history of immigration to the United States

NOTICE

This material may be protected by copyright law

(Title 17, U.S. Code)

Citation

Luhman, Reid. Race and Ethnicity in the United States: Our Differences and Our Roots. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2002.

Downloaded from Arizona State University

Hayden Library Electronic Reserve

Race and Ethnicity in the United States:

Our Differences and Our Roots

Reid Luhman Eastern Kentucky University

1ooi

THOIVISON

WADSVVORTH

Australia • Canada • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom• United States

94 • Part Two The Cart of Charanen: Eim·ancu and Exit!

European Immigration and Domination The New \Vorld attracted the same European countries already involved in coloniz- ing other parts of the world. North and South America joined Africa and Asia as real estate ripe for the picking. The Americas' uniqueness, as already noted, was its lack of an indigenous population suitable for a labor force. (Tt is important to keep in mind that the primary interest in colonization is not settling but making money.) The main players in the New World stakes were England, Spain, and France, with Portugal run- ning close behind. Holland showed some interest, but its New \\'orld colonies n1:ver came close to matching its effort<; around the globe. If we focus _just on North Amer- ica, we leave hehind the Portuguese colonization (primarily Brazil) along \\ith most of the Dutch settlements. All of these European countries came to have possessions among the islands of the Caribbean. On the mainland, the English began on the east coast, the Spanish started their explorations more to the west and south, and the French located in the north (although they fanned out considerably from there, par- ticularly into the inland areas of what is now the United States).

From the Bntish fries: Puriram and Aristocrats

English interest in the New \Vorlcl came relatively late compared with other Euro- pean countries, hut since we know the end of the story, this is as good a beginning as

E.ar~y Colonial Development a11d the Early Rcpubli<: I 500-1845 • 95

any. England hegan on the mainland by laying claims to blocks of oceanfront prop- erty, at times stepping on toes other than Kative American. These blocks (or grants) of land were typically granted to "companies" that then became responsible for set- tling the land with hopes of turning a profit. Thus, we find the Virginia Company of London making the first inroads atJamestown (1607), followed shortly by settlements in what is now New England by the Virginia Company of Plymouth (soon to be the Massachusetts Bay Company). Although all of these settlers were English, they came for different reasons and had decidedly different lifestyles. In Puritan New England, settlers held strict religious beliefs and operated small farms or businesses. The Puri- tans were actually a numerical minority in New England, even in the early days, but they made up for their small numbers with enthusiasm. The area did not contain re- sources that immediately lent themselves to business enterprise. Timber was plenti- ful, for example, but wood is a little heavy to export (Bailey, 1990). This region later found ways to become wealthy, but not during the 1600s.

By contrast, the Chesapeake Bay area (generally Vrrginia and Maryland today) was populated by English nobles and businessmen, all of whom had hopes of making the new colony pay dividends to investors (themselves being first in line). Not sur- prisingly, the lack of a colonial labor force was first felt in the southern colonies; we shall shortly encounter their solutions. All the early colonies were slow to grow, how- ever, facing high death rates among the colonists and harder conditions than were an- ticipated (Figure 4.1).

In the last half of the 1600s, the Carolina colony was founded; it was composed of pieces from today's North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The seaport of Charles Town (today's Charleston) was founded in 1670, giving the colony its hub for years to come. Finally, Pennsylvania got its start in 1681. Unlike any other colony, Pennsylvania soon collected a wide variety of nonmainstream religious groups who learned the economic possibilities of the New \\'arid.

Throughout the seventeenth century in all the English colonies, life was hard and creature comforts were few. Travelers sometimes commented that the rich and poor were not all that far apart because even the wealthier lived in roughly constructed houses and wore homespun clothes. In general, colonial health was poor, transporta- tion was slow, and work was hard (Galenson, 1991). By 1649, for example, only l 5 ,000 people lived in the Virginia colony. Yet the beginnings of wealth and power were al- ready present before the century ended. By the time of the Revolutionary War, the agricultural elite of Virginia and other southern colonies were well housed and clad. From their numbers came leaders such as George \.Vashington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and James ,'vladison.

A Broader Base of European Immigration

The growth of the Pennsylvania colony brings us the first interesting change in Eu~o­ pean newcomers. In 1681, a colony charter was granted to William Penn, an Englis? Quaker. Quakers hegan in England when George Fox began preaching in 1649, ultI· mately forming a new sect within Protestant Christianity. By 1665, he had 80,000 fol- lowers (Reich, 1994). In spite of its growth (or maybe because of it), Quakerism was

96 • Part Two Tbe Can Df Cbar11rkn: Entranm and Exits

+s;a1yay;w M"P OF ENGL.ISi-i MIGR ... TION TO NORTH AMERICA

• English settlemen~ 1650

.. Main rouce of English migration

\ .

Early Coloni11/ Dtve/opmmt tmd the Early Ref!Ublk: l'i00-1845 • 97

perceived as a radical and strange religious cult in England. Penn's hope was that his new colony would provide a persecution-free environment for Quakers. Beyond that, he hoped that Pennsylvania might offer the same promise to other religious minorities.

As Quakerism was developing as a new offshoot of Protestantism in England, similar religious movements were growing in the German states. Penn encouraged immigration from these groups as well, populating the new colony with Amish and Mennonite settlers as well as his English Quakers. As Quakerism spread beyond England, more etlmic diversity entered. Dutch Quakers and Irish Quakers, for exam- ple, immigrated to the Pennsylvania colony in the late 1600s and early 1700s (W'abeke, 1983; Salinger, 1987). Descendants from all of these groups can be found in the state of Pennsylvania today. For example, Pennsylvanians called the "Pennsylva- nia Dutch," are not of .Dutch but of German ancestry, gaining their name from a vari- ation of the German word for "German"-Deut.rfb.

After Pennsylvania began to thrive, the colony of Georgia was formed in 1732. Although it would soon follow other southern colonies into cash crop slavery, it was founded with completely different (and very high) ideals. The hope in England was that Georgia would provide a colony for the English poor to become free farmers and better themselves; a less lofty ideal was the plan that Georgia would keep the Spanish in Florida from moving north (Gray and Wood, 1976).

M11p of the colonies.

The Growth and Profitability of Slavery In 1700 the Atlantic slave trade was still very much in its infancy. Most European powers possessing colonies around the world were involved already, but major changes were in store. ln the period from 1700 to 1845, the following events occurred and drastically changed the Atlantic slave trade (Figure 4.2):

l. The number of slaves sent to the New \Vorld increased enormously. Before 1700, slightly over 1.3 million Africans are estimated to have arrived in the New \\'orld; after tJ1a1 date, at least another 8 million entered New \Vorld slavery (Fogel and Engerman, 1974; Eltis and Jennings, 1988). These figures do not include the numbers of Africans who died during capture, on their trip to the African coast, while in captivity on the African coast, and during the crossing. At least several million more met their deaths before arriving.

2. The English and French came to dominate the slave trade while other nations-most notably the Portuguese and Dutch-became less important.

3. The slave trade became more organized and businesslike with long-term trading relationships developing between European traders and African raiders. In addition, the traders became specialists in handling slaves.

4. African slaves came to dominate the more lowly economic positions in the New \Vorld while Europeans moved into other areas. Racism became more dominant and black and white soci al relationships almost completely disap- peared as they had existed among Virginia servants and slaves.

--,.,.n __ MAP OF SHIPPING ROUTES OF THE AFRICAN S LAVE TRADE, 1451-t 870

Afriom sJ.,•e uade 1457-1870 500 Slave 5l1ipping, with - number in thousands s..,,, Supplier tribe

Atla ntic Ocean

" ·

0 ~ 00 . "II .. :I o-1 < 0

...: :?'

~ ~ 0 .. a .. ;i

~ ::i " "' a .. it iii ~-

&rly Cllianiol Dtt1elapmmt "7111 tbt &t·ly Republic: 1500-1845 • 109

5. The American South found its "slave crop"-cotton-which made large scale slavery more profitable than it ever had been with tobacco crops in the Chesapeake. The South came to have the same labor needs that the West Indies faced for years with sugar. In short, slavery became much more important in the United States than it ever had been or otherwise would ha\•e been.

The New World Slave Trade

Were the Nev.· World colonists troubled by slavery? Some ob\iously were, and still more were lilccly bothered by the foreign cultures of Africans just as they had been troubled by the differences of Native Americans. Kcverthelcss, most colonists man- aged to get beyond their moral discomfort and the cultural differences to reap the po- tential economic benefits. The most striking example occurred with the Quaker population of Pennsylvania. From their beginnings in England, Quakers outdid all other groups in their opposition to slavery. They accepted no compromise and worked hard in England to abolish it. But in the 1700s and 1800s, slaves were not des- tined for England, they were destined for the New World. How did Quakers in Penn- "Ylvania act in the early 1700s? Some maintained their opposition, but many more lined up at the slave auctions to purchase slaves (Salinger, 1987; Piersen, 1996). If Quakers could live with sla\·ery, it should come as no surprise that every other group found ways to rationalize it as well.

Nineteenth Century African Slavery and the Slave Trade As the Atlantic slave trade began to increase during the 1700s, both the internal African slave trade and slave trade to the Middle East continued (McDougall, 1992; Webb, l 993 ). They not only continued but also increased when the Atlantic trade ended in the 1800s, lasting into the twentieth century (Clarence-Smith, I 988; Harries, 198 I; Manning, 1990a; Sheriff, 1989). The addition of the Atlantic trade served to increase the importance of slave exports from the continent. With Africa focused on selling slaves to meet their needs, they were not being economically creative in other areas.

