinesecon ¯ict datesto 1849 when Chineseminers wereforbidden to toil in theGold Rush region ofTuolumneCounty. 8 Asearly asthe mid -1850s, physical andrhetorical attacks against theChinese were common.By the1870s, theso -called Six Companieswere rumored to import thou - sandsof ª coolieºlaborers intothe despite near -universal condemnation ofthe practice from everyoneoutside the business community. 9 Eighteenseventy -sevenwas the year ofDenis Kearney. In themidst of a San Francisco meeting oftheWorkingmen ’sParty ofthe United States devoted to the great railway strike,an unruly group insistedon linking labor unrestto the ª Chinese question.ºRebuffed by Party leaders,they quit thehall for threedays of looting, assault,arson and mayhem in thecity ’sburgeoning Chinatowndistrict. Kearney assumedthe demagogue ’smantle, andrallied workersto the cry ªThe ChineseMust Go!ºKearney thumbed his noseat theWorkingmen ’sParty USA,andformed the Workingmen’sParty ofCalifornia. Asthe year closed,he was undoubtedly one of the mostpowerful men in thestate. 10 Kearneybrought his vitriol Eastin July, 1878. But,as Gyory has shown,although

7AndrewGyory, Closing the Gate: Race, Politics andthe (Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press,1998). 8LorenW. Fessler,ed., Chinese in America:Stereotyped Past,Changing Present (NewYork: Vantage, 1983). 9GildedAge laborers often indiscriminately usedthe termª coolieºin theirremarks. Technically, the cooliesystem was longpast by the time ofthe anti -Chineseagitations in which most Knightsof Labor participated and they ought to have properly usedthe termª contractlaborer.º In truth, most Knightssaw any formof non -freelabor as debasedand usedboth termsinterchangeably and contemptuously. 10For moredetails see Philip Foner, History ofthe LaborMovement in America,Volume I:FromColonial Timesto the Founding ofthe American Federation ofLabor (NewYork: InternationalPublishers, 1982), 490±492. See also Gyory, Closing the Gate, passim [Note:Variant spellings of Workingmen ’spartiesappear in both primary and secondarysources. Sometimes it is renderedas asingleword, at othersas two words. For the sakeof editorial consistency I have chosento combine them as one.] Knightsof Labor and theChinese Question 423 workersshowed initial enthusiasm,they quickly tired ofKearney ’sboorish antics. Socialists suchas Justus Schwab, who had blockedKearney ’sattempts toenter the Workingmen’sParty USA,dutifully denouncedthe system,but refused to accept theracist premise that underlay Kearney ’srhetoric. Amonthbefore Kearney arrived in theEast, trade unionistGeorge McNeill notedthat labor neededto organize ªwithout distinctionof race, color, nationality, politics, or religion,ºand the LaborStandard insistedthat class,not ethnicity, bethe centerpiece of the labor program for which Kearneyostensibly stumped. 11 Kearneysaid nothing that madeeastern workers repudiate McNeill. By all accounts,the East should have beenripe toembrace Kearnyite nativism. In 1870, 75 Chinesehad beenimported tobreak ashoemakers ’ strike in North Adams, MA,andseveral other importations ofChinese scabs had raised thefear of¯ oodsof cheap labor washing away East -coastwage structures.Nonetheless, in theeight -year interim betweenNorth Adamsand Kearney ’svisit, easternworkers had largely ignored therising tideof anti -Chineseagitation fomenting westof the Rockies. Kearneycaught theattention of the Knights ofLabor ashe toured. KOL Grand MasterUriah Stephenspraised Kearney.And Stephens ’ soon-to-bereplacement Ter - encePowderly wassimilarly impressed.During aSeptemberspeech in NewYork City, Kearneywas greeted with huzzahs,even if Schwaband company cringed.But the more Kearneyspoke, the less charitable theKnights felt.Even before Kearney ’sappearance in NewYork, Powderly con®ded to Grand Secretary Charles Litchman that hewas ªdisgustedºwith Kearneyand thought his shrill one -note anti-Chineseravings were ªinjuriousºto the cause of labor. Both thelabor andmainstream pressbegan toattack Kearney,and an October speechwas booed in Boston.By thetime , Massachusetts ’ Greenback-Labor candidatefor governor, spokein North Adams,he failed toevenmention the Chinese. The reaction against Kearneygrew sostrong that by thetime heleft theEast, he had droppedChinese references from his speeches. 12

TheMaking ofAnti -ChineseHysteria Easternreactions to Kearney reveal theextent to which negative sentimentswere manufacturedrather than intrinsic toworking -classideology. The Chinesewere orig - inally viewedthrough alensof exoticism, themesexploited in exhibits displayed by P. T.Barnum, andby theproprietors ofBoston ’sChineseMuseum. Overall silenceon the Chineseissue, however, suggests that mostantebellum workersgave theChinese little thought whatsoever.Occasionally, aprogressive voice sounded.In SanFrancisco, an 1849 newspaperreferred to the Chinese as ª likely tobe good citizens, being quiet, inoffensive,and particularly industrious.º 13 To becertain, there was tension in thegold ®elds,but much of it wasdirected at generalized ªforeign miners,ºrather than speci®cally targeted at theChinese. When anti -Chineseattacks occurredin the1850s, SanFrancisco of®cials cooperatedwith Chineseleaders to form aVigilance Committee toclear ªthugsºfrom thestreets. 14

11Gyory, chapts. 6±7, quote on p. 101. 12TerenceV. Powderlyto Charles Lichtman, August24, 1878, Terence V.PowderlyPapers (University Micro®lm locatedat Universityof Massachusetts at Amherst), hereaftercited as PP; Gyory, Closing the Gate, chapt. 7. 13Fessler, Chinese in America , 24. 14Ibid. 424 R. Weir

