J.P. Morgan, tycoon banker and a close friend to President Stephen Grover Cleveland, observed that “a man always has two reasons for the things he does a good one and the real one.”[1] In the case for reconstruction the Republicans who ruled the senate majority knew they needed to do something to prevent the reseating or readmitting of Southern senators as well as keeping the votes of the south and west from going Democrat. The tool they used were amendments and acts cloaked under the name of “civil rights.” The Republican congress in their successful political coup took from the electorates their votes and handed it over to those who lacked knowledge or understanding of the American system. However, as long as the votes went to the Republicans in order to pass their railroad acts, tariff acts, and currency acts, it did not matter the relations between any group of people. Therefore establishing the true motive for the republican congress as only being the ability to hold a new found monopoly over the recreation of American Government. Moving it from the founders republic to a national republic in attempts to usurp all powers and consolidate the states under one government. This view however switches the philosophical presentist view for a logical analysis that includes time context, demographic, population, industry, government, and the economic misery that was happening during the time of reconstruction. When examining the entire picture one must acknowledge that reconstruction did not actually end in 1877 rather it continued on until the mid-twentieth century. This assumption being supported by the fact in 1938 the presidential economic report claimed that almost half the southern whites were sharecroppers in conditions identical to that of African Americans and by 2011 Virginia was the only former confederate state to reach the top ten in per capita adjusted gross income.[2] The western states were not free from the conditions of the south during reconstruction. Population was constantly growing which was causing the saturation of wages and lowering living conditions.[3] The result of which lead to a constitutional convention in California that addressed economic misery including that of which attempted to restrict only Chinese laborers.[4] This political nullification from California brought about the big question of why did congress fail to enforce the many acts and amendments on the west coast that would have prevented these “racist” acts from occurring in California.[5] After all the Chinese either freely worked or were contracted out to work for Republican railroad tycoons such as Leland Stanford and Collis P. Huntington.
Coming out of the war between the states, congress attempted everything to stay in power or to hold the seats of majority in order to structure the “recreation” of the American Government. Republicans kept former senators unseated, made guidelines for states to come back into the “union.” They unseated people who voted against them, and created legislation to keep people on the their side.[6] The western states played a big role in the tide before, during, and after the war between the states. With the election of Leland Stanford in 1861 California managed to go from being consistently Democratic, to turning Republican. Coincidentally Leland Stanford also held majority of the stocks in the Central Pacific Railroad. In his inaugural address Governor Stanford promised to rid California from the “laborer” problem, however it was him who was ultimately creating demand for it, and creating the surplus laborer problem once the railroad was complete.[7] Starting in 1862 congress passed the first Pacific Railroad Act, and then two years later followed it up with the second Pacific Railroad Act.[8] These acts helped officially put down the attempted secession of California and officially solidified their coalition with the rump congress. These Acts created massive railroad subsidies from the general government that included land grants and created the ability of the railroads to give out one hundred percent backed mortgages. These subsidies ultimately created negative consequences that would soon cause the constituents of California to express both Article 5 and the 10th amendment that would once more ring the Liberty bell.[9]
Legislation after 1866 became a questionable experience for both the natives and foreigners to California. The big legislation in question was the 14th amendment, a legislation designed to prevent states from denying the rights of citizens through law or mob rule.[10] However as many historians look back on that period, the 14th amendment was not constitutionally ratified. California being one of the many states that rescinded their vote, which was later over ruled by the “makeshift” quorum.[11] Henry Huntley Haight governor of California claimed “separate State existence was recognized in the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery, in official intercourse with the other States and the General Government, in the appointment and confirmation of judicial and other officers for them, and in the universal admission that they must be counted in determining whether the amendments last proposed have been adopted by a sufficient number of States.” Haight would later say in the same speech “They (Republicans) abolish in effect the right of trial by jury, and make the accused subject to trial by military commissions. They prohibit any interference by the State authorities, thereby abolishing the writ of habeas corpus. They ignore presentment by grand juries, they tacitly permit the suppression of public journals by military orders, and allow no appeal from military sentence except in capital cases to the clemency of the President. They assume the control of the elective franchise, which the Constitution vests exclusively in the States, and after disfranchising a large class of the white population.”[12] Haight would later omit the fourteenth amendment from the state legislatures and follow that up with the rejection of the fifteenth Amendment in January of 1870.[13] Though both amendments were later voted for and passed in the California legislature. Both amendments however, were still rejected by Judges such as Lorenzo Sawyer in his In Re Ah Yup: Case No. 104[14], or the circuit court decisions of Wing Hing V. Eureka, and People V. Brady (40 Cal. 198)[15]. These decisions were crucial in the nullification of the fourteenth Amendment, denying the Chinese of all classes their supposed rights. These decisions of course were completely legal under the numerous articles within the California Constitution. With the amendments and their passage, historians still can not explain why none of them were ever federally enforced in California. The new 1878 – 79 Constitutional convention was ratified in the time that all new state constitutions had to de facto recognize those amendments. The California convention ultimately ratified a constitution; with the exception of the freeman, that was legally silent on recognizing the goals of the amendments.