The increased slave trade between Africa and Europe created wealth on both con- tinents, but the European wealth was more permanertt (Darity, 1990, 1992). The sla"-e trade created wealth through the trade itself and through the products of slave labor. Bv contrast, African wealth was immediate because slaves were traded fur all the Eu- r~pean manufacrured goods available at the time. The whole world wanted what F.umpe had to sell and Africa was no c:xception. But the results in Africa carried some long-term negative effects. First, Africans became dependent on European goods, which increased their dependencv on slaves as a commodity (Eltis and Jennings, 1988). Because they focused on th~ slave trade in such a single-minded way, Africans neglected to develop any other part of their economy; they simply did not have ~e rime or energy, nor was it in the interesis of Europeans to help them do so (Danty, 1992; Inikori, 1988-1989). With just one commodity on the world market, Africa vns only able to maintain its economic position through selling more slaves (Eltis, l 989b). When the Atlantic slave trade ended during the early to mid-1800s, it was a European

l 10 • Part Two Tht Ctm of C.:h1m1cters: Entr11TU"tt and Exits

decision; African slavetraders had no interest in seeing that portion of their trade end and attempted to pick up the slack elsewhere (Eltis, 1986; Renault, 1988). The in- creami trade is reflected in the stable price of slaves during this period. Had the de- mand for slaves fallen with the end of the Atlantic trade, so too would the prices of slaves (Lovejoy and Richardson, 1995).

The English ftnd French dominated the Atlantic slave rrade during the 1700s and into the 1800s; Dutch involvement continued until the late 1700s (Emmer, 1991). The English ended their role in the slave trade in 1807 and ended slavery in their pos- sessions in 1834. The French would abolish their colonial slavery in 1848, but their African indentured labor replacements were barely distinguishable from slavery (Schuler, 1986). In the meantime, both countries would ship a lot of slaves. The Eng- lish alone were responsible for half of the Africans shipped in the Atlantic slave tntde during the 1700s, bringing 3,120,000 to the New World. From 1710 through 1793, the French were responsible for an additional 1,017 ,000. New England shippers hronght somewhere between 167,000 and 294,000, depending on which estimates you use (Richardson, I 989a). (If your eyes are glazing over from all these numbers, pause a minute to recall that we are talking about numbers of ptuplr.) All of this trade oc- curred through relatively few but \'ery large firms; the capital investment necessary to ship slaves was so great that smaller finns were unable to compete (Inikori, 1981). The peak years of the slave trade occurred in the 1780s when 921,000 Africans were shipped to the New World, representing 90 percent of total African exports (El tis and Jennings, 1988).

After their capture by slaveraiders, Africans were held on the coasts of West Africa waiting to be shipped. The ships used were specialized for their purpose. (Richardson, 1987; Daniels, 1991). This specialization explains in part why large amounts of capi- tal were neerled to be successful in this business. Shelves built below deck were deep enough to holJ an indh;dual from head to foot. Shelf depth varied throughout the ship because some shelves were designed for men, others for women, and still others for children. The shelves were built in tiers so that many layers of slaves could be packed in, one layer over another. Initially, the shelves were constructed four feet apart, but later, for economic reasons, the space was reduced to two feet (Boles, J 983). A slave would thus be lying between two other slaves with a ceiling (the next shelf) ahout twelve inches abm•e his or her nose.

Given these conditions and the length of the voyage, it is surprising that death rates were not higher than they were. Boles (1983) lists the mortality rates at 15 to 20 percent, noting that European indentured servants probably faced similar rates in their voyages of the same time. Richardson (1987) estimates a 15 percent death rate, but notes that rates varied considerably from voyage to voyage. Ship captains, he argues, often had to pack their ships more densely than they would have preferred because of the numbers of slaves awaiting shipping on the coast when they arrived. He also cal- culated that a profit could be made with up to 45 percent deaths during the VO}'llge.

New World Demand and the Slave Trade Slavery was a response to the need for gang labor on a cash crop. The first such crop in the New \Vorld was sugar, which came to dominate the \Vest Indies and parts of South America by the rnid-1600s. The

Early ColcniAI Dnielo11mn1t inul the &rly Republic: 1500-184 5 • 111

continuation of sugar cultivation throughout the 1700s plus the addition of cotton in the American South produced the massive slave trade previously described. Slaves had proved to be effective in Old World sugar cultivation, and the practice was transplanted to the New World (Phillips, 1991). Between 60 to 70 percent of all slaves shipped to the New World were destined for labor in sugar cultivation. Brazil (Portuguese) was a major sugar producer by 1600 and 40 percent of all slaves in that colony worked in sugar production. In the Spanish colonies, between 30 and SO percent of slaves were used to produce sugar as its cultivation spread throughout Mexico, Peru, and Cuba. In rnidcentury, British- and French-held Caribbean islands followed suit (Beckles, 198S; Beckles and Downes, 1987; Berleant-Schiller, 1989; Fogel and Engerman, 1974; Galenson, 1982). To gain additional perspective, the avcragc-si1.cd sugar plantation in British Jamaica contained 285 slaves in the late 1700s and the Barbados population was 70 percent slave; at the same time, the average tobacco growing slaveowner in the Chesapeake owned 13 slaves (Fogel and Engerman, 1974; Galenson, 1982).

The growth of sugar cultivation creat.cd much of the initial demand for slaves, but continuing demand w11s creat.cd by disease. The same climate that is ideal for sugar also harbors malaria, yellow fever, and other tropical diseases. Even if slaves were well treated, they could not be expected to live long .• \fortility rates in the sugar growing colonies were extremely high (Oarcnce-Smith, 1989; Galcnson, 1982). Even though more than 60 percent of the slaves brought to the New World were men, six slaves died in the Caribbean fur every slave child born (Fogel and Engerman, 1974; Piersea, 1996).

DiAgr""' ef a slave ship, 1808.

112 • Part Two The C11r1 •f Characters: Entrtm(es am/ Exits

Bcr:ween 1669 and 1823, 300,000 slaves were imported into Dutch Guiana in South Americ;a, In 182 3, S0,000 were still alive (Voeks, 199 3). Although this was tragic for the slaves, it was not a problem for the slaveovmer, at least economically. Jn the Caribbean, the cost of a sla\'e could he remmed within the slave's first year's labor in sugar produc- tion (Pierscn, 1996). The solution for the slaveowner was simply to buy more slaves.

By contrast with the sugar regions of the Caribbean and South America, the United States came to ha\•e a much smaller demand because of the lack of disease. While accounting for only 6 percent of the total slave imports to the New "'orld, the United States contained 36 percent of all New World slaves by 1825 (Fogel and Engerman, 1974). Of all the millions of Africans shipped to the New World, only about 500,000 arrived in what is now the United States. Unlike other parts of the New World, sla\'es in the United States survived and reproduced, giving that country the only sizable native-horn slave population in the region. Thi~ is imponant to remem- ber because it mean~ fewer native Africans were arriving in the United States with African culture fresh in their minds. By contrast, the Carihbean slave population re- tained a much more African culture because of the constant arrival of new slaves.

Slavery in the United States did not reach its ultimate level of profitability until the 1800s. Nevenhcless, the growth of slavery in the Caribbean provided great opportuni- ties for New England firms. Both Boston and Newport, Rhode Island became major centers for slave trade in British North America. Although they first beC2me involved in the slave trade in the J 600s, their boom years occurred toward the end of the 1700s and into the 1800s. Sugar can be used to make molasses and molasses can be used to make rum. New England slavettading finns traded rum for slaves in Africa and then traded those slaves for molasses and rum in the Caribbean. Later these firms would export raw cotton frorn the United States, again benefiting from slavery. By 1856, raw cotton com- prised 56 percent of the exports from the United States. Without its connection with slavery and the sla~·e trade, New England would probably not have developed industri- ally as early or as powerfully as it did (Bailey, 1990; Piersen, 1996; Richardson, 1991).

Although demand for slaves within the UniLed States was increasing, Congress fol- lowed England in abolishing the slave trade in 1808. Even though the slave population of the United StAtcs was reproducing naturally, demand still forced slave prices up and made slavery even more a necessity in the American South. In spite of the English and American abolition, other countries continued the slave trade (as did some English and American traders on the sly). There is evidence that slaves were still being shipped into the Sea Islands off the Georgia and Carolina coasts as late as 1858 (Jackson et al., 1974). Cuba probably acquired 500,000 slaves after 1821 (Clarence-Smith, 1984, 1989).

Laws, Customs, and Artful Dodging: Life and Work Under Slavery Southern colonies hegan to pass the legislation that would formally create slavery in the late sev- enteenth cenrury. "\\'hite" servants became clearly distinguished from "black" slaves. Keeping the status of freedom straight was far ea.>ier than keeping track of race. One's status of free or slave was legally defined in the seventeenth century by the status of one's mother. But how does one define race?

Lawmakers had particular difficulties with the definition of race. How much African ancestry made }'OU "black"? Because the South had three distinct statuses-

&trly CollmiAI Dew/Qpwmit 11nd tht &rly Rtpublic: 1500-1845 • lll

black slave, free black, and white-nee became an issue. The problem wa~ that far too many "white~ people had African ancestry, but they thought of themselves as white and were treated by others as white. This was particularly true during the seventeenth century when the colonies contained a significant number of free blacks and frater- nization between white and black servants was considerable. After taking long hard looks at their own family trees, early Southern lawmakers settled on tracing ancestry only two generations to one's great grandparents. If any one of the those eight people was clearly recogniud as having African ancestry, you were black; otherwise, you were white. Virginia put this rule on the books in 1723, and it was copied throughout the South, fil'!lt in North Carolina (which added one more generation back) and through- out the southern states after the Revolutionary War (Berlin, 1974; Finkelman, 1993). By 1785, Virginia narrowed the definitfon of "blackfl to anyone with one or more black grandparents. Those states with larger numbers of whites with shaky family trees still avoided even this safer legal definition (Berlin, 1974). In one interesting ex- ample of such laws in practice, a court case in 1845 Virginia included the testimony of two free men who were at most one-eighth African in ancestry. A higher court later overturned the guilty verdict because the judge had not stressed the prc.-;ence of the "Negto blood" to the jury in his instructions (Finkelman, 1993).