Howthen does one move from indifference,fascination, and mild toleranceto an 1880 article in theKnights ofLabor ’s of® cial Journalof United Labor in which San Francisco Knights wrote,ª They bear thesemblance of men, but live like beasts¼ who eat rice andthe offal ofthe slaughter house.ºThe article wenton to call theChinese ªnatural thievesºand all Chinesewomen ª prostitutes.º 15 It ispossible that antebellum political andsocial tensionsde¯ ected latent anti - Chinesenativism, butby mostaccounts it reachedfever pitch after theCivil War owing totwo factors: (1) fallout from the1868 Burlingame Treaty, and(2) thespread of contractlabor oftenmislabeled theª coolieºsystem. The contextfor both waspolitical hucksterism.As early as1861, California GovernorLeland Stanford discovered votes couldbe had by advocating Chineseexclusion. Despitethe treaty ’spopularity in theEast, westerners hotly debatedit asdetails becameknown; many greetedthe Burlingame Treaty with demonstrationsonce it was signed.16 The treaty recognizedthe right ofChinese nationals toemigrate, aclause forcedon the Chinese government aspart ofan imposed open -doorpolicy, andthus greatly increasedboth thenumbers of Chinese coming andthose staying. Chinese emigration toCalifornia nearly tripled in thedecade following theBurlingame Treaty, andthe ¯ owof returning eÂmigreÂs,estimated to have beenabout 47% before1868, droppedprecipitously. 17 Ironically, thetreaty ’sproviso allowing freeemigration ofChinese nationals ended thevery gang contractª coolieºsystem against whichlaborers had long railed. However, it ledindividual Chineseworkers to negotiate jobs,wages, and conditions with labor contractors,like thoseaf® liated with theSix Companies.Employers usedto hiring intact crewsencouraged the contractors who provided them with cheap labor whose costscould be predicted to the last dime.Doubtless some Chinese workers felt more comfortable among fellowcountrymen than aslone wage -earnerscompeting onthefree market in astrange land. For themost part, whiteworkers failed tosee the difference between labor contract - ing andthe serf -like coolie system.Not that they wouldhave caredÐcontract work was viewedwith asmuch contempt as coolie labor. The term ªcoolieºremained in the popular vernacular throughout theGilded Age, and Chinese work crews exacerbated working-classfears of unfair competition.Ending contract labor had long beena goal ofanorganized labor. It wasseen as a systemthat drovedown wages, and violated the tenetsof freelabor ideology. The latter view,ironically, had beenfostered by thevery elitesnow contracting Chineselabor. Well -publicized usesof Chinese workers to break strikesin North Adams,MA, Belleville, NJ,and Beaver Falls, PAbetween1870 and 1872 heightenedfears. Workers at aJune1870 rally in NewYork City heard several speakersdenounce the importation ofChinese labor gangs, andJohn Swinton wrote contemptuouslyabout theChinese in a New YorkTribune article.18

15Journal ofUnited Labor ,Dec.1880 (hereafter cited as JUL). 16Gyorynotes that the BurlingameTreaty initially receivedan enthusiasticreception in the East. Although it passed the Senatewithout dissent, westernlaborers were decidedly upset by the bill. 17Ronald Takaki, Strangers Froma Different Shore:A History ofAsian Americans ,(NewYork: Penguin, 1989);Elmer Sandmyer, The Anti-Chinese Movement in California (Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press reprintof 1939 edition). 18Him MarkLai argues that the Six Companies functionedmostly as benevolentassociations and that theirreputation as unscrupulous labor contractorsis largelyundeserved. Although he may be technically correct,nativists made littledistinction betweenthe Six Companies and the cooliesystem. Itis safeto say that the nativists won the perceptionwars. SeeHim MarkLai, ªHistoricalDevelopment ofthe Chinese Knightsof Labor and theChinese Question 425

For historian GwendolynMink, all ofthis is proof that racism andunionism had becomeinseparable. In her words,the ª call for aban oncontract labor wasimplicitly acall for racial exclusion.ºShe cites calls from North Adamsworkers for exclusionary legislature, thepresence of anti -coolie clubsinside the striking Knights ofSt. Crispin, boycottsof non -ªwhiteºproducts, and anti -Chineserallies in Bostonand New York as evidenceof her assertions.Mink ’s®ndingsresonate with thoseof David Roediger ’s pathbreaking studyon working -classª whiteness.ºAlthough Roediger focusedprimarily onthe way whiteworkers related toAfrican -Americans,his worksuggests that white racism andunionism are intertwined. 19 However,Gilded Age realities cautionagainst hasty generalizations. AsAndrew Gyory pointsout, for example, it isimportant todistinguish betweenbeing anti - contractlabor andanti -Chinese.In theEast, after initial spurtsof rock andepithet hurlingÐ commonplacein moststrikesÐ workers moved from condemningthe Chinese todenouncing the entrepreneurs who imported them,and the Knights ofSt. Crispin tried toorganise theChinese. Future KOL leaders like Richard Trevellick carefully wordedtheir remarks todifferentiate between people andlabor systems. 20 Trevellick, like mostlabor leaders,rejected contract labor asunworthy of free workers.That rejectionwas an article offaith in theGilded Age working class,but the link betweenit andracial stereotyping isless tenuous than might ®rstappear. Eastof theRockies, labor leadersdiscussed the Chinese question, but with more heat than ®re. AsGyory observes,it waspoliticians whofanned rank and® le fervor onthe issue, not labor organizers. By 1880, both easternand western politicians had seizedupon Chineseexclusion as an effective method of appearing tobe friends of the laboring classes.It wasa cheap dodgethat allowed them togain labor voteswithout actually investigating working conditions. 21 The Knights ofLabor, foundedin 1869, wasin its formative phaseat precisely the time in which theChinese question was being rede®ned. Polarity ofopinion within the Knights representsthat within thegreater working class,if notall ofAmerican society, butwith anotable exception.The KOL ’semphasis onUniversal Brotherhood meant that it wasable tofoster some members whocould transcend the limits ofGilded Age intoleranceand see the Chinese as potential ªbrothers.ºSuch an attitude was rare in thelate Victorian working class,and was a minority choruswithin theKOL, though it containedvocal, powerfulvoices.

TheBlind Eye: Knights in the West There werevery fewKnights westof the Rockies even mildly sympathetic tothe Chinese.Here the KOL wastruly blind tothe possibility that theOrder ’s Universal

Footnote 18 continued Consolidated BenevolentAssociation/ HuiguanSystem,º in Fessler,ed., Chinese America:History and Perspective (San Francisco,1987), 13± 51. For moreon Chinesestrikebreakers in the Eastsee Fessler, esp. 108± 110. 19Mink, 122;David Roediger, The Wages ofWhiteness: Race andthe Making ofthe American Working Class (London: Verso,1992). [Note: I wish to make it clearthat Iam in fundamental agreementwith the ®ndings ofboth Mink and Roediger,especially the latter.Both, however,offer theses which lendthemselves to areductionistreverse stereotyping. That is, white workershave atendencyto appear primarily as racists and nativists. Roediger ’sbook has beenespecially open to misinterpretation. Itemerged at atime when ªpostmodernismºwas perhaps at its height ofacademic popularity. Inmy view, many ofthose employing postmodern racialtheory did so with lessskill and lessattention forhistorical evidencethan Roediger.] 20Gyory, 23. 21SeeGyory, Chapt. 10. 426 R. Weir