The Western states during reconstruction were the states who were leading the fight against a government usurping its power. They knew the stipulations of the amendments and the civil rights acts however refused to recognize them in a court of law. California’s transplanted population of chinamen was met with resistance in two ways. The first being political, Californians of all classes feared having a group of people run the electorates at the ballot box who have never known or wanted to know the American system. Grover Cleveland in an inaugural address stated “in a deep bow to labor, rigorous enforcement of immigration laws so as to exclude “a servile class [Laborers/artisans native to China][16] to compete with American Labor, with no intention of acquiring citizenship, and bringing with them and retaining habits and customs repugnant to our civilization.”[17] The Chinese throughout history up until modern times really were unwilling to change their ways or assimilate in to the system, the culture was closed off fully of traditions that dates back forty centuries.[18] In a Speech to congress California Senator John Franklin Miller; who voted for the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Acts, recognized this when he said “There modes of life remain the same, which they and their ancestors have pursued for fifty centuries in their fierce struggle for existence. They have been unable or unwilling to change the habits and character which have been forced upon them and ground into them by necessity and a heredity as old as the records of man. Nor does our experience with the Chinese differ in this respect from that of other nations who have admitted them.”[19]
The second of which was through industry. California had three big industries, Railroad, Mining, and agricultural. The biggest evil in the state was the railroad, which owned the majority of land through various land grants and government subsides. The Railroad created demand for Chinese laborers; up until 1869 when it was finished, and controlled the majority of mortgages in California. During the time that the exclusion acts were adopted, the issue of taxes at the state level and tariffs at the federal level were big issues in the political arena for California. This unfortunate economic misery was an issue left over from the republican congress that not even Grover Cleveland could manage to diffuse when he took office.[20] Another big reason that many people objected to the Chinese immigration was religion. The American republic was founded by men who were for the most part Christian and much like the California convention, many people today still ignorantly carry the idea that the American republic was founded as a Christian republic. Of course the Puritans of New England already held a monopoly on “religion” in America, and wanted to remain unchallenged. The issue of religion was addressed by Iowa Senator John Adam Kasson, when he claimed that they were not pagan rather than supporters of religion.[21] Though Kasson missed the point of the complaint in the 1882 congressional debates on the exclusion act, religion did play a role in the California constitutional convention of 1878 – 79.[22]
Leading up 1878 – 79 the people of California attempted a few times to call a convention. However in September 1877 George Kearney of the Workingmen’s Party of California; in order to address the issues of taxation and the Chinese, managed to gather enough support for a state convention to convene.[23] This convention was opposed by both Republicans and Democrats who formed the “the non-Partisan” party, which ultimately failed as September of 1878 brought to Sacramento the delegates.[24] Henry George of the Workingmen’s Party so eloquently put in words in 1869, when the completion of the transcontinental railroad released ten of thousand Chinese [contracted] laborers into the market[25] “Servile and debased workers…inexhaustible supply would drive wages down and in the process replace American values with cruelty and cowardliness.” He again claimed the “alien serfs” together would crush the white working class.[26] The workingmen’s party of California held 50 seats in the convention moving for restriction of the Chinese laborers as their main platform. In 1878 Judge Lorenzo Sawyer who; according to the 1849 Constitution, had appellate jurisdiction voted to deny Chinamen their citizenship under the reasoning of the naturalization acts from 1802 up until 1870.[27] The Judge used comments from Senator Sumner and the rest of the new congress to justify his decision, which of course was constitutional through the state constitution but violated the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. Prior to that in 1870 a Circuit Court Judge ruled; In People V. Brady (40 cal. 198 -1870) that the fourteenth amendment did not apply to the state of California because it was a sovereign state.[28] The people of California had finally had enough of the Chinese laborers. The State of California; which was made of mostly Republicans from the North and West, in a vote of 161,405 (against) and 883 (for) immigration wanted to continue restrictions in line with the 1875 Page Act and other recent rulings of the court.