The time of the Revolutionary War was a curious period in colonial slavery. Even though the slave trade was enormous both before and after the war, slavery was dearly proving not to be cost effective in the northern colonies. Only New York City contained significant numbers of slaves, with 40 percent of the white households owning one or more slaves in 1790. Overall at that time, New York City was 2S percent black (Pierscn, I 996). Although many people owned slaves, few owned very many. These slaves were employed either as household servants or sometimes as helpers with smaller businesses and artisans. The strong supply of European indentured servants at this time made more economic sense to middle colony employers at midcentury. As for the northern colonies, we have already seen f.ir more money was to be made in the slave trade than in actually owning slaves. In the southern colonies, demand fur slaves was still strong, although dropping tobacco prices were steadily making slaveowning a difficult long- term economic commitment. The end of the 1700s was really the beginning of the end of slavery in what we will soon refer to as the 'C;pper South-those areas north of the Carolinas. Delaware and Maryland, for example, will won be slave states in name only.

Lift Uruler Slilvery. Between 1790 and 1860, sla\•cs comprised an aver-Age of 33.4 percent of the Southern population. Some states, such as South Carolina and Missis- sippi, were SO to 60 percent slave. \\'bile 2 S percent of the Southern white population owned slaves, half of that 25 percent owned fewe r than five slaves. Twelve percent of all slaveholders O'llmed between twenty and one hundred slaves; only 1 percent of all slaveholders owned more than 100 slaves (Boles, 1983 ). In short, most Southern whiteS owned no slaves at all, and of those who did, most owned very few . .Mast slaves lived on smaller farms with 20 or fewer slaves; only 25 percent of all slaves lived on plana- tions with SO or more slaves (Genovese, 1974). As you might imagine, slavery wu very different depending on the number of slaves present. Consider what life might have been like on a small southern fann with between one and five slaves. Undoubtedly, the

114 • Part Two The Cast o( Charncters: b1trnnces and Exm

owner worked next to his slaves in the field, doing the same work. One can only guess at the social relationships that might have developed under these circumstances.

The plantation system was, by necessity, more organized and less personal. Much like the systems that operated on the sugar plantations of the \Vest Indies, the planta- tion was focused on a large cash crop that required gang labor. Slaves lived phrsically apart from owners and, on the larger plantations, might seldom even see their ov.ncr. Orders given in the field would either come from a white overseer (usually a working class white) or a black driver (who was always a slave). Black drivers were often slaves of importance within the slave community. As with the modern factory foreman, this was a difficult position, halfway between the owner and the workers. A driver who was re- spected off the job received more obedience on the job (Boles, 1983; C-.enovcse, 1974).

Plantations typically also employed slaves as house servants, taking care of vari- ous tasks including cooking, cleaning, sening, baby-sitting, and even entertaining. Much has been written about the differences between house slaves and field slaves. The former were housed better, living in or very near the main house (to be handy for their duties), dressed better (they were seen by outsiders), ate better (often leftovers from the kitchen), and often carried higher status both with their owner and in the slave community at large. Genovese (1974) estimates that only 20 percent of house slaves actually carried such an elite status. He notes that field slaves might actually have had more leisure time when the cash crop was between plantings. He also notes, however, that house slaves were less likely to be sold, suggesting something of a more permanent and personal relationship.

Fogel and Engerman (1974) argue that the special status of house slaves is largely a myth in that house chores were generally done by slaves too young or too old to be of much use in the fields. They \iew this position as a temporary status for a great many slaves. Boles (1983) suggests that the very largest plantations probably did have a permanent status differential. As is true for much of the research about slavery, these observers are probably all right. A division of labor would certainly make sense, de- pending on the size of the operation, but it could also vary by the concerns and de- sires of individual owners. A dominant white vision of slavery was that owners had a paternalistic relationship with slaves, combining correction v.ith love and loyalty. As we have seen, the economy of slavery was a far more important motivation, but some owners clearly felt personally involved.

Although popular images of slave work are limited to house chores and cotton, slaves actually did just about everything short of keeping the books. Slaveowners of- ten found it in their interests to train slaves as artisans so that, for example, one might always have a blacksmith handy. Urban sla,·es were likely to be working as house ser- vants but they also were more likely to be involved in a wide variety of urban work, including industrial work and skilled trades (>lewton, 197i). It was a common prac- tice in the South to lease slaves during slack times to anyone who might have work and was willing to pay. Near the Civil \Var, typically five to ten percent of slaves were working under lease at any given time. This practice also served to widen the range of slave occupations and job skills (Fogel and Engerman, 19H; Genovese, 1974).

Slavery was an understandably volatile situation in which millions of people were forced to work against their y,.ill. A wide variety of laws were generated to

Early Colonial Drotlopment mu/ the FArly Rtpublic: 1500-1845 • l 15

rigidly control slaves and prevent the ultimate fear of Southern whiter-a slave revolt.

According to state laws throughout the South, slavery was a permanent sta[l.l'; of ser- vice to whoever O\l\'lled the slave. The individual slave had no rights beyond (1) protec- tion against being flagrantly murdered by an owner or, (2) murder in self-defense if the slave could prove his or her own life was in inunediate danger (Genovese, 1974). Slaves could not legally vote, restify against a white person, marry, care for their own children, own any kind of property, learn to read and write, have any control over work they were assigned, or travel anywhere without their o\l\'llerl> permission. As slavery moved into the 1800s, it also became illegal for owners to free their own slaves (manwnission). Every once in a while, these restrictions worked against slaveowners rather than slaves. In an 1840 minor slave rebellion in Louisiana, for example, the slaves involved were led by an antisJa,·ery white man. \Vhen the insurrection failed, the slaves were ·willing to testify against their leader but by law they could not. Unfortunately for the prosecution, no one bur slaves knew of his involvement, and he could not be prosecuted (Genovese, 1974).

In spite of the above irony, most laws regarding slaves accomplished what they were supposed to accomplish. Slaves who wished more control over their lives needed creativity to obtain that control. In some cases, owners saw fit to aid and abet. For ex- ample, it was in everyone's interest for slaves to have their own garden plots and time a\•ailable for hunting. The more food slaves created for themselves, the less owners would have to provide. From the slave's point of view, this practice allowed them a larger and more varied diet. Interestingly, owners seem to have paid linle attention to these gardens. Slaves were notorious for doing poor quality farmwork unless closely supervised; they also had a tendency to break tools or inadvertently leave them out in the rain. This, after all, fit right in with white stereotypes about racial intellectual in- feriority. With their own gardens, however, both weeds and tools received meticulous attention (Boles, 1983).

The time allowed for slave "free time" included Sundays and holidays. Slaves also received a long vacation over Chrisunas complete with owner-provided food and drink. Over time, owners had found that paying some anention to slave morale created less damage to tools and higher levels of productivity. Just as with modem businesses and organizations in which people at lower levels find ways to manipulate those higher up, slaves encouraged and discouraged various owner beha~iors through the way they worked. Although slaveholders held some big cards in this game, rebellious acts can be better controlled if the actor can be convinced to cooperate. For example, slaves were whipped as a "correction" of bad behavior and to provide a message to other slaves. But how often should one whip slaves? Too often might prove counterproductive; slaves were known to go beyond damaged tools to acts of arson and poisoning (Genovese, J 974). Adequate evidence supports that rules were sometimes bent in the favor of slaves, illustrating that slaves could exercise some control. Overly strict overseers re- ceived the least productive work from their slaves. On the other hand, if a slaveowner who the rented out a slave blacksmith to a neighbor allowed the slave to keep a little _of the rental fee, the slave generally provided higher quality work and was more easily rented . Although this violated the law about a slave owning private property, from a slaveowner's perspective, the best course of action was the one that worked.

-0 0

116 • Part Two Th,· C11.11 of' Chumac rs: Entrtmccs nnd Exits

Slave families were: another gray area in the system. According to the law, slaves could not legally marry, but they certainly did pair off (c omplete with rimals ) and raise children. Owners lcamed quickly that slaves committed to fomi l}' relationships were less likely to run away (Genovese, l 9i 4); this same lesson had been learned by mas- ters of indentured servants who initially preferred young single men but later encour- aged servant marriages as a means of achieving more agreeable servant behavior (Salinger, 1987). ,'v\arriages and families among unfree labor make good economic sense . AlLhough slave families were broken up, many owners sold unattached slaves first hecause they were the least stable v.ithin the system. Efforts were sometimes made to sell family members to nearby plantations, coupled with liberal visitation rights (Boles, 1983). 'When families were hroken up, it was more common to sell chil- dren away from their parents than to break up "marriages"; even then, the greatest at- tack on the slave family came not from one owner's preference but from the breakup of estates upon an owner's death (Fogel and Engerman , 1974; Genovese, 19 74).

In >pitc of powerlessness, slave families showed remarkable resilience . Men and women fou nd ways to maintain some semblance of family life, often with separate quarters on both large and small farms. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the slave famil y was the elastic narure o f roles necessary to get basic family work accom- plished . Care o f small children, for example, could not he permanently assigned to onl}' parents because they had no control over their time. Instead, slave family child- care often fell to older children, other relatives, and fictive kin-unrelated slaves who were honorary family members with all the responsibility that entails (Boles , 1983). \\'hen we later look at contemporary African American families, many of these fea- tures are found in tact and for exactly the same reasons .

\\'hile our knowledge of slave families is sketchy at best, filled in largely by trac- ing sales records, our knowledge of both forcihle and consensual sex11al relations across the race barrier is even better hidden . The only records kep t by sla veowners concern their strictness with white overseers should they molest female slaves . \\'hen it happened, they were fired and records were kept. But when an owner 's son or the owner himself was involved, the only record is in the offspring of such matches . Fogel and Engerman (1974) argue that such children made up less than 2 percent of all slave children born . Given the ir O\'erall perspecth-c on slavery, that can probably be taken as a minimal estimate . lf one takes into account the powerlessness of slaves, slaveowner desires to minimize such occurrences, and the low status of nineteenth cenmry women of any color, one has to assume somewhat larger numbers. Observers who point out the disruptiveness of such behavior within the slave commun ity may have a valid point with regard to large plantations, but recall the large number of small slavdwldings: throughout the South, rural isolation might cover much . It is in such a circumstance that the reading "Celia , A Slave" takes place . As twentieth cenrury African American ~Titer James Baldwin observes in a comment directed toward any white male. "You ' n: not worried ah011r me marry ing your daughter. You're worried about me marrying your v.• ifc '.r daughLer. I've been marryin!' your daughter since the days of sl~vcry " (quoted in Genovese. 1974:414) .