Brotherhood principles couldinclude yellow -skinnedbrethren. As Alexander Saxton, Elmer Sandmeyer,Loren Fessler, and others have shown,West Coast workers began tocultivate anti -Chinesesentiments in the1850s, viewsthat only hardenedover time. Indeed,one recent study links WestCoast ª relocationºof the Japanese during World War IItoan unbroken chain ofanti -Asiannativism beginning in the1850s. 22 WestCoast Knights ofLabor seemedimpervious tothe Order ’scall for Universal Brotherhood whenapplied tothe Chinese. Papers suchas San Francisco ’s Truth or Denver’s LaborEnquirer featuredlurid lettersand editorials full ofslander and stereo - type.In 1883, the Truth charged that coolieswere smuggling prostitutesinto the United Statesthrough Victoria, British Columbia by falsely claiming them aswives, while the Denverpaper printedSan Franciscan W.H.Stevens ’ letter in whichhe called Chinatownª acancerin theheart ofthe city.º 23 Akey ®gure in both SanFrancisco andDenver was Burnette Haskell, a journalist, lawyer, andconvert to anarchism. Heedited Truth,washead of San Francisco ’s Trades Assembly,and was a KOLorganizer. Hispaper routinely endorsedJ. M.Clark ’s Leagueof White Shoemakers,a KOLlocal restrictedto so -called ªAmericanºworkers. Haskell also endorsedand participated in Frank Roney ’sLeagueof Deliverance, an organization supportedby 13 KOLlocals dedicatedto expelling theChinese from California. 24 The Truth suspendedoperations in 1884, andHaskell movedto Denver andtook over editorship ofthe LaborEnquirer whenJoseph R. Buchananmoved to Chicago in 1886. Haskell ’sin¯uencein Denverwas more disruptive totheKOL than his ravings in SanFrancisco. Despite the shrillness of the California Knights,the Order had arelatively small presencein theGolden State, and concerns from therecould easily bede¯ ected by theKOL ’sexecutiveboard. Not soin Denver,where the charismatic JoeBuchanan roamed theRockies organizing Knights ’ locals.By 1885, muchof theUnion Paci® cRailroad wasin theKOL fold, and Buchanan was a member ofthe Knights ’ executiveboard. Heis anexample ofhowpotent anti -Chinesesentiment was in theWest. By his own account,he was a reluctantconvert to the anti -Chinesecause. During atrip to Stockton,California, heprofessed, ª Idonot hate theChinese, and I ¼believe in the brotherhood ofman.º Only after intensedebates with California Knights didhe alter his viewsto what hedubbed ª The Brotherhood ofMan,Limited.º 25 Hesoon learned that being an effectiveleader required him topay lip -serviceto popular hatreds. Lamentably for theChinese, Buchanan was an ace organizer. Ashe formed new assembliesin theWest, anti -Chinesecomplaints began to¯ oodthe KOL ’sPhiladelphia headquarters.One Knight warned Journalof United Labor readers,ª There nowhangs over thePaci® cstatesa cloudmore portentousof evil than ever was,ºand complained of100,000 Chinesein California wherethere were ª only 170,000 white voters.º 26 SanFrancisco ’sDistrict MasterWorkman JohnPayne lamentedthat the California KOLwas in danger ofcollapse asmembers lostjobs to cheap coolie labor. Anotherletter toldof a statestraw poll that revealed 165,000 peoplewere opposed to

22Saxton, The Indispensable Enemy ; Sandmyer, The Anti-Chinese Movement ;Fessler,Jian -Zhong Lin, ªEvacuation Centersor Concentration Camps: What ’sin aName?º(unpublished paper deliveredat the North EastPopular CultureAssociation meeting,Worcester, MA, Oct. 1995). 23LaborEnquirer ,Jan. 20and Mar.3, 1883(hereafter cited as LE). 24Saxton. 25Joseph R.Buchanan, The Story ofa LaborAgitator (Freeport,NY: Books For Libraries,1971 reprint of1903 edition), 273±278. 26JUL, Feb. 1884. Knightsof Labor and theChinese Question 427

Chineseimmigration, andonly 800 for it, thelatter mostly railroad andbusiness magnates ªwhowant slave labor.º 27 The increaseof Chinesewest of theRockies after theBurlingame Treaty combined with aneconomic downturn to create palpable tensionsin theregion. Congressional debatesover Chineseexclusion led many Knights tolink popular hatredswith the Order’sprinciples offree labor. MostWest Coast KOL locals weretrades assembliesÐ especially cigarmakers, shoemakers,and railroad workersÐwhose livelihoods were threatenedby contractlabor competition.In March 1882, Knights wereamong the 30,000 whogathered in SanFrancisco todemand the expulsion of Chinese.This was apreludeto more seriousoutbursts, many ofwhich were legitimated by theChinese ExclusionAct of that year. The Act ’s 10-year ban wasseen as inadequate by many. Moreover,discussions of future immigration easily mutatedinto a revival ofDenis Kearney’smantra, ªThe ChineseMust Go.º OnSeptember 2, 1885, adisputebetween miners andthe Union Paci® cCoal Department in RockSprings, Wyoming Territory degeneratedinto ananti -Chinese riot. Atthetime, 150 whiteminers toiled alongside 331 Chinese,and all werepaid $3 per day.This fragile attempt at parity unraveledwhen white miners conditionedby calls for Chineseexclusion went on a wilding spree.Homes were burned, and at least 22 Chinesewere murdered; another 26 werelisted as ª missingºand were never accounted for.No one was ever charged with themurders as no witnesses came forth totestify. 28 To befair, local trade unionsand members ofthe Mormon church were equally culpable. Butthere can be no denyingthat theKOL was deeply involved, eventhough leadersdenied responsibility. The Chineseconsulate charged that themassacre took place becauseChinese miners refusedto take part in aKOLstrike,or take out membership in theOrder. 29 There islittle reasonto doubt this. GeneralMaster Workman TerencePowderly dutifully denouncedRock Springs as ªinexcusableºacts of ª inhumanity andbutchery,º but the bulk ofhis commentsfed existing tensions,for in thenext breath, Powderly partially justi®ed the violence by blaming government of®cials for failing toenforce the 1882 ChineseExclusion Act. He wrote,ª Hadsteps been taken to observe the law ¼theworkmen of Rock Springs wouldnot have steepedtheir handsin theblood of a peoplewhose very presencein this countryis contamination.ºIn anaddress to the KOL ’sGeneralAssembly fourweeks after theincident, Powderly denouncedthe ª Chineseevilº and the ª indifferenceof our law-makers tothe just demands of the people for relief.º 30 AsPowderly spoke,other attacks against theChinese raged. Pasadena,Santa Bar - bara, Santa Cruz,Merced, San Jose, Oakland, Wheatland,Sonoma, and at least a dozenother Californian townssaw violence against local Chinese. 31 JohnSwinton ’s Paper catalogued troublesin Oregon, Montana,and Dakota Territory, andclaimed that theonly thing standingbetween Evanston, Wyoming anda repeat ofRock Springs was thedaily policing effortsof KOL volunteers. Swinton noted on October 4, 1885, ªthe wholeregion westof theMissouri seems ready torise in arms against thecoolies ¼ º 32 27Ibid.,Jan. 1885;Feb. 1884. 28Fessler;Paul Craneand AlfredLarson, ªTheChinese Massacre,º Annals ofWyoming , 12 (1940); Sandmyer, The Anti-Chinese Movement ;CraigStorti, Incident at Bitter Creek:The Story ofthe Rock Springs Chinese Massacre (Ames: IowaState UniversityPress, 1991). 29Craneand Larson, ªTheChinese Massacre.º 30TerenceV. Powderly, Thirty Years ofLabor: 1859± 1889 (NewYork: AugustusM. Kelley,1967, reprint of1890 edition), 214±215. 31Sandmyer. 32John Swinton ’s Paper,Oct. 4,1885(hereafter cited as JSP). 428 R. Weir