[29] There was a few different spheres that drove these decisions with the Chinamen population never toping ten percent of California’s population.[30] The most common being the Okhems razor of racism, which could be explained by two-thirds of the lynching’s between 1850 – 1900 being Chinamen victims in California. The most notable event in California was that which occurred in Los Angeles in 1871[31]. The short side to that argument is not even the workingmen’s party used that in their speeches in the convention. Kearney in response to Chinese contracted or indentured laborers said “they have no families, build no houses; live on rats and even transport bones to the celestial empire for burial.”[32] Both Republican and Democrats responded the same way, Senator John Kasson of Iowa in his speech talking about the good nature of the Chinamen also claimed there was a large class that should not be here.[33] Senator John F Miller of California expressed “I trust that while we attempt the path of inquiry in this instance we shall keep our feet firmly upon the earth…..It involved principles of economic, social, and political science, rather than a question of morals.”[34] George Perkins in his inaugural address stated “nothing should be done in anger, nor in a spirit of race prejudice, but everything with the fairness and dignity becoming a sovereign state of the American Union.”[35] The California state constitution in 1879 in Article II section 1 only prohibited the native of China from voting, and changed Article 1 Section 2 to “foreigners of the white race or of African descent”[36] which is concurrent with the naturalization act of 1870.
In order to fully assess the former paragraph there must be a good look at the exclusion acts and their foundation in order to support the statement. The first Chinese-American agreement happened in 1858, however the foundation to the exclusion acts came with the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. President Lincoln sent Anson Burlingame and William Seward to negotiate free immigration and travel within the United States, as well as allowing for the full protection of Chinese citizens who immigrates here by the American government. The treaty also limited the privileges if they chose to not get naturalized as a United States citizen.[37] The first Amendment came with the Angell Treaty of 1880 which upon ratification restricted immigration by excluding Chinese laborers and no one else. All the while keeping the rights of those laborers and other classes of Chinese already in the United States, fully protected by the American government. They would remain protected by United States law as originally initiated by the prior treaties. Prior to that there was the Page Act of 1875 which prohibited women who were thought to be or determined to be prostitutes from coming into the United States. Most people would tend to believe that to be a violation of the Burlingame Treaty, however Article V expressly states that they agreed to the passing of laws in regards to the making of penal offense for a citizen of the United States or Chinese subjects to take Chinese subjects either to the United States or to any other foreign country.[38] This being supported by the fact that laborers generally left their families in China.[39] However after Angell Treaty of 1880 was signed and passed by a Republican President and Republican Congress along with the Chinese delegation to the treaty. Congress responded to George Perkins call to “erecting a barrier against this new danger, which threatens the very existence of our civilization” by purposing the 1881 Chinese Exclusion Act.[40] The Chinese Exclusion Acts purposed new amendments to the Angel Treaty of 1880 however was met with a veto from the accidental President; Chester A Arthur, who recently stepped up to office after Charles Guiteau assassinated President James A Garfield. Arthur’s objection was not received from a moral stance, he neither objected to restricting Chinese “laborers” and even agreed with the thoughts of congress by saying “I think it may fairly be accepted as an expression of the opinion of Congress that the coming of such laborers to the United States or their residence here affects our interests and endangers good order throughout the country. On this point I should feel it my duty to accept the views of Congress.”[41] The President however did believe that the original purposed act borderline on the complete prohibition of Chinese laborers, claiming that the treaty only gave the United States the ability to “regulate, limit, or suspend” defining “limiting” as “alternating years, or suspending for two, three, or five years.” The Chinese commissioners have in their project explicitly recognized the right of the United States to use their own discretion.[42] This is where the Veto happened, Chester A Arthur believed that by suspending the laborer immigration for twenty years challenged the integrity and the faith America to uphold the original treaty.[43] Though within in the contents of this veto Arthur proposed suggestions that would structure the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882. These suggestions were passports that allowed people to be identified in accordance to the Burlingame Treaty, make amendments for Chinese immigrants from other foreign countries, and lower the regulation from twenty years.[44]