African Culture in the U11itcd States. The ve ry process of the slave rra rk nssaulted African rnln1rcs beyond any forces at a slaveholde r's disposal. The process of caprure,

&r/y Calonial Otvelopmcnt 1ind the Early Republic: 1500-1845 • 117

imprisonment, shipping, and subsequent work in a strange world had to have been psychologically devastating. In addition, the relative youth of most slaves shipped in the Atlantic trade meant they would not have encountered many element~ of African cultures (Boles, 1983). In addition, slavery in the United States tended to erode African cultures because of the relatively small numbers of new Africans in the slave population versus the increasing native-born slave population. Unlike the Caribbean and South America, where new slaves were constantly arriving and providing contin- ual cultural injections into the slave community, time worked to eliminate some African customs and beliefs. Even in contemporary times, the influence of African cul- ture is much more evident south of the C"nited Srntes (Genovese, I 974) .

In spite of obstacles, elements of African culture still survive in the United States. Although African religions were far more important in the Caribbean and South America, they also continued in the United States. Pan of that strength is no doubt due to the movement of slaves and former slaves within the New \.Vorld . Hoodoo spread from l\"ew Orleans throughout the South and into northern African American communities (Voeks, 1993). African medical treatments, which rely heavily on vegetable-based potions, continued in the United States. One slave in South Carolina was awarded both freedom and a salary in I760 for contributing a cure for rattlesnake bite (Voeks, 1993). \.Ve also know something of the spread of such practice's through recent archeological work in unearthing old slave quarters (Samford, J 996).

Slaves brought African stories and folktales with them; many of their elements seem more appropriate to the slave situation than to a free population. In particular, the cle,•er trickster is a staple character in African stories (Watkins, 1994). We see him in African American folktales through Br'er Fox and Br'er Rabbit, the latter being a direct transport of Shulo the Hare from Africa (\Vood, 1991). The trickster uses his brain rather than his brawn when he finds himself in a threatening situation. Slaves were much like Br'er Fox in being weaker than their adversaries; any success would have to come through cleverness and manipulation. People in continuing powerless- ness develop such skills by necessity.

Slavery anJ Rebellion. Slaveowners in the American South lived in constant fear of slave revolts, with g-ood reason. Earlier we looked at various wavs slaves slowed pro- duction and manip~lated their owners, bnt we only briefly touc.hed upon more seri- ous measures such as arson or poisoning. Arson and poisoning are usually the acts of an individual; a revolt implies the involvement of more people and some organization. Many slave revolts occurred throughout the history of Nonh American slavery, v.ith little resulting change to the system and only a few did much damage to either people or property. But tl1e revolts were both large and frequent enough to serve as a con- sLant reminder to slaveowncrs of the dangers built into their labor system . And if own- ers and slaves chose to look beyond their own realm to the \Vest Indies (where slaves more greatly outnumbered wh ites), they could view some very successful revolts .in- deed. In this section of the chapter, we look at both slaves and their owners, watchmg each attempt to maximize power.

Slave revolts began in the New \Vorld almost as soon as slavery it~elf. In I 526, a very small Spanish colony in what is now South Carolina was fonned with 500 Spaniards and 100 slaves . Disease, Native Americans, and poor planning doomed the

118 • Part Two The Cart of Cht1r11etm: Entrance; find Exiu

colony. When several of the slaves joined with local Native Americans and ftcd the colony, the Spaniards left soon thereafter. This event introduced an often repeated pattern in which slaves formed alliances with Native Americans against Europeans (Apthelcer, 1963).

As North America beamc both British and slave, continuing revolts occurred. Consider the following enmplcs:

1709-Surry, James City, and Isle of Wight Counties, Vrrginia: A planned re- bellion involving both Native American and African slaves was discovered and its leaders imprisoned (Aptheker, 1963; Boles, 1983).

1712-New York City: Slaves set fire to a building and shot whites who at- tempted to extinguish it. Piersen (1996) notes nine dead and 7 wounded. Twenty-seven slaves were condemned to death; six were later pardoned. The Governor described the executions: " . . . some were burnt others hanged, one hroke on the wheclc, and one hung a live in chains in the town, so that there has been the most exemplary punish.ment inflicted that could be possibly thought of . .. "(quoted in Apthekcr, 1963: 173).

1739-Stono, South Carolina: Twenty slaves killed two guards, stoic weapons, and headed for F1orida (then Spanish). Along the way, they acquired seventy-five to eighty more slaves and proceeded to kill all whites they met. Probably twenty-five whites died along with fifty slaves (Apthcker, 1963; Boles, 1983).

1741-Ncw York City: A similar revolt to the 1712 revolt, this time resulted in 17 5 arrests, I 4 slaves burned alive at the stake, 18 hanged, and 7 2 deported (Aptheker, 1963; Piersen, 1996).

1756-1853-Florida: Florida had long been a southern refuge for runaway slaves, both because it was Spanish and because alliances could be formed with the Seminole people who were native to the region. Many communi- ties formed in which both groups lived. This situation ultimatdy brought out federal rroops who finally were able to stop the ongoing rebellion (Carew, 1992; Heidler, 1993; Landers, 1993).

1800-Henrico County, Vll'ginia (near Richmond): Slave Gahricl Prosser and other slave leaders hoped to take control of Richmond. Bad weather and betrayals combined to prevent their success. Prosser and I 5 other sln·es were hanged (Aptheker, 1963 ; Berlin, 1974; Forbes, 1990).

11111- St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana: Between 300 to 500 slaves in- volved in rural takeover. The revolt was put do'll.'ll by the militia (Berlin, 1974; Genovese, 1974).

182 2-Charleston, South Carolina: F rec black Denmark Vesey {he had pur- chased his own freedom in 1800) organized many slaves over a wide area, but the plot was betrayed; 131 people were arrested and 49 were

F.11r/y Colonial Droelop11m1t and 1bt &lrly Republir: 1500-l 845 • 119

condemned to death. Some pardons followed as some of those condemned slaves were sold to other areas, but 3 7 were ultimately put to death (Aptheker, 1963; Forbes, 1990; Genovese, 1974; Wood, 1991).

1831-Southampton County, Virginia : 1"at Turner, a slave preacher who be- lie~·ed the Bible prophesied a slave revolt, planned to bring together slaves and march to the Great Dismal Swamp-a traditional area of refuge on the Virginia-Nonh Carolina border where slaves could hide almost indefinitely. He planned to kill all whites they met en route. With a group of about 70 slaves, Turner killed 57 whites before being defeated by the militia. Turner was put to death; many followe.rs were sold (Aptheker, 1963; Forbes, 1990; Genovese, 1974; Roper and Brockington, 1984).

Although these by no means exhaust the list of slave revolts, they provide some idea as to their scope, over both time and geography. The Turner revolt probably caused slaveowners the most fear, not only because of the large number of white vic- tims hut also because of the organizational skill behind it. Many feared it was the be- ginning of a general revolt throughout the South and new restrictions were put in place affecting all blacks, both free and slave (Berlin, 1974).

Restrictions on slaves, both old and new, were often more focused on preventing revolts than on the day-to-day problems of getting work done. Slaveownen ap· proached the possibility of slave revolts both practically and ideologically, attempting to limit slaves in both opportunity and in will. The ban against slave literacy, for ex- ample, was designed primarily to limit oppommity by preventing communication among slaves and between slaves and northern antislavery propaganda. Religion pro- vided a more ideological approach to the problem (Crowther, 1994). Whereas early Christian missionaries among the slaves were opposed to slavery, by the mid- nineteenth century most Christian faiths in the South had come to defend slavery; in addition, slaves were encouraged to focus on rewards in the next life (\¥ood, 1991).

A look at old slave spirituals suggests that Christianity was successful in focusing slave attention on the next world. Song lyrics about "one more ribber to cross" while one is "bound for the Promised Land" might indicate such thinking, hut as Wood (1991) suggests, they are more likely referencc·s to the possibility of freedom in thi~ life rather than salvation in the hereafter. The chariot in "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" could well be a reference to the underground railroad-the system of safe houses where fugitive slaves could take refuge on their way to the nonh. Slave heroes in the Bible were Moses, Daniel, Elijah, Jonah, David, and Jesus, all of whom strug· gled against oppression and great odds. A spiritual about Samson contained the repet- itive phrase, Mlf I had my way, I'd tear this building down." And the tides of other 5pirituals-"Lct My People Go," or "Steal Away to Jesus"-carry interesting doub~e meanings. Both Gabriel Prosser and Nat Turner felt a religious calling in leading the.tr respective revolts (\¥ood, 1991). African American churches went on to become po- litical as well as religious organizations, representing the needs of the African Ameri· can community (Forbes, 1990). Christianity can be a very revolutionary religion indeed.

N

I io • Part Two The C11s1 of Cb11r11ctm: E111r1111w l171d Exits

A combination of slave revolt fears, the dropping profitability of slavery in some areas of the South, and concerns about race relations down the hi~torical road led some Southerners to believe in African colonization as a solution in the nineteenth cenrury. The American Colonization Movement began in 1816. The idea was that American slaves could be returned to Africa and resettled. The fact that almost all American slaves were native-born Americans by the nineteenth century was not a problem to most whites. Ultimately from 1820 to 1899, lS,386 former slaves did leave to an area in West Africa renamed Liberia; in the earlier years, it was often the price they paid for emancipation (Forbes, 1990; Genovese, 1974).