Seriousoutbreaks took place in Olympia, Tacoma, andSeattle; beatings andburn - ings ledhundreds of Chinese to ¯ eeWashington. Some Knights werehorri® edby the levels ofviolence,and many volunteeredto help police thestreets, but the KOL ’s own rhetoric fannedthe ¯ ames.In Seattle,prominent Knights suchas M. McMillan, D. Cronin,Walter Walker, B.F.Day, andJ. T.Jordan wereat thefore of whipping up anti-Chinesehysteria, andthe city wasplaced under martial law from November 1885 through July 1886. McMillan wasone of four men tried for conspiracy toriot, though all werefound not guilty in suspiciouslyhasty jury deliberations. 33 Aslate as1887, Ethiel Carpenterof Seattle ’sLocal4808 complained that the Puget Soundarea wasª notwhat it ’scrackedup to be,º being that it wasª overrun with theabominable Chinese.º 34 It wasan odd and inaccurate complaint, asby 1887 mostof the area ’sChinesehad ¯ed.Equally oddis that Carpenter ’sletter endeda relative silencein the Journalof United Labor .RockSprings clearly embarrassed East CoastKnights, and once -stridentanti -Chineseremarks weretoned down, inserted into more universal condemnationsof ª cheapºforeign labor, or relegated tothe letters columns.But there is another reasonwhy letterslike Carpenter ’sreemerged in 1887; by then,some East Coast Knights had challenged theOrder toadhere to its own principles.

Leading theBlind: East Coast Radicals The Journalof United Labor waspublished in Philadelphia, andthis facthelps explain the paper’srelative silenceon Rock Springs andother ugly anti -Chineseincidents. For more than adecadeWest Coast laborers complained that their colleagueson the East Coastrefused, ® rstly, totake theChinese threat seriously,and secondly, that they were thedupes of scheming Easternbusiness interests and politicians. Although thereis scantevidence for thelatter charge, thereis plenty for the® rst. To besure, numerous members ofthe Eastern power elite decriedWest Coast racism. An1877 New YorkTimes article compared attacks onthe Chinese to Ku Klux Klan activity in theSouth. Massachusetts Senator George Frisbie Hoar insistedthat anti-Chineseprejudice had noplace in America, while former abolitionist Wendell Phillips evensuggested giving Chinesethe right tovote. 35 ButEast Coast labor neededlittle instructionfrom its erstwhilebetters on the subject.Loren Fessler notes, ª In the1870s theAmerican Northeast experiencednone of the anti-Chineseviolence that had ¼becomecommonplace in California.º 36 Fessler is correct;too many historians have con¯atednasty rhetoric with theconcrete acts of racism that bloodiedthe West. But even in North Adams,the bulk ofthe workers ’ anger wasdirected at Capital, notthe Chinese. When striking Knights ofSt. Crispin failed toorganize theChinese, leaders blamed thecontract labor system,not individual Chinese.By separating nationality from systemsof contract labor, theCrispins made a

33JulesAlexander Karlin, ªTheAnti -ChineseOutbreak in Seattle, 1885±1886,º Paci®c Northwest Quarterly 39(April, 1948);Karlin, ªTheAnti -ChineseOutbreak in Tacoma, 1885,º Paci®c Historical Review 23(1954), 3; Rudy Higgens -Evenson, ªClass, Ethnicity, and State Authority: Anti -Chinese Agitation in Portland, Oregon,1886º (unpublished paper deliveredat Southwest Labor Studies conference,1996). 34JUL,May 21,1887. [Note: The JUL becamea weeklypaper in mid -1884.] 35Sandmyer; Fessler,139. 36Fessler,115. Knightsof Labor and theChinese Question 429 profounddistinction that escapedtheir WestCoast counterparts. 37 The Crispins ’ experiencein 1870 wasdestined to shape future direction for theKnights ofLabor. The Crispinsentered the KOL en masse after 1878, andtheir presencewas strong in NewEngland, New York, andPennsylvania, areas largely devoidof serious anti - Chineseagitation. In fact,numerous future KOL leadersdismissed the Chinese question long before they joinedthe Order. In NewYork City,Robert BlissertÐ also astalwart in thecity ’s Central Labor Unionand a key planner in the® rstLabor Day celebrationÐ connected thecoolie systemwith slavery butquickly added: Ihave noobjection against Chinamen¼ The Chinaman isas welcome ¼ as menfrom Ireland, or Scotland,or England¼ Asa workingman Iwill take his handand say ¼comealong; weare both laborers, soldiersof the great army oflabor. Letus ® ght thebattle sideby side. 38 Likewise,future New York Knight Patrick Healey testi®ed before Congress on behalf ofChineseimmigration. Perhaps evenmore signi® cantwas the absolute refusal of socialistslike JustusSchwab to have anything todo with anti -Chinese hysteria. By 1883, Denver ’s LaborEnquirer wasranting about NewYork City Knights who failed torealize thethreat posedby theChinese who were moving onto Mott Street. Dire predictionsthat thearea wouldsoon be awash in opium dens,ª leprosy pits ¼ contagion and® lth,ºvied for editorial spacewith angry attacks oneastern put downs ofthe ª basenessof the west.º The LaborEnquirer editorial continued, Nothing meaner wasever manifestedby peopleof the east; nothing more ignorant, arrogant or shameful than theway they met thepetitions of the west for relief from theChinese evil. Nowlet them workat theproblem. 39 Suchwords fell ondeaf ears in NewYork whereThomas Maguire, aleader in powerful District Assembly49, insistedthat organizing theChinese was a prerequisite for stabilizing thewages for all workers.As if totweak West Coast critics, Maguire even praised theactivities ofChinese hop -pickers during an 1884 KernCounty, California, strike andupheld it asproof theChinese could be good unionists. 40 Maguire andhis NewYork colleaguesrepresented a powerfulfaction within the Knights ofLabor, onewhose ideology wasshaped by acombination ofLassallean socialism andanarchism. ManyNew York Knights belongedto the city ’s various radical organizations, andDistrict 49 ’sPythagoras Hall functionedas a clearing house for radical literature, anda platform for socialist andanarchist speakerslike Justus Schwab.Such Knights heldexpansive viewsof class struggle andinsisted that cautious KOLleadersmake goodon the Order ’sstatedprinciples ofUniversal Brotherhood. They further advancedthis causeby touting thesuperiority ofªmixedºassemblies over single-trade assemblies,which they denouncedas enemies of class solidarity.