Before examining the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, the Scott Act, and the Geary Act, it should be understood that a Chinese “laborer” is defined as skilled or unskilled, which landed a fine line in the artisan class. Making the exclusion apply to miners, and any others unwilling to participate in the American system. When Chester A Arthur signed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Acts congressed adhered to his message. The mixed party congress changed the length of the “exclusion” to 10 years, which according to Arthur was reasonable. The problem of passports was solved by making it mandatory for anyone in the United States to get one, otherwise they get defined as a “laborer.” This act of course violated the 14th and 15th Amendment as well as the Burlingame Treaty, by regulating the rights of the Chinamen already here. The act fined those who were bringing Chinamen to foreign ports or from foreign ports to American Ports.[45] However the acts find fault in the moral argument as it does not deport any laborer from any class, other than the Chinamen already here who refused to abide by the regulations. They also upheld the full protection of the American Government as expressly stated in all of the Treaties and Acts made in regards to the Chinese. The Congress found the big loop hole and passed two more acts that added further restrictions and extended the length of the Exclusion Act. The Scott act prohibited Chinese laborers abroad and prohibited planned return trips back for. It could be argued this was only passed in an emotional reaction to the rejection of the Bayard-Zhang treaty, which up until that moment was the only attempted intervention by the Chinese government to ease the treatment of their country men in America. The second big act that was used to expand on this was in 1892 called the Geary Act. The Geary act added ten years to the length of restriction for the Chinese laborers, and called for one credible witness in order to gather a certificate for a laborer.[46]
While the Chinese Exclusion Debates stand at the foundation of every presentist attempt to demonize not only the United States, but the Democratic Party during this reconstruction period to further claim the false notion of “racism.” The issue with this idea is that they overlook the fact that leading up to the passage of the exclusion acts, republicans controlled congress and refused to enforce the Force Acts (Ku Klux Klan Acts) during the events in Los Angeles or even Eureka when California removed all Chinese from the city. The most important problem was the congress just down right refused to adhere to their own rules by looking the other way when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in the western states were overruled by Federal circuit court judges and State Constitutions. Another aspect was during the time of reconstruction their was a silver mine stock crisis, an agricultural shock in California and the republic wide Panic of 1873 and 1893. These unfortunate events were the cause of most of the tension between the California workingmen party and the Chinamen. Prices were going up and wages were going down as laborers and other classes of Chinese would work for way less than what was affordable for both the white-man and the freedman of the west. This economic thesis has been supported by economic historians such as Charles Beard and Carroll Quigley, who laid it out as the massive surplus population due to immigration and the lack of labor opportunities created this new economic tension between two parties. Another issue to this tension is undoubtedly religion or the culture of people. The Chinamen were refusing to assimilate to the American system which was not necessarily a bad thing from their perspective, but the culture that was already here saw this as a form of chauvinism. This chauvinism as described by Thomas Sowell, “chauvinism has bred counter chauvinism in many historical context. The politicalization of race has proven to be explosive, in countries around the world and down through history. Sometimes in the case of chauvinism provoking counter chauvinism. At other times one side may go from quiescence to violence in a very short time as history is measured.”[47] The biggest dilemma to issue was the fact that California during the senates that voted on these measure sat Republican Senators. People like Newton Booth, John F Miller, John F Swift, Abraham P Williams, and Charles N Felton. Even Governors of the California republic were for the most part Republican Governors. The idea that the above mentioned acts were not enforced made these exclusion acts possible, unfortunately Republicans wanted to hold a monopoly over power. The moral issue or high ground for the party and the presentist will fall short when attempting to answer the questions of why.