Free Blacks in the United States: 1700-1845 From their introduction to the colonies in 1619, free blacks lived in a world of their own, restricted by the European American dominant group. They occupied a totally separate but constantly changing staros, holding some rights of whites but facing many of the restrictions placed on slaves. Because their changing status was greatly affected by changes in slavery and white attirudes toward it, it makes sense to tell their story here.

Free blades made up approximately 10 percent of the total African American pop- ulation in the colonies and lacer the United States from che 1700s through the Civil War. This percentage varied, of course, from region to region. In 1800, for example, S6.7 percent of northern African Americans were free compared to only 6.7 percent in the South (Berlin, 1974). But the 6.7 percent is also important; until World War I, 90 percent of all African Americans lh•ed in the South. By 1860, there will be almost 500,000 free blacks in the United States, more than half of them living in the South (Berlin, 1974; Genovese, 1974). They tended overwhelmingly to be mulattos. As the only colony to take such a censlls, Maryland in 1755 described 80 percent of its I ,800 free blacks as of mixed blood (Berlin, 1974).

In the midseventeenth cenrury in Virginia, free blacks were probably in their strongest position until the end of slavery; however, Virginia slavery was unorganized and operated on a small scale. In addition, free blacks in the region were a very small minority. 'When slavery headed toward formal legal starus in the 1660s, the rights of the free black population began to drop as well. Rights removed included holding po- litical office, \•oting, serving in the militia, moving freely from colony to colony, testi- fying against whites in court, freedom from legal deht servitude, marriage with whites, and having sexual relations with whites (Berlin, 1974). As always, there was some vari- ation from colony to colony (later state to state). For example, Delaware and Louisiana both allowed free blacks to testify against whites, Georgia and Florida re- quired free hlacks to have white legal guardians, and while Virginia eliminated inter· marriage in I iOS, North Carolina waicerl until I RJR (Genovese, 1974). When free blacks were useful, however, they were treated better. In 1765, Georgia was threat- ened hy both Native Americans and the Spanish from Florida. Free blacks were in- vited co immigrate from other colonies, with the hope chat a larger population would provide a stronger defense; they faced restrictions only on voting and serving in the colonial assembly (Berlin, 1974).

Some very important restrictions not on the law books involved employment. Al- thnncrh clov"c "'"'" ollnw .. rJ tn v..nrlr in A w;,j,. VAnP.tV of inhc, free hJICK~ were more

&rly Coloninl DwelDpment and the &rly Rtflllblic: 1500-J 845 • 121

clearly job competition as free labor and were banned from many trades. One of the ironies of the Old South was that slave artisans, if they became free, often had to drop into the unskilled labor pool as a free worker (Berlin, 1974; Boles, 1983), Interestingly, with all these restrictions, free blades never lost the right anywhere to own slaves themselves.

The free black population grew dramatically during the first years of the new re- public at the end of the eighteenth century. On a legal levd, northern states began to consider eliminating slavery altogether. A major stumbling block, of course, was that the largest slaveowners also tended to be wealthy and powerful people. Plans were constructed that either phased out slavery slowly and/or compensated slaveowners in some ways for their lost property. Not surprisingly, the states with the largest num- bers of slaves instituted the longest periods of time for slaves to work their way to gradual emancipation (Piersen, 1996). On a more personal level, many individual slaveowners patriotically chose to free their sla,•es during this same time (Saillant, 1995), Comparing figures from 1790, 1800, and !BIO, the percentage of northern African Americans who were free grew from 40.2 percent to 56.7 percent to 74 per- cent, respectively; in the South, the growth over those same years was 4.7 percent to 6. 7 percent to 8.S percent, respectively (Berlin, 1974). Since the abolition of slavery was not a factor in the South, these figures suggest the importance of increasing slave manumission.

Although Southern manumission after the Revolution was notable, it occurred mostly in the Chesapeake region where slavery was becoming less cost effective with every passing year (Berlin, 1974). Nevertheless, any manumission was too much for many Southerners. Virginia, for example, prohibited private acts of manumission in 1723, repealed that law in 1782 with proper revolutionary zeal, and then prohibited it again in the 1800s. In addition, Virginia also prohibited the entry of free blacks in 1793 and required newly manumitted slaves to leave the state in 1806 (Berlin, 1974). Such restrictions spread throughout the South.

Free blacks faced other forms of harassment in the South. Most were required to carry their freedom papers with them at all times and be willing to prove their free status upon being asked by a white person. (This law was primarily to maintain con· trol over traveling slaves, some of whom might not be, traveling with consent.) They also could be sold into servitude by courts if they could not pay fines; this practice no longer applied to indigent whites. In 1822, Virginia undertoolc an economy move with its prisons by selling free black convicts into slavery, replacing a state cost with a profit (Berlin, 1974). In addition to legal harassment, free blacks also had to fear white kid- nappers who could capture them, transport them, and sell them into slavery else- where. If there is any light side to all this, it is the story of a pair of con artists, one Irish and the other black, who made a practice of selling the blaclc member, arranging his escape that night, and reselling him in the next town (Berlin, 1974).

The numbers of free blacks in the United States grew through the combined oc· currences of the 1792 slave revolt on the West Indies island of Saint-Domingue and the acquisition of Louisiana. On Saint-Domingue, many black and white slaveowi:iers had to leave following the successful revolt (Blouet, 1990). Most entered the ~11;1ted States, with the majority moving to Louisiana. Even before this, however, Lou1s1ana

122 • Part Two Tbe Cn.'t of Cha1-arll:rJ: E111rn11ccs u11d Exit<

had a tradition of considerable intermarriage and the provision of civil rights for its free black population. Vvnile the rest of the South saw this increase of free blacks as threatening, many of them became slaveowners once again and were some of the strongest defenders of the institution.

It also should be noteJ, however, that not all free black slaveowners were in it for the money. It was fairly common for a free black person to have enslaved family relations-the easiest way to reunite the family was to purchase them. After that, they were often safer as slaves than as free blacks. If someone kidnapped a free black, white people did not care. But if someone kidnapped a slave, they were taking private prop- erty and threatening the system, even if they stole from a free black slaveowner.

Changes in the Southern Economy and Slavery Events in the early 1800s fun- damentally changed slavery and American history. Slavery became profitable. Conon was kno¥-TI to grow well in the Lower South (all states from South Carolina west to Texas), and the im·cntion of the conon gin m 1793 made lnrge scale cotton produc- tion possible. Simultaneously, worlJwide demand for cotton was steadily rising. For the first time, circumstances made the cash cro1l-gang iabor combination of slave1y work economically. In 1790, the total United States cotton output was 3 ,000 bales. This grew to 178,000 bales in 1810, i32,000 bales in 1830, and to 4,500,000 bales by 1860 (Fogel and Engerman, l 9i4). At this same point in time, slavery was becoming dramatically less profitable in the C"pper South as the numbers of tobacco farmers dwindled because of low tobacco prices. But slavery was never as profitable with to- bacco as it was with cotton. This economic change attracted many European Ameri- can settlers into the Lower South and, in turn, brought rnanr slaves (Figure 4.3 ).

Jn no other time in the history of American slavery was the slave family this threatened. The end of the U.S. slave trade in 1808 coupled with the growing demand for slaves in the Lower South forced the value of slaves sharply upward. Ilecause most slaves were still in the Upper South and increasingly less needed, the demand for high-priced slaves in the Lower South brought ahout a major movement of slaves (Genovese and Fox-Genovese, I 9i9). Fogel anJ Engerman (1974) argue that 84 per- cent of slaves who made this move accompanied their owners who also were moving. Other historiam suggest a Lttle less togetherness prohahly occurred (Genovese and Fox-Genovese, l 9i9). However the upheaval occurred, it led to the larp;e plantations that remained fairlv stable until the Ci\11 War.

This change u.; the pattern and economics of slavery is one of the primary reasons for slavery's existence, but why did slavery persist? From the slaveowncr's standpoint, was slavery really worth the effort anJ the afrermath' OiJ slavery develop simply be- cause of the O\'erflow of lahor from the \.Vest Indies where it clearly was extreme ly· profitable? How big a factor ¥-as status in the Jesirc of wealthy individuals to acquire a large nwnber of slaves and the status that ca me '>11th such ownership'

\.Vithin the Cnited States, the Korth ironically beneti.ted gTeatly from both the slave trade and its products; cotton, in particular, enriched t he l'\orth because it \:ould be transported to Europe for profit in its raw state or turneJ into manufacrured goods in the United States anJ then transported. Slavery was also clearly profitable to the

E.arl)' Cokmia/ Devtloprmnt and the &rly Repub/ir; 150()..../845 • 123

.,,,,.,, ... MAP OF THE "COTTON KINGDOM"

cotton growers themselves. Although slavery cost the nation the worst war in its his- tory and slaveo\\ners their slaves, it provided wealth for some members of the South.

(..l 0 (J1

9:1.1+++;

5 Growth in Diversity and Size:

1845-1880

Although 1845 was a year of minority group stability, it marked the eve of change. By that }'ear, western Native Americans occupied their traditional lands (relatively un- bothered to date) and had been joined hy relocated eastern native peoples. It was a year of relative truce; the eastern wars hern·een r\ ative American and European Amer- icans had ended while the western wars had yet to begin. African Americans were held firmly in the grip of slavery, then close to its most profitable and most extensive pe- riod in American history. Those making money from slavery would not give up with- out a fight.

The remainder of the population was European American, a blend of northwest- ern European irnmigrnnts from the British Isles, Germany, and Holland, with a sprin- kling of other countries from that general area. Between 1836 and 1853, 80 percent of all immigrams ro the 'nired t:ites came from Britain, Ireland. and Germany (Cohn, J 995) . In recrospccr, most of those European Americans, almost all of whom were Procesram, seem to be pretty much alike . 1"'ord1westem Eu ro pe was growing in- dustriall}', wruch meant its people were used to cities, education, geographical mobil- ity, and othe.r chuacteristics accompan:ing such economic change. Yet despite these simi lari ties, they still sa w impon<mt <liffcrcnces withi n their group. Gem1ans and Scots-Irish, fo r c..xample were sti ll viewed ~s lower in stan1s than those of English an- cestry. Germans avoided English culture if possible, :ilthough they would soon turn toward assimilation (Cazden, 1987; Hoerig, 199 ). But division among Protestant E u- ropean Americans soon changed when more immigrant diversity ardved from Europe after 1880.