37SeeMink, 57, 79.Mink arguesthat North Adams workerswere narrowly focused on getting exclusionarylegislation passed. She also arguesthat the depth ofCrispin racismcan be seenin the fact that they absorbed anti -coolieclubs into theirOrder, and that they participated in anti -Chineserallies in NewYork and Boston. Gyory, however,convincingly argues that such aviewtoo neatly con¯atesracism and anti-contractlabor sentiment(see Gyory, 40±42). 38Quoted in AndrewGyory, ªRolling in the Dirt: the Originsof the ChineseExclusion Act and the Politicsof Racismº (unpublished PhD diss. Universityof Massachusetts, Amherst, 1991),72. 39LE,July 17,1883. 40Foner, History ofthe LaborMovement, Vol. II , 60. 430 R. Weir

Although KOLmixed assemblieswere a minority evenin NewYork, theuniversalist radical factionwas powerful in theEast. By 1884, in fact,a well -organized opposition knownas the Home Club emerged to challenge theconservative administration of TerencePowderly. The HomeClub ’sendeavorscoincided with theexplosive growth of theKOL precipitated by its1885 strike victory over Jay Gould ’sSouthWest railway conglomerate, andin June1886, theHome Club captured control of the KOL ’s GeneralExecutive Board. For thenext two years, Powderly wasthe virtual prisoner of the Club’svarious machinations, andit wasnot until 1890 that hewas fully freeof its clutches.41 This setthe stage for theKOL ’sboldestand most controversial experiment in Chineseorganization. In May,1887, JohnSwinton ’s Paper carried thenews of Chinese locals in NewYork, along with aninsulting mockChinese -accenteddialogue towhich hewas certainly notprivy. 42 At® rst,the KOL ’sexecutiveboard dismissedthe report asrumor, buton June 25, Denver ’s LaborEnquirer carried thealarming headline ªIt is True!Powderly ’sDistrict 49 isOrganizing theMongolian Slaves toKnock Out Free Labor.ºThe paper toldof how New York ’sJames andTimothy Quinnhad organized laundry workersheaded by Wah Saing whowas using the alias JoseDolaro totry to mask his identity.San Jose, CA Knights immediately wroteto General Secretary Charles Litchman anddemanded an explanation. Litchman deniedthat acharter had beengranted. 43 Denials quickly evaporated whenEdward Kunze, Recording Secretary for District 49, con®rmed theoperation oftwo Chinese assemblies, the Victor HugoLabor Club andthe Patrick HenryLabor Club.Alfred Cringe wroteto JohnSwinton ’s Paper demandingto know ª Howis this?,º forcing Swintonto speculate that perhaps the Chinesepaid for anorganizer andª enjoyedcertain preliminary exercises,ºbut had not yet obtaineda charter. For thenext few weeks, Swinton railed against theHome Club, sidedwith afailed coupagainst it, andprinted angry lettersthat pouredin from the West Coast.44 Powderly assuredSeattle ’sMatthewBulger that neither ªD.A.49 norno other D.A.shall receivea charter for aChineseassembly until theGeneral Assembly ordersit.º But he was forced to add,ª Werecognize no race, creed, or color ¼Will you give methe sentiment of your Assemblyas to what todo in theway oftreating this Chinesequestion?º 45 Instrumental in organizing theChinese were Victor Drury, aco -author ofthe anarchistsºPittsburgh Manifestoand the architect andguiding light ofthe Home Club; ªCaptainºMaggi, whoheaded an all -Italian KOLlocal; D.A.49 MasterWorkman Thomas Maguire; socialist Frank Ferrell, theOrder ’smostprominent black leader;and theaforementioned James andTimothy Quinn.D.A. 49 wasunrepentant of its actions. LikeDaniel venturing into thelion ’sden,Home Club sympathizer Dyer Lumwrote to the LaborEnquirer from his Northampton, Massachusettshome to voice his supportfor organizing Chineseª along stocksocialist lines.ºWhen editor BurnetteHaskell ridiculed theidea, Lum lectured, appeals topopular passionsmay beuseful to papers in certain localities where