Reference:
Anson Burlingame, “Burlingame Treaty of 1868,”
Barabara Allen Babcock, “Clara Shortridge Foltz: Constitution-Maker” Vol. 66: 849 (Indiana Law Journal,1991). Retrieved from http://wlh-static.law.stanford.edu/bb-clara/babcock-66IndLJ849.pdf
Chester A Arthur, “Angell Treaty,” (U.S Senate, October 5, 1881),” Retrieved from http:// ywproject.x10.mx/Angell%20Treaty.pdf
Chester A Arthur, “April 4, 1882: Veto of the Chinese Exclusion Act,” (Miller Center, April 1882), Retrieved from https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/april-4-1882-veto- chinese-exclusion-act
D Michael Bottoms, “Race and Reconstruction in California and the West, 1850 – 1890: Race, Reconstruction, and the Return of the Democracy in California, 1865 – 1870,” (University of Oklahoma Press, 2013), Pp. 91 – 95
Forty-Seventh Congress, “Forty-Seventh Congress: Session 1 Chapter 126,” (National Archives, 1882), Retrieved from https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php? flash=false&doc=47&page=transcript
Fifty-Second Congress, “Geary Act of 1892,” (National Archives, 1892), Retrieved from https:// loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1892GearyAct.pdf
George Perkins, “Inaugural Address: January 8, 1880,” Accessed April 2,2019. Retrieved from http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/14-Perkins.html
Henry F Graff, “Grover Cleveland,” (New York: Times Books, 2002), Pp. 71 – 73
Henry Haight, “Inaugural Address: December 5,1867,” (California State Archives, 1867), Paragraph 24 – 27. Retrieved from http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/10-Haight.html
John Franklin Miller, “1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Congressional Debate, Senator John Franklin Miller of California,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Paragraph 10. Retrieved from http://pluralism.org/
John Adam Kasson, “1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Congressional Debate, Rep. John Adam Kasson of Iowa, March 22, 1882,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Retrieved from http://pluralism.org/
Leland Stanford, “Inaugural Address: January 10, 1862,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Retrieved from http:// governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/08-stanford.html
Lorenzo Sawyer, “In Re Ah Yup: Case No. 104,” (California State Archives, 1878), Retrieved from https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0001.f.cas/0001.f.cas.0223.pdf
Michael J Perry, “We the People: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court,” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), Pp. 1
Noel Sargent, “California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79,” (California Law Review, Nov. 1917), Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview
People of California, “California Constitution of 1849,” (California State Archives, 1849). Article VI, Section 4. Retrieved from www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1849/full-text.html
People of California, “California Constitution of 1879,” (California State Archives, 1879), Retrieved from https://www.cpp.edu/~jlkorey/calcon1879.pdf
Philip Leigh, “Radical Republican Selective Racial Equality,” (South Carolina: Abbeville Institute, May 2017), Retrieved from https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/radical-republican-selective-racial- equality/
Philip Leigh, “Southern Reconstruction,” (Pennsylvania: Westholme Publishing, 2017)
Thomas Sowell, “Civil Rights: Rhetoric or
Reality?” (New York: Quill William Morrow, 1984) Pp. 34
[1] Philip Leigh, “Southern Reconstruction,” (Pennsylvania: Westholme Publishing, 2017), Pp. XVI
[2] Ibid. XIII
[3] George Perkins, “Inaugural Address: January 8, 1880,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Retrieved from http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/14-Perkins.html
[4] Noel Sargent, “California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79,” (California Law Review, Nov. 1917), Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview
[5] Philip Leigh, “Radical Republican Selective Racial Equality,” (South Carolina:Abbeville Institute, May 2017), Retrieved from https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/radical-republican-selective-racial-equality/
[6] Forrest McDonald, “Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted?” (South Carolina: Abbeville Institute, April 2014), Retrieved from https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/was-the-fourteenth- amendment-constitutionally-adopted/
[7] Leland Stanford, “Inaugural Address: January 10, 1862,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Retrieved from http:// governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/08-stanford.html
[8] Philip Leigh, “Southern Reconstruction,” (Pennsylvania: Westholme Publishing, 2017), Pp. 9 – 11
[9] Ibid. 10 – 11
[10] Michael J Perry, “We the People: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court,” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), Pp. 1
[11] Forrest McDonald, “Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted?” (South Carolina: Abbeville Institute, April 2014), Retrieved from https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/was-the- fourteenth-amendment-constitutionally-adopted/
[12] Henry Haight, “Inaugural Address: December 5,1867,” (California State Archives, 1867), Paragraph 24 – 27. Retrieved from http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/10-Haight.html