The coming European diversity had already achieved a beachhead on American shores. Throughout the early 1800s, immigrants began arriving from the southern,

(,,J 0 a>

142 • Part Two TIH Crm o(Ch11mcten: fammice.r and Exits

Catholic regions of Ireland and from the Jewish corrununities in and around "hat is now Ge!'many. In both cases, their numbers were still relatively small, and the immi- grants were barely noticed.

Of the two new religious groups, Catholics generally drew greater concerns. The th~n any Jewish co~numity in the Uniterl States had yet to penetrate Protestant con- sc1m1sness; Sepharrl1c Jews and the first of the German J ews lived and worked in gen- eral pe~ce and qu~et. B~t Protestant America was dcfi11itdy Cad1o!ic consciom-and concernerl about Catholic growth. Few Jev.-s ever lived in the British Isles but Protes- ta~t conAi~t with the Catholic Irish was a centuries old tradition. The ~rst Catholic Ins~ :o am~e were noticed, and the onslaught to follow drew even greater attention. . I he penod between 1845 and 1880 prnduced many interesting chanO"es in Amer- ican ra~e and ethnic relations. The European American oommunitY b~cnme much more. diverse, espcc'.al ly ~eligiousl~·· The Civil 'War grearly divided E.uropean Ameri- cans 1'.1 the course ot ending sl~vcry, and sJa,.cry'. end moved che 90 percent of African ~mer1cans that had been slnvts into n perioci of mrny frecdom·s and liberties i11 the South known as Reco nsrruction.

A1e~nwhile, the American Vlest was being tl"llns formed. The growing eastern popul~t1on wa am-acrcd by open land along v.~d1 the lure of gold in 1849 California, 1~cl.udmg a new group---chc Chinese in the 1850s, b ringing the first Asians to the United Stares. All of this expansion occurred· in the backyards of the western native peoples who fou n ci them selves and their w:>y of life very much an obstruction to new- comers. By 1880, these native peoples had been defeated, African Americans had en- tered a new stage almost as horrible as slavery, and the door was in the process of bemg slammed on future Chinese immigration.

The Arrival of the CatholiC Irish

Over l mrnion Ca tholic Irish arrived in the United States between 1845 and 1849· in the _century between ! 820 and 1920, a cora l of 5 million joined American soci~ty ~,'rl~affrey, l992b). Th_er face_d rno'.e discrimina tion than had any other European imm; grant group up ~nul that nmc. For a genernti on or so, no ei:hnic groups were be- low the lnsh cco11om1cnllr, c~ccµ ratial minorities.

Famine a11d ,Wigmtion: The First Urba11 l'vfinority in the United States

The populanon of Ireland grew rapi dly in ~he. la~c 1700s and ea rly I SOOs. Jr inmped from 2.3 million m the 1111.d~l?OOs to 6. m1!hon in !821 (Miller, 1985). "Br !841, the population r~ached 8.2 rrnll1_on. !he huge growth was larg.ely spurred by a rr~dition of early marriage and large farrnlt es among the lri h; even high infonL morulicy rates did not prc\:cm the growth (;\1cCaffrey, 1976). Hut an etiuA il y important player in this demographic drnma wns the pornto.

Long ;1 i'\'c"· \ •Vorld 513ple, Lht purnro is truly a miraculous veg-etable for the davs before rcfrig_enition nnd c.anni ng. ft is onc of the few vegetables th;c lasts quite a wh(le after han·C.'l with o nl)' nuniuml c:i re. Equn lly important, you can grow quite a few on

Gro;;Jth in Dh•errity and Siu: 184)-1880 • 143

a small piece of !,'TOund. tn short, the potato was an ideal peasant crop in the eigh- teen th and ninereenth cenrurics. V.'hcn Trish peasants turned to the potato on what litde land w:is left to them , the imprm·ed nutrition allowed for greater population growth. Unforrunatel.y, it also placed too many of their survival eggs in one basket. This total dependence on one crop made the potato famine of the late 1840s one of the world's gTeat trngedies.

Although famines were not unlmown in Ireland, some famines in the 1820s hav- ing already encouraged some Irish to emigrate, the famine of the 1840s was beyond anyone's imagination (Mageean, 1984). A potato fungus (J!hytophthora infest.ans) de- stroyed 40 percent of the 1845 Irish potato crop and virtually all of the 1846 crop (l\"ewsinger, 1996). The famine lasted five years. Between 1846 and 1847, 500,000 Trish were evicted from their homes (Miller, 1985). Death estimates from starvation and starvation-related disease range from l million to 1.5 million (Guinnane, 1994; Miller, 1985; Newsinger, 1996). Approximately 1.8 million Irish immigrated to the United Stares and Canada (Miller, 1985; Newsinger, 1996). Taken together, these fig- ures could run as high as one-third of the total Irish population.

The very poorest of the Irish could not afford the £2 to £5 required for passage to the United States. The areas with the highest death rates during the famine had the lowest emigration rates. Those who did leave Ireland during the famine were more likelv to have slightly more money, more education, and to emigrate as families (McCaffrey, 1976; Miller, 1985). However the Irish cmigrnted and regardless of their destinations, most viewed their migration more as exile than as choice (Miller et al., 1980).

Life and Work in the United States The United States European American pop- ulation was as unprepared for the Irish arrival as the Irish were for the United States. To Protestant Americans, their shores were being stormed by a massive Catholic at- tack. And even though these new immigrants were slightly better off and more edu- cated than those who remained in Ireland, they seemed woefully low on both scales to Americans. Never before had any one ethnic group entered the United States in such large numbers so quickly, We should remember, however, that such an immi- gration would have been impossible much earlier when crossing the ocean was both more expensive and took longer. As time went by, it became cheaper and therefore easier for future groups to make the same move. .

To Irish immigr.mts, the United States was n hostile and fnghten.ing improve- meut on what the)' h~d left. Comfort is rela tive, after all. Protestant emplo}•ers had al- ready learned from both early Irish Catholic im migram:s and northern fn:e blac~ ~at job discrimination produced cheap labor. [ndivid ual m~mbers from bo~ m;i'onty groups, prevented altogether from competing for mosr jobs, h2d to stnnd m lrne f~r whatever wns left, reg:i rd les~ of pay. The digging of the Erie Canal, completed . m 1825, owed much to che Iri'sh laborers who had so little choice. The process contin- ued with the fomine immigrants who were left with the worst, most dangerol1~, and mrJSt p00rly paid employment a1•ailable (Mc Caffrey, 197 6, l 992b). Those who did not arrive in either New York City or Boston docked in rhe port of cw Orleans. In the South, 1r!sh laborer.; were often hired for work considered too cfangerous fo r slaves. Slaves, after all, were valuable.

144 • Pan Two The Ca.rt of Churactei:;: E11t,.m1rrs and Exits

IRISH INDUSTRIES.

Tnl l•hu •.0 1•. :.l •'l ' .. ' 111<1••

\ ('\1' ' • r ... 11 ''" J4",, ;. , , '1 ~'

Thm 1881 ranorms rr.pnsr:nt the prejudicial attitudes toward b-ish Amcricam that were widely held during that rime.

l n che i\:orth, wh.;re most Catholic Irish ctrled, men we re most likeh· robe found working on c~ n:1ls, railroads, building co.nsrruction , and as dock Inhere~ .. l\s ju.sl one example of how their despera tion and powerlc sness 'il'Cre manipulm:d . numerous Irish inuni~ranr men responded to ndvertised wages fo r railroad work In upstate New York. \ •Vhen l:"ic:e the numher of needed worker arrived, the cont.ractors cut the ad- venised w3ges ancl rccei\'ed aid from the state militia in forcing the laborers to work for the reduced wages (M ill er, 1985).

By l SiO omc Trish had i'mproved their cmploymenc staru.s to working a~ hrick- l~yers carpenrers, miners. factory worker'<, building c<mtn1cmrs, and small propri- etor!' (Emmon , 1989; Mi echell , 1988). Scill, emplo1men1 discriminacion continued into the next generation . Among native-born Irish toward the tare nineteenth cenrury, 40 percent conLinucd working as unskilled laborers or domestics (Miller, l 985).