41Robert E.Weir,ª Powderlyand the HomeClub: TheKnights of Labor Joust Among Themselves,º LaborHistory ,34(1993), 27. 42JSP,May 15,1887. 43LE,June 25,1887; JSP,June 26,1887. 44JSP,July 3,July 10,July 24,1887. 45Powderlyto Mathew[ sic]Bulger,July 19,1887, PP. Knightsof Labor and theChinese Question 431

prejudicesrun high, butI humbly submit that afewoutrages uponthe cannibalistic importers ofcheap labor wouldbe more tomy taste¼ Are you soproudof the fact that youare thehumble andwilling subjectsof capital that youresent the instrusions of others by asserting that wealone have theright tocringe beforean employer anddo his bidding? ¼If ascramble to monopolize thetaking ofsubsistence wages is all wedesire, it isuseless to argue thequestion. 46 In all, D.A.49 is creditedwith organizing some500 Chineseinto two assemblies, a ®gure that may well bein ¯ated,given an1880 censuscount of only 909 Chinesein the entirestate of New York. The chiefChinese organizer wasLee Sah, a tea storeclerk onMott Street and Master Workman ofthe Patrick HenryLabor Club.Lee Sah was born in HongKong in July 1862, toapoor laborer in a®reworksfactory whoschooled his sonin politics andConfucianism at anearly age. Atthe age of12, LeeSah ¯ed HongKong after refusingto unwindhis queuewhen the local mandarin passedby. He madehis way toSan Francisco, learned English, studiedthe Bible andShakespeare, andworked for alocal politician whowas subsequently killed in aduel.He then toiled asan interpreter andas a writer beforerelocating toNew York City wherehe joined the KOL.47 ButWest Coast Knights weresimply toorabid onthe Chinese question to consider thepolitical andintellectual instinctsof a man suchas Lee Sah. In responseto xenophobic outbursts,crafty HomeClub leaders took the wind out of the opposition by ªof®ciallyº dissolving its Chineseassemblies and transferring all Chinesemembers intoexisting ªmixedºassemblies. This putthe district beyondconstitutional sanction. 48 In themeantime, Philadelphia Knights also organized twoChinese assemblies; wisely, Knights therecopied the mixed assembly dodge. 49 WhenKnights gathered in Minneapolisin October 1887 for ageneral assembly, pro-Chineseadvocates kept a lowpro® le asthe convention focused on other internal squabbles.But at the1888 conventionin Indianapolis, D.A.49 introduceda resolution whichdemanded ª That special effortsbe made to organize theChinese.º Predictably, adonnybrookerupted, with D.A.49 delegatesinsisting that therewas nothing in the KOLconstitutionforbidding Chineseassemblies. The resolutionwent down to defeat, butthe 95± 42 votereveals that nearly one -third ofthe delegates were considerably more sympathetic tothe Chinese than mosthistorians have realized. EvenPowderly wasforced to concede that it wasonly onthe Paci® cCoastthat theª in¯uenceof the Chinesewas felt toany great extent.º 50 The disintegration oftheHome Club in late 1889 pushedassertive effortson behalf oftheChinese to the back burner.The Order ’soverall declineinto the 1890s rendered thequestion moot, but D.A. 49 clearly had aneffect. By 1888, of®cial KOLjournals weremore circumspectin their attacks onthe Chinese, as Powderly andhis cronies generalized thequestion to the dangers of imported labor in asagging economy.For pro-ChineseKnights, this had beenthe issue from thebeginning, andCapital, not ethnicity, wasthe enemy. After 1889, speci®c attacks against theChinese are rare in KOLpublications.When mentioned at all, theChinese were lumped with Hungarians,

46LE,July 9,1887. 47The Boycotter ,May 21,1887. 48JSP,July 10,1887. 49Foner, History ofthe LaborMovement . 50Powderly, Thirty Years ofLabor , 216± 218. 432 R. Weir

Slavs, Italians, andother immigrants perceivedas imported threats tonative -born workers.51 The declineof West Coast locals andthe passage ofthe 1892 Geary Bill, essentially apermanentChinese exclusion act after its renewalin 1902, further quieted matters. Powderly wasbooted out as KOL leader in 1893 and,two years later, from theentire Order. Hisanti -immigrant ravings andcalls for restriction wonhim thegovernment appointment helong coveted:from 1898 to1902 hewasthe Commissioner -General of Immigration. Heworked for theBureau of Immigration again from 1907 to1921, and for theDepartment ofLabor from 1921 until his deathin 1924. In eachpost he railed against thedangers of immigration, andfound many willing tolisten. But he was never able toconvert East Coast radicals tohis causeÐnot in 1884; notin 1924.

TheSilent Majority The Knights ofLabor has beenstereotyped as an anti -Chineseorganization, largely becauseof the actions of western members whowere a minority within theorganiza - tion.52 Asthe words and deeds of eastern radicals show,there were times in whichthe KOLwasalso theGilded Age ’smostsympathetic labor organization. Butit wouldbe equally wrong -headed(and romantic) tolabel theKOL progressive onthe Chinese question.More nuance is needed. It isuseful to invoke aparadigm originally developedby social scientistRobert K. Merton.As he saw it, therewere four possible social permutations ofprejudice and discrimination, given that the® rst is anattitude and the second a setof behaviors. Mertonnoted that racial extremists,whether racist or ultra liberal, tendto be small groups.The bulk ofsociety is more likely tobe more ambivalent. 53 Westernnativists andeastern universalists representthe two poles of KOL sentimentconcerning the Chinese.The middle groups,however, are more dif®cult to pin down.Those members whofelt passionately about theChinese one way oranother werethose most likely to voice opinions;rare indeedwere those who were moved to express their ambiguity. By necessity,the historian iscon® ned mostly toinference, or tothose verbose leaders whosemessages can be analyzed in context. HistoriansGreg Kealey andBryan Palmer call anti -Chineseagitation ªacause embracedby North American Knights with ardententhusiasm.º 54 Perhaps, butit dependsupon what onemeans by theverb ªembraced.ºSlurs against theChinese were ubiquitousin GildedAge AmericaÐ with pulpit, press,politician, andpundit spreading thebile. To avoid being taintedby it tookan act ofwill, andit wasmostly theOrder ’s radicals whowere willing toconfront popular prejudicehead -on.

51JUL,Sept. 9, 20,27, Oct. 4, 11,1888. Journal ofthe Knights ofLabor ,July 24,1890. [Note: The JUL changedits name in mid -1889.] 52Mypoint herecontextualizes the anti -Chinesequestion speci®cally within the Knightsof Labor. It may wellbe true,as AndrewGyory argues, that organizedlabor as awhole has beenunfairly stereotyped becauseof the actionsof a relativelyfew rabid westernlaborers. For moreon the latterpoint seeGyory, Closing the Gate . 53Robert K.Merton,ª Discrimination and the AmericanCreed,º in Robert M.McIver,ed., Discrimination andNational Welfare (NewYork: Harper& Row, 1949).Merton labeled the four permutations ªprejudiceddiscriminator,º ª non -prejudicednon -discriminator,ºª prejudicednon - discriminator,ºand ªnon -prejudiceddiscriminator.º He thought that groupthree tended to be the largest. Such individuals held prejudicial viewsbut failedto acton them owingto lackof courage or lack of opportunity. 54Kealeyand Palmer, 150. Knightsof Labor and theChinese Question 433

