1) Compare and contrast the arguments of David Phillips and Hinton Rowan Helper. Examine how Americans differ over allowing the Chinese to enter the US. 2) Compare and contrast the provisions in the Treaty and the Act. What is the same? And what is different? 3) Examine the experiences of Mary Tape and Lee Chew in the US. Assess their different reactions to staying in the US.
1) In comparing the arguments of David Phillips and Hinton Rowan Helper regarding Chinese immigration to the United States, it is important to consider the historical context in which these arguments were made. Phillips and Helper both expressed their views during the late 19th century when Chinese immigration was a contentious issue in America. However, their perspectives diverged significantly in terms of their attitudes towards Chinese immigrants.
David Phillips, in his book “The Treason of the Senate,” argued against Chinese immigration and advocated for stricter restrictions. Phillips believed that the influx of Chinese immigrants threatened American labor and standards of living. He argued that Chinese workers were willing to work for lower wages, which he believed undercut the wages of American workers, particularly in industries where Chinese labor was prevalent, such as mining and railroad construction. Phillips also contended that the cultural and racial differences between Chinese immigrants and native-born Americans created social tensions and conflicts.
On the other hand, Hinton Rowan Helper, in his book “The Impending Crisis of the South,” focused primarily on the impact of Chinese immigration on the South. Helper argued against Chinese immigration, not because he believed it threatened American labor or culture, but rather because he saw it as a potential threat to the institution of slavery in the southern states. Helper believed that Chinese immigrants would compete with slave labor, as they were willing to work for low wages, thus undermining the economic foundations of the southern states that heavily relied on slave labor.
While both Phillips and Helper expressed concerns about Chinese immigration, their rationales for opposing it differed significantly. Phillips focused on economic competition and cultural tensions, while Helper framed his opposition within the context of the institution of slavery. These disparate arguments reflected the differing concerns and interests of different regions and sectors of society in the United States at the time.
2) When examining the provisions in the Treaty and the Act regarding Chinese immigration, it becomes evident that there were both similarities and differences between these two legal documents. The Treaty referred to here is the Treaty of Burlingame, signed between the United States and China in 1868, while the Act refers to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
One similarity between the Treaty and the Act is the recognition of the Chinese as subjects of China. Both documents acknowledge the legal status of Chinese individuals as citizens of China. Additionally, both the Treaty and the Act contain provisions for regulating and controlling Chinese immigration into the United States. They acknowledge the need for immigration regulation and address restrictions on entry.
However, there are also significant differences between the Treaty and the Act. The Treaty of Burlingame was initially intended to establish equality and cooperation between the two countries, encouraging Chinese immigration to the United States. The Treaty allowed for unrestricted Chinese immigration and recognized the right of Chinese citizens to travel freely between the two countries. In contrast, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 represented a significant shift in policy. It effectively banned Chinese immigration to the United States, with few exceptions, and limited the overall number of Chinese immigrants allowed entry.
Another notable difference between the Treaty and the Act is the duration of their respective provisions. The Treaty of Burlingame did not have a fixed expiration date and remained in effect until it was modified by subsequent agreements. In contrast, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 had an explicit expiration date of ten years but was later extended with the Geary Act of 1892 and remained in effect until its repeal in 1943.
In summary, while the Treaty and the Act both addressed Chinese immigration to the United States, they differed in their objectives, provisions, and duration. The Treaty of Burlingame initially sought to foster friendly relations and allowed for unrestricted Chinese immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act, however, represented a shift in policy and imposed significant restrictions on Chinese immigration, ultimately leading to the ban of Chinese immigrants altogether.
3) The experiences of Mary Tape and Lee Chew in the United States shed light on the diverse reactions and perspectives of Chinese immigrants during the late 19th century. While both faced discriminatory practices and racial prejudice, their individual responses to their circumstances differed significantly.
Mary Tape, a Chinese immigrant and activist, fought against discriminatory laws and policies that targeted Chinese immigrants. In 1885, her daughter Mamie was denied entry to a public school in San Francisco solely based on her Chinese ancestry. Tape took legal action, challenging the school’s discriminatory practices and racial segregation. She argued that Mamie, being born in the United States, was entitled to equal access to education. Tape’s actions culminated in the landmark court case known as Tape v. Hurley, which ultimately ruled in favor of Mamie’s right to attend the public school.
Lee Chew, on the other hand, chose to leave the United States and return to China. Chew’s decision was partly influenced by the discriminatory environment he faced as a Chinese immigrant. Despite living in the United States for several years and forming a family, he felt increasingly marginalized and believed his prospects for a better future were limited in America. Therefore, he made the difficult choice to leave the country and return to his homeland.
The contrasting experiences of Mary Tape and Lee Chew highlight the different approaches taken by Chinese immigrants in response to discrimination and prejudice. While Tape actively resisted and challenged discriminatory practices through the legal system, Chew opted for disengagement and chose to abandon the United States altogether. These differing reactions reflect the complex and varied responses of Chinese immigrants in their quest for acceptance and rights in America.