Irish immigran~ fated or.her difficult circumstances hcyond cm1llo}menc. Deter- mined to ~void rurnl areas and farm wo rk after their c. peric11ce in Treland, they be- L'llme Hrhan dwellers in r.he United States. Even the earlier and 111ore advenruresome Trish who headed co the \.Vest sought growing ci ti es like Denver l! nd San Fnincisco (Brundage, 1992· J\kCnffrey, 19i6: Siegel, 1975; w·>·man , 1984). Alrhough the lri h wished ro li ve together :i. most new immigrants do, housing egrcga1 ion offered few alternatives. ln ~e1~ York City, the first Irish neighbornood 11·3s lower Manhartan (Dolan, 197 2). Such poor neig hhorhaods spawne d dise-iiscs such as tube rculosis, small pox . • ind Asiatic chnlcrn: mortality ra tes from typical!>· less lethal ailmentS were

Growtb in Diversity mid Size: 1845-1880 • 145

1 C ff 19-6· O'Connor 1979). Those higher because of the poor ~nvironm~nt (;\ c. a th~e~,ispr~~ortional lri~h involvement neighborhoods almost certalilly plahe !~~~em. . I onvictions in New York of the with crime (McCaffrey, 1992a); m th.eh ~ cnmma f:r Germans either native-born Irish foreign-born were five times ig er t an rates '

or fo~::1~~r~;:~~ :;?~yers benefited from i.ne:<p~nsive labor p~us t~:P,~:7- . }' Protestant ,\mencans saw no enc

freedom from labor orgam:atton, man . . ·. · l f the Catholic men· soe,•er to the newcomers. The Irish wer~s1('Z\l~~t~;~ ~8~4 the Ordet of the ace of which thev bad long been wame lO . . • a'nsformed into the Star Spangled B~nner (a secret ~ti-C~tholicb~_rga~!zao~~e'~~~rican Pa rty caroe to American Party, which ran c3nd1dates o~ pu. ic o nc~. asccl on the answer member:s be known more popularly as t he Know-!'<othmg Parry (b . . . son immigrorion,

P ro-..; dcd when asked abom their parry). The par~: soufghdJjinucaltatlo~~ces to che nath•e-

al. · nd the re<mct:ton o po tl · .1.. • a longer natur iz.aoo n process, a h d'd 11 • the 1854aml 1855 elections, weir born (McCaffrey, I 992h). Although t ey t we m e e:<isrence and 5UCCe55 popularirv a.nd influence decreased 1.hcreafrer. Ncv~rcheless, ~ . d seemingly more of the ~ow-Nothrngs foreshadowed future reacaons to ne\\er an chre3 tening immigrants.

w 0 00

146 • Pan Two The Can of Ch1m1cters: Enn-anccs and P.xits

. Th~ Knov.:-::-.iothing att:1ck wa:s prompt!;· followed by the Ci\il Wor. From the Ii;ish pomc ~f view, th~s war was being fought to fre.e from slavery one of tbe few ech- ruc groups in I.he Uru_ted . States worse off thau rhey were. If successful , thc.~e newly freed s~aves would amve m the fr ee !abor market, seeking the same jobs 2s the Irish. The Ins~ alread}' knew about American race relations from their conracc with free blacks with whom they wen: currently competing in the 1 "orth. 1o make matters even more wifa ir, w~althy Protesranc Americans could purchase a poor man to fighL in their place. Mani• o~ these poor me~ were Iris~ . In short, the Irish were being asked to fight a war nnd receive unusually high casualoes for a cause that opposed their personal in- te~es~. This was the concext of the July 1863 riot in New York Cit)•, begun by poor Iris~ m re~poose to the ~ew draft law for the Union Anny. The riot lasted five days durmg which eleven African Americans were killed along with a , ative American mistaken for an African American . Tn addition, an Afrian American orpliamge was bu~ed m the gr~und. The army was finally called in, resulting in 1200 more deaths. L1o.mately, _che riot_ resulted iu ~3 million worth of property damage (Mccaffrey, _19~6). In spite ?f rhtS, 200,000 lnsh wound up fighting in the C ivil V.'ar, the vast ma- J<mty for the Union, generally being assigned the mosc dangerous combat positions (Miller, 1985 ).

Urbrm Ethnic Politics and the Irish

A prominent f.r ish American sociologist and politician-Da niel Paa:ick Moy:nihm- o.nce commenced that the Irish seem to have little ralenc as entrepreneurs o r inrellec- cuals but top a_ll o~cr ethnic groups when it comes to organizational ski.Us (Moynihan, 1964). The Irish involvement with many forms of policies in lrdand made rhcm nat- oral players in the_ wi~e~op~n arena of Am~rican style politics (Brundage, 1992 ). For all the fo?11s of d1sonmmaaon they faced upon arrival , one right thcr were granted '~as the n_ght to vote. Their concentration in urban cen ters made city politics an ob- vious choice for them-rhey could use their sheer numbers co dominate. Bv I iO the 1:i~h comp~ised berwee~ 15 to 20 percent of the population in America{ 50 la;gest CIOCS (Da~1els, 199 I; En~, 1988). Perha ps more import'lmt, the}' le;rrned e~rly now co register V1rt\1ally the ennre lrish communirv and get out the vote on cl~ction day (Erie, ! 9SS; O'Connor, 1995). ·

~America~ el l~ pol~tics went in the nineteenth ce ntury. political power coul<l he obt:uned an~ ma1mam.ed in many creative wa}'s. Most large eas rcm cities-particularl}· - cw York ~tty-were .al ready governed by political machines. A pol:iticsl machine (or party machi~e) organizes the electorarc ro mainrain poli ti cal control, election after 7Icca~n. This .do~ati~n allows the ma~~ne to reward those vo ters with patronage JO~. "1th the cny

1

while s1mulraneousl}" sh1~ng public funds in to the pockecs of the ma- chine. leaders (0 Connor, 1979). A ma.chl.lle leader for example, migh own a con- scrucaon c.ampan~ that would he picked regularly for city construction projecrs.

?nee a machme am.ins control of a ci!)•, its leaders can use that power to main- t~m Jt c?ntro!. Patro~age jobs obviously keep tl.e voters ha ppy, particularly if other ~ds of 1obs ~re proving harJ to find. Bur e.vcn less ethical (and clear!}' illegal) tech- niques are available. For example, votes can be bought, naruralizacion procedures can

Gruwtb in Diversity and Size: 1845-1880 • 147

be speeded up, imaginary voters can be registered from tombstones in the cemetery, voters can be harassed if there is doubt as to how they will vote, and ballot boxes can be tampered with. You can either add votes for your candidate (i.e., cemetery regis- tration) or destroy ballots cast for the opposition. If you control the city, you control the police and they can take care of such matters for you. In the New York City 1886 mayor's race, tlie story goes that ballots cast for rhe machine's opposition could be seen floating down the Hudson River for days after the election (Erie, 1988).

In the late nineteenth century, the political machine in New York City was called Tammany Hall. It has the distinction of being America's most powerful and longest lasting political machine. Its name came from a private social club where machine leaders would gather to socialize, drink whiskey, smoke cigars, and plot political strat- egy. This is the origin of the famous "smoke-filled room." The machine leaders never ran for office themselves. They simply picked stand-ins, saw that they were elected,

and then told them what to do. ':\'hen the Trish were new to city politics in the 1860s, they were only lieutenants

of Tammany, then controlled by William Marcy Tweed-a powerful man of Scots- lrish background who would move from Tammany to prison in 1871 after being caught for a little political corruption (McCaffrey, 1992b). He w~s foll_o~ved by "Hon- est" John Kelly in 1874. By 1892, 61 percent of Tammany was Insh (Ene, 1988). The Catholic Irish would control Tanunany until 1933. Tbe dividends for the Irish com- munity were almosr imme di ate . For workers who remembe.re~ the ~amine in Irelar;d, safe and secure city employment was n wonderful plum. C ity iobs IIl New York City went almosc exclusively co the Irish population, moving rhem one more rung up the ecot\omic ladder. The image of an Irish cop on the beat in 1ew York City from th.e old days is not just an idle stereotype. Most New York City police offic;ers wer;- _indeed lrish . [n the nation's fourteen largest cities between 1870 and 1900, Insh paroopaaon in public sector jobs rose from 11 to 30 percent (Erie, 1988).

Growth in Divmity and Size: 184S-1880 • 157

Tbe burial of the dead at Wounded &ee, South Dakou..

conclude that Native Americans were doomed simply by the impossibility of their be- ing useful as cheap labor. As it was, they were just in the way.

The Fir.rt Asian Immigration: The Coming of the Chinese

The Chinese who came to the United States did not arrive as indenrured laborers, al- though some were of similar status, and although the newcomers statuses varied, most came for remarkably similar reasons and "~th very sfrnilar goals. N'ineteenth century China was in political, social, and demographic nmnoil. The population was rising rapidly within an em~ronment of increasing food shorcages and increasing warfare, both between regions and with the British over opium importation. In these circum- stances, economic advancement was almost impossible, particularly for poorer Chi- nese (Leung, 1986; Pan, 1990).

Chinese immigrants began arriving in the United States around 1850, searching for wealth. The gold fields of California were a particularly strong draw. Almost all immi- grants came from the Kwangnmg province in southeastern China (Pan, 1990; Wong et al., 1990). They were ~"Oung men, most of whom probably saw the journey as tem- porary; the Chinese word for miigmnr is synonymous with the English word for so- jou111e1-. leverrheless, intentions 3.re of1en left unfulfilled; the United States was far from unique among destinations in becoming a permanent home for migrating Chinese.

l 58 • Part Two Tbe Ca.rt of Cha1-acttrr: l!.'11trance.< t17id E.xiLr

Chinese Immigrants and tht! Economy The most i mpormnt Chinese or2anizacions to de~e~op in 0e United S~tes evolved from regional differences in China.~:\ region~I associaaon_(hui kuan) co.ntamcd im?1igrnms who shared me same region in Cl.tin e and rhe same dialect (,\1cClam, 1990; Wong cc al., I 990). l.n San .Francisco, manv hui kuan joined mgc her in the mid-1850s to form the Chinese Consolidated Benev~lcoc ~o­ ciation (common I~ <.':!Heel ~e Chinese Si:.: Companies). This umbrella organization op- crat~d so~1ew~ar like the lri~h i:ammany Hall. e:.;c:cpt it had nothing ro do " 1 th politics. (Ch mcse 1mm1granrs were proh1bired by Congress in 1870 from becoming naturaliz-ed and could not vore.) Nevertheless, the Six Companies pro,~ded mutual aid, welfare ~.nd ge neral economic support (including business loans) within the Chinese immi~mnr commu~iity ~on_g ~t a! . I 999)· !his aid was cssenti3.l because Chinese i.mmig':.inrs found either discrumnaoon or md1 fferencc from European American sou rces.

. The fi rst destination for C hinese laborers was Hawaii where the large sugar plan- t~ao~s badly needed workers; the discovery of gold in California altered chc final des- onaaon or many. Chinese immigranrs co Ca!ifom.ia deve loped a orn~m of adaprntion, connecti ng censin kinds of labor ro their ethn ic communirv c~rablishimr what would be C'Jlled "Chinatown '' (see !chioka, 1979; Pan, 1990). Th~ Chinese ar~ o~en singled out fo r their disti nctive adaptation, bur little in what they did was new.

o other single immigrant group contained all the particular ch ancceristics of Ch i- nese adaptation, bur nU the elements had been seer. before .