Butif fewKnights tooksuch a major step,neither didmany eastof the Rockies act ontheir hatreds.As we have seen,eastern workers engaged in extensiveanti -Chinese bluster.But applauding theoccasional anti -Chinesespeech was a far cry from the blood-soakedriots ofRock Springs andSeattle. No soonerhad ªThe ChineseMust Goºbanners appeared in Hamilton, Ontario, than local journalsbegan topublish articles informing workersthat theChinese were no threat. 55 Further, many ofthe prejudiced eastern leaders found themselves lacking thepower tolead. This wascertainly Powderly ’scasefrom mid -1885 tolate 1889 whenhe was controlledby theNew York radicals ofthe Home Club. During this time, Powderly rattled arhetorical saberÐ especially during WestCoast speeches and in private letters towesternleadersÐ but he was unable to craft acoherentpolicy that excludedChinese workersfrom KOLlocal assemblies. Anotherwho was more blusterthan action wasjournalist JohnSwinton. His anti - Chineseravings wereso out of character with his passionatedevotion to working -class solidarity that mostof his admirers simply ignored him onthe issue. Rare wasthe Knights ofLabor journal that didnot routinely republish somepearl ofeditorial wisdomfrom Swinton,but aside from Denver ’s LaborEnquirer almost noneprinted his screedson the coming ªMongolizationºof America. 56 In Denver,of course, Swinton waspreaching tothe converted, but in NewYork hewas haranguing theuninterested. KOLcentral leadership tried tocon® ne both its anti -Chinese ® re-eatersand its universalists tothe margins. Amodicumof anti -Chineserhetoric wasnear -obligatory within theOrder, andseveral Knights qualify aswhat Mertoncalled ªunprejudiced discriminators.ºThese individuals harbored little ill will towardsthe Chinese, but they nonethelessengaged in discriminatory behaviour. Three whosuccumbed to this were JosephBuchanan, Richard Trevellick, andGeorge McNeill. Recall that Buchanancalled himself aconvertto the anti -Chinesecrusade. There is little evidencethat his commitment ran very deep.In atrip toStockton, California, Buchanannoted, ª Only apart ofmy addresswas devoted to the Chinese question, but that wasthe all -absorbing questionon the coast at thetime, noaddress,such as a man ofmy credentialswas expected to make, wouldhave beencomplete without some referenceto the agitations against theChinese.º 57 The key phrase is ªaman ofmy credentials.ºBuchanan quickly learnedthat any leader with anational pro® le neededto tailor his messageto ® tlocal customs;on theWest Coast, this meant requisite slursagainst theChinese. Buchanan traveled incessantlythrough theWest from 1882 through 1886, organizing UnionPaci® c railroad workersand scores of other assemblies,most of which consisted of trade unionistswho felt Chinesecompetition more keenlythan themixed locals ofNewYork City.Not surprisingly, Buchananused anti -Chinesenativist rhetoric asan organizing tool among WestCoast workers. Several telling details suggest,however, that hewasuncomfortable with suchmeth - ods.In 1884, Buchananjoined the KOL ’sGeneralExecutive Board, anappointment that oftenbrought him tothe East. His remarks beforeEast Coast workers are largely devoidof any referenceto the Chinese. As editor ofDenver ’s LaborEnquirer from 1883 to1886, hedutifully printedslurs against theChinese. Very little ofthe content was actually pennedby Buchanan,however; the bulk wasletters from WestCoast Knights

55Ibid., 151. 56LE,Sept. 27,1885. 57Buchanan, 276. 434 R. Weir

andreprints ofarticles from other journals,including JohnSwinton ’s Paper and The Truth. The LaborEnquirer ’s editorial pages didnot take ona rabid anti -Chineselook until after Buchananmoved to Chicago andformer Truth editor BurnetteHaskell took over thereins. For his part, Buchananstarted a Chicago versionof the Enquirer, whose tonewas far lessstrident on the Chinese question. Anotherlukewarm discriminator wasEnglish -born Richard Trevellick. Born in 1830, Trevellick wasone of the older KOLleaders.He wasa ship ’scarpenter by trade,a job that tookhim aroundthe globe beforehe came tothe United States in 1857. Hevisited China at least twiceand found it exotic.In 1864, Trevellick movedto Detroit, where heorganized numeroustrade unions,and in 1866, hebecame one of the co -founders ofthe National Labor Union.Trevellick wrotemuch of the NLU ’splatform, which includedan anti -coolie plank that attackedcontract labor, though notfree emigration. Hetraveled extensively asan NLUorganizerÐ especially in theSouth and the WestÐ andis creditedwith foundingover 200 unions. Trevellick wasa life -long trade unionistwho grew convincedthat thecontract labor systemsthreatened the free labor ideology heembraced in the1860s. Free labor, anti-coolie sentiment,and trade unionismformed the core of Trevellick ’sworkidentity, andhe transferred these principles tothe Knights. From 1878 to1895, Trevellick was anorganizer -at-large for theOrder. Hishome baseof Detroit wasa centreof the cigarmaking trade,one of the trades mostaffected by Chinesecompetition. Predictably, Trevellick spokeout in favor ofthe Cigarmakers International Union(CMIU) struggle against Chinesecompetition. As he had donein theNLU, Trevellick differentiatedcontract labor from Chineseemigration by attacking theformer, butsupporting thelatter. Muchlike JosephBuchanan, one suspectsthat Trevellick probably foundthe entire issue an annoyancethat drew attentionfrom what heconsidered more important issues,like theeight -hour day, the greenback question,and trade unionism.Indeed, if Trevellick had his petproject, it was temperance,not the Chinese question. 58 Of all thosetainted by theGilded Age anti -Chinesecontagion, perhaps thesaddest caseis that ofBoston ’sGeorgeMcNeill, arguably themost universally admired ofall KOLleadersin the1880s. Apart from founderUriah Stephens,one would be hard-pressedto ® ndanother Knight whoso consistently trumpeted the need of the KOLtoshelter all workersunder its broad umbrella. McNeill ’sgoal wasnothing less than establishing aªRepublic ofLaborº undergirded by theprinciples ofUniversal Brotherhood. 59 Yethis ownbook, TheLabor Movement: The Problem of To -Day,containsa chapter ontheChinese question that isas vile asanything that came from theWest CoastÐ and that’sbecauseit did.McNeill didnot write this chapter; rather, it wasco -authored by W.W.Stoneand Congressman Morrow, both ofwhom were Californians. Virtually every GildedAge anti -Chinesestereotype from leprosy -bearing torat -eating appears in McNeill’s book.60 ButMcNeill had little stomachfor race -baiting, apractice against whichhe fre - quentlyspoke out. McNeill andFrank K.Fosterwere co -editorsof Boston ’s Labor Leader,apaper that routinely avoideddiscussion of the Chinese question. When the