[13] D Michael Bottoms, “Race and Reconstruction in California and the West, 1850 – 1890: Race, Reconstruction, and the Return of the Democracy in California, 1865 – 1870,” (University of Oklahoma Press, 2013), Pp. 91 – 95
[14] Lorenzo Sawyer, “In Re Ah Yup: Case No. 104,” (California State Archives, 1878), Retrieved from https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0001.f.cas/0001.f.cas.0223.pdf
[15] Philip Leigh, “Radical Republican Selective Racial Equality,” (South Carolina: Abbeville Institute, May 2017), Retrieved from https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/radical-republican-selective-racial- equality/
[16] Chester A Arthur, “April 4, 1882: Veto of the Chinese Exclusion Act,” (Miller Center, April 1882), Retrieved from https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/april-4-1882-veto-chinese-exclusion-act
[17] Henry F Graff, “Grover Cleveland,” (New York: Times Books, 2002), Pp. 71 – 73
[18] John Franklin Miller, “1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Congressional Debate, Senator John Franklin Miller of California,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Paragraph 10. Retrieved from http://pluralism.org/
[19] Ibid. Paragraph 7
[20] Henry F Graff, “Grover Cleveland,” (New York: Times Books, 2002), Pp. 71 – 80
[21] John Adam Kasson, “1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Congressional Debate, Rep. John Adam Kasson of Iowa, March 22, 1882,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Retrieved from http://pluralism.org/
[22] Noel Sargent, “California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79,” (California Law Review, Nov. 1917), Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview
[23] Ibid. Paragraph 3
[24] Barabara Allen Babcock, “Clara Shortridge Foltz: Constitution-Maker” Vol. 66: 849 (Indiana Law Journal,1991). Retrieved from http://wlh-static.law.stanford.edu/bb-clara/babcock-66IndLJ849.pdf
[25] Ibid. Page 858
[26] Ibid. Page 858
[27] People of California, “California Constitution of 1849,” (California State Archives, 1849). Article VI, Section 4. Retrieved from www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1849/full-text.html
[28] Philip Leigh, “Radical Republican Selective Racial Equality,” (South Carolina: Abbeville Institute, May 2017), Retrieved from https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/radical-republican-selective-racial- equality/
[29] George Perkins, “Inaugural Address: January 8, 1880,” Accessed April 2,2019. Retrieved from http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/14-Perkins.html
[30] Philip Leigh, “Radical Republican Selective Racial Equality,” (South Carolina: Abbeville Institute, May 2017), Retrieved from https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/radical-republican-selective-racial- equality/
[31] Ibid. Paragraph 4 – 5
[32] Barabara Allen Babcock, “Clara Shortridge Foltz: Constitution-Maker” Vol. 66: 849 (Indiana Law Journal,1991). Retrieved from http://wlh-static.law.stanford.edu/bb-clara/babcock-66IndLJ849.pdf
[33] John Adam Kasson, “1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Congressional Debate, Rep. John Adam Kasson of Iowa, March 22, 1882,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Retrieved from http://pluralism.org/
[34] John Franklin Miller, “1882 Chinese Exclusion Act Congressional Debate, Senator John Franklin Miller of California,” Accessed April 2, 2019. Paragraph 10. Retrieved from http://pluralism.org/
[35] George Perkins, “Inaugural Address: January 8, 1880,” Accessed April 2,2019. Retrieved from http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/14-Perkins.html
[36] People of California, “Constitution of California 1879,” Accessed April 9, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.cpp.edu/~jlkorey/calcon1879.pdf
[37] Anson Burlingame, “Burlingame Treaty of 1868,”
[38] Ibid. “Burlingame Treaty of 1868”
[39] George Perkins, “Inaugural Address: January 8, 1880,” Accessed April 2,2019. Retrieved from http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/14-Perkins.html
[40] Ibid. “Chinese Immigration”
[41] Chester A Arthur, “April 4, 1882: Veto of the Chinese Exclusion Act,” (Miller Center, April 1882), Retrieved from https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/april-4-1882-veto-chinese-exclusion-act
[42] Ibid. Page 4
[43] Ibid. Page 5
[44] Ibid. Page 5
[45] Forty-Seventh Congress, “Forty-Seventh Congress: Session 1 Chapter 126,” (National Archives,1882), Retrieved from https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=47&page=transcript
[46] fifty second congress, “Geary Act of 1892,” (United States Archives, 1892), Accessed April 2, 2019. Retrieved from https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1892GearyAct.pdf
[47] Thomas Sowell, “Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?” (New York: Quill William Morrow, 1984) Pp. 34
“Henry George of the Workingmen’s Party so eloquently put in words in 1869, when the completion of the transcontinental railroad released ten of thousand Chinese [contracted] laborers into the market[25] “Servile and debased workers…inexhaustible supply would drive wages down and in the process replace American values…..” is this where in prior years , states would often have 15 year ‘to be a citizen’ terms so as to not step on so-called ‘american values’? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George