·.;:1:· 't-;-· .. , • ,L. .... r :~ ~· ...... . . -- - - -

Tbe p1wnire of wealth in the gold fie/d.r ofCalifo>71ia drew man_y Chinese immigra111s during rhe 1850s.

Growth in Divtr.rity and Size: 1845-1880 • 159

A Chinatown is a tight knit ethnic community with a centralized power struc- ture (the Six Companies). Most immigrant groups form such communities upon ar- rival anywhere; even if they are welcomed elsewhere by the dominant group, they cling together for much needed emotional and economic support, evidenced in a wide variety of ways . Ethnic conunun.ities need special services not available else- where, such as ethnic food or clothing. The ethnic community offers numerous op- portunities for immigrants to start small businesses serving an ethnic need. When those businesses grow, they provide employment for other ethnic group members. Economic support may come in the form of labor contractors who know where the jobs are outside the ethnic community. The community also may provide needed muscle on occasion because immigrant groups often do not receive the same police and legal protection as do native-born people. They must learn to take care of them- selves. If the Chinatov.-n is distinctive, it is mostly because it !asrs across many gen- erations, often becoming a tourist attraction, whereas most ethnic communities disappear over time.

Chinese immigrants to the United States probably also needed Chinatown for an- other reason: more than other immigrant groups, they were almost entirely men. Al- though it is typical of most immigrant groups for men to immigrate first, women and other family members usually follow. Because the Chinese generaUy planned to return to China for marriage, women did not immigrate. In the early days, only the wealth- iest Chinese merchants had wives. Most of the women who did immigrate were pros- titutes, many locked into a form of semislavery from wh ich they could not escape (Daniels, 1988; Korus , 1992). In 1870 San Francisco, it is estimated that 7 of every 10 Chinese women were proscirutes (Pan, 1990). In 1860, there were over 18 men for every woman; by 1880, there were 100,000 Chinese men living in the United States but only 4,779 women (VJong et al., 1990).

Chinatowns intti-ally were incredi bly poor slums where unattached males sought each ocher's company along with prostitutes, opium, and gambling. Traditional secret societies called «tongs" found new life in the ew World to S1ltisfy these needs. They became highly organized and territorial with different tongs supplying different Chinatowns. The four largest were the Hip Sing, the On Leong, che Bing Kung, and the Suey Sing. \.\ihen disp utes arose over boundaries, tong wars wou ld break out (Daniels, 1988; Tncy, 1993). '

Man>· Chinese laborers vtm rured into the outside economy, doing wharever wage labor was available. Since they faced conside ra ble employment discrimimtion, they we re forced to work for less, usually one-third less than European America~ workers (D 3illels, t 988). They also did not strike-they could no t afford co-le~di~g them often into che role of strikebreakers when European American workers Ullloruz.cd ::nd went ouc on strike. This made them increa.singly popula r with employers ~nd Ul- creasingly unpopular with striking workers. But they had little choice regarding the type of work they did wruch is typical for fim-geoeration imm igra? t groups._

The two major employers of Chinese immigrant laborers ours1de of Chinatown were railroads and min ing companies. The arrival of che Chinese during the decade before the building of the transcontinental railroad made chem prime cand.idac~ for work on the Central Pacific, which hegan irs project in Sacramento with Califom:-a la- bor. During the eight years of its constrUccion, between 12,000 and 14,000 Chinese

160 • Pare Two Tl:e Cas: of r.l>tn·am·n: E1111·a11<t! 011:1 E..rin

were on lhe (l3)'roll (Pan, 1990). Since !he Ccmnl Pacific had to cross two major m<mn rnin ranges, use of explosives was considerable and deuhs among the lahor force were many. No accurarc records were kept of the Chinese workers who died while building that railroad, but iris estimated that 1,200 died on the job (Tsai, 1986). Their employer's artirude toward them can be seen clearly, howe\·er, in the phorogniph fo r which workers and management posed together when the two railroads finally met in Utah: Chinese laborers do not appear in the picrure.

With the end of the rai lroad construct.ion in l869, many Chinese laborers moved into mining. ln many cases, railroad companies' owned the mines. The large number of mines in the Rod'Y Mount2ins moved Chinese semipennanendy aw:iy from the West Coast and into new locations such as Montana, Colorado, Oregon, Idaho , and W)•Oming. A.' the Chinese moved, so coo did the Chinat0\\1lS. Long-renn mining towns such as Bucte, Montana, developed thriving Chi natowns, complere "ith tong wars {Daniel s, l 988).

W1thm the Chinatowns. many Cbinc:st: specialized in occupations currently un- filled or work gener:illy viewed as women 's work; sometimes their choices were both. A stercoryp1c~I fixrure of c:irly Chin:uown 1~ the Chinese laundry. During the begin- nings of the gold rush, lnnndry was one of the m3ny service.~ that California w;is not prepared to provide . Some miners acrually sent their laundry to Hawaii by ship. The Chinese 611ed a clear need. Laundries could be ~t up with minimal capital and re- quired mostly just hard work ro be successfol.

Over tin1e, Chinese immigranrs came 10 make up between i a.nd 8 percent of Cali- fornia~ populaoon, but because they were almost aU young men and all in the labor force, that percentage comprised 25 percent of the labor force. \.\/hen it came to the dangerous work on the Central Pacific, their labor was welcomed. After completion of the r.l ilroad, cheir w1Wngn~s to work fo r less made them a threat cu other California workers. T'nus, those Chinese who SUrvJved tht: penis of railroad consO"Uction did nor ha~-e an eaS>' time.

Anti-Chinese Attitudes , Violence, and Legislation In the western United Stares, violence directed at Chinese immigrants grew in intensiry from 1870 on (Daniels, 1978). As with many mlnoritie.~-particularly groups labeled as rndol groups-they cou ld not count on protection fro m either the police or the courts. Jn I 871 , a mob in Los Angeles aroickecl rhc Chinese residents of char then small city of S,728. \:\'hen I.he violence ended , 2 I Chinese were dead. Some had been sboc, others hanged, nod still Olhers burned ro death (Danie ls, 1988). Riots occurred m San Francisco in L8i7, Denver in 1880, Ruck Springs, Wyoming in 1885, and rhe Oregon Snake River Mas- sacre in I 887: ;ii together, SS ~1JCh mob attacks were directed ag-Jinst the Chinese (Punn. 1990; D11niels. 1988).

The Rod: Springs riot, described in Box S.l, shows the interplay between violence and labor competition. It may I><! the best known of the many mob attacks on Chinese, but the Snake River occurrence is very similar. Once again, Chinese minc:rs were the target. Thirty-one Chinese were murdered and mutilated by a Euro- pean An1erican mob. Wnile the murderers were kno\\~1-one even testified fo r the prosecution-no one was convicted of the crime. In 2 grisly simil~rity ro the Sand Creek M.assacre of the Cheyenne :ind . .\npaho. a local family saved and used a Chinese ~kull as J sug:ir bowl (Srr;ia:on, 1983).

162 • Part Two 1/Jc Cast of Cbnracrm·: Entrances nnd &its

• apparen tly .knew more thm the gran d jury; i1 discharged forcy·fi\'C miners for pmici plltion in t he riot. mted Sta tes Army croops, re- quested by territorial Governor Francis E. \Varren, escorted some Chinese back to Rock Springs on September 9, and the Union Pa- cific continued to employ some of them there uncil well imo the cwcncicth cenrury. Seoti- mcnr in the rowns along the Union Pacific main line in southern \~'yoming, where mosr of the territory's 50,000 people lived, was 1ir- ulen1ly anci-C:hincsc according to the histori- an~ of the m•ssacrc. The Lammie Boomtrnng, although tt "regretted" the rior, found c,,tcn-

• uating circumstances, as did the Cheyenne Trib1111£; the Rock Springs Independent de- nounced the railroad's alleged intention of making a "Chinatown" out of Rock Springs and called for a rebellion against hnth the rail- road and law and order: "Let the demand go up from one end of the Union Pacific to the other, THE CHlNESE MUST GO ."

l. This acoount of the Rock Springs mHsacri: is drawn from Paul Crane and Alfred Larson, 0 Thc Chinese M:a.-.;. sacrc," llnnah of'iVy=ing 12 (1940), 47-)5, lH-160, Only the iirst portion ~s. reprinted in DarUels, Anti·Chim.st v;. olenc.t owing to a puhlisher'.! c:rtor.

Personal attacks against the Chinese paralleled less violent attacks in state and federal legislatures during this same time. Employers liked the Chinese, but vin:ually no one else seemed to. Politicians were responsive co the general population's dislike of the fore ign culrure and labor competition. The first blow hit during the passage of the Fourteenrh Amendment in 18 70. Just following the Civil \.Var, Congress was busily ensuring the rights of newly freed African Americans with Constirucional ad- JUStrnems; the original document limited naturalization ro free whites only. Then the question of the Chinese was raised. At the same time Congress ensw·ed that newly freed slaves could become American citizens, Ch inese immigrants joined Native Americans in being denierl that right. \.Vith so few native-born children in the Chi- nese community, they were now a minority of permanent al!ens.

A more serious legal blow hit over a deca<le later with th~ passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act on May 6, 1882. For the first time, Congress passed a bill that limited immigration to the United States. It would be the first of many. In this bill, Chinese immigrants were singled out for immigration exclusion for a period of ten years. The only exceptions were for Chinese teachers, students, merchants, and tourists. These exceptions left loopholes that led to a tightening of the law in 1884. It is easy to see, however, that wealthier Chinese would be left with far more options in the United States than would poorer laborers. This law stayed in effect until the middle of\Vorld \.Var II when the United States found itself thrust into an alliance with China, both countries ha,;ng been attacked by the Japanese.