58Robert E.Weir,ª Trevellick,Richard,º Entry in American National Biography . 59GeorgeE. McNeill, The LaborMovement: The Problemof To -Day (Boston: A.M.Bridgman, 1887), seepreface. 60Ibid., 429± 454. Knightsof Labor and theChinese Question 435 issuewas broached, it wasusually in thecontext of the hated contract labor system. McNeill consistentlydenounced contract labor, whetherthe context was Chinese coolie gangs or theItalian padronesystem. 61 The depthof McNeill ’sambivalence isseen in his contradictory musingsduring 1887. In that year, his bookwas published with its anti -Chinesechapter, andMcNeill tolda reporter that hedid not think Chineseand Americans couldcoexist. Yet, although his LaborLeader paper wasone of the most vocal in theKOL whenit came tocondemning District Assembly49 ’sHomeClub conspiracy, McNeill refusedto chastise49 for organizing Chineseassemblies. 62 In another LaborLeader editorial, McNeill spokeout against pendingimmigration restriction bills beforeCongress: What isthe difference between the Irish rack -rentlandlord whoevicts his tenants,and the American people whoplay alike -a-dog-in-a-manger act? As amatter ofgood taste, not to say goodprinciple ¼theattempt torestrict the working peopleof the old world from coming hereas freely asthey please ought tobe agitated by someother organization than that whichhas theglobe asits symbol. 63

ThroughDifferent Eyes GeorgeMcNeill ’sshifting rhetoric illustrates that anti -Chinesesentiment within the Knights ofLabor wasnot monolithic. Historianshave beentoo quick totar theentire Order with thebrush used by WesternKnights, and in their hastehave confused easternrhetoric with westernactions. There issimply noequivalent ofRock Springs to befoundamong EasternKnights. Nor isthere the equivalent ofDistrict 49 ’saggressive organization ofChinese to be found in theWest. A nuancedview ofthe Knights requiresmore attentionto geographical distinctionswithin theOrder. Noneof this is meant tosuggest simplisticÐ anddubiousÐ assumptions of regional ªcharacter.ºThere werevery important differencesin thecomposition of the KOL that allow for amore historically soundaccounting for thedifferences. First ofall, there weremore mixed assembliesin theEast, especially in NewYork City.Such locals often mediatedin favor ofa more expansive practice ofthe KOL ’sUniversal Brotherhood principles. Craft assemblies,by their nature,had more parochial concerns.This was particularly trueof West Coast cigarmakers, shoemakers,and miners. Second,with theexception of workers along theUnion Paci® c,theKOL wasnot that strong in theWest. Those who are mostthreatened are oftenthose most likely to scapegoat andit waslogical, if wrong -headed,for WestCoast organizers tosee every Chineselaborer asa netloss in therecruiting game. There is at least oneaspect of the WestCoast complaint that needsto be taken at facevalue: EasternKnights did not have tofaceChinese competition toany real degree.Despite westerners ’ dire predictionsof ayellow tidal wavepoised to crash uponeastern factories, the absolute number of Chinesewho made their way beyondthe Rockies remained very small. Accordingto the 10th Census(1880), nostate east of theRockies had asmany as1000 Chinese,though NewYork actually had more than Colorado.Those numbers did not increase signi® cantly thereafter,as Congress passed bills that curtailed mostChinese immi - gration. Butwhen eastern bigots perceiveda threat, they werecapable ofas much

61LaborLeader ,Mar.5, May 7, 1887. 62Ibid.,July 9, 1887. 63Ibid.,July 16,1887. 436 R. Weir

over-reaction aswesterners. In 1903, Immigration CommissionerFrank Sargent, a one-time of®cial ofthe Brotherhood ofLocomotiveFiremen, ordereda raid in Boston that roundedup 250 Chineseworkers, 50 ofwhomwere deported. His methods were sobrutal that SunYat -senprotested the harsh treatment. 64 Butsuch overt thuggery wasrare. Anotherimportant East/Westdistinction lies in the formative experiencesof many Knights., freelabor ideology, andtrade unionismwere more developedin theEast than in theWest. And, as Gyory reveals, so toowas the custom of separating ethnicity from unfair labor practices.Thus, when easternersspoke out against theChinese they weremuch more likely toseparate the contractlabor systemfrom theindividual. The ®rstwas condemned in nouncertain terms;in fact,the denunciation frequently employed thesame symbols andlanguage with which slavery had beendenounced. Parallels betweenthe two labor methodswere oftendrawn. Samuel Gompers,a Knight ofLabor in the1880s, summedup matters for many when,in onebreath, hesupported Chinese exclusion, but in thenext added, ª I have noprejudice against theChinese people. On thecontrary, having someunder - standingof their history, andthe philosophy oftheir early sages,I have profound respectfor theChinese nation.º 65 Germanand Irish organizers werequick torealize that immigration restriction aimed at any onegroup couldeasily beextended to restrict their kindas well. 66 Easternattitudes were hardly enlightened,kind, or evenconsistent: the majority of Knights wereneither active discriminators like thosewest of the Rockies, nor advocates ofUniversal Brotherhood like thosein DA49 anda fewisolated locals.Commentators are nodoubt correct when they argue that mostAmericans werenot willing to reconsiderthe Chinese until after theJapanese invasion ofManchuria precedingWorld War II. Onthe other hand,one should not exaggerate theimpact ofwestern anti -Chinese attitudes,or stereotypean entirelabor organization basedon the actions of a few. (Ironically, historians have beengenerous in their praise ofKOL policies towards African-Americans,even though therewere scores of racists in theorganization.) AsI have argued elsewhere,the Gilded Age wasa veritable mulligan ’sstewof ideologies, andit isusually wrong tostick any single label ona single individual, let alone complex organizations like theKnights ofLabor. 67

64Jack Chen, The Chinese In America (NewYork: Harper& Row, 1980). 65Samuel Gompers, Seventy Years ofLife and Labor: An Autobiography ,NickSalvatore, ed. (Ithaca, NY: ILRPress,1984), 164. 66Gyoryalso notesthis in his ªRolling in the Dirt.º 67SeeRobert E.Weir, Beyond Labor ’sVeil: The Culture ofthe Knights ofLabor (UniversityPark, PA: Penn State Press,1996).