Burlingame Treaty of 1868

The Burlingame Treaty issued in 1868 corresponded to the formal relations between the United States and China. This treaty was created so as "the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents." Chinese would have the same privileges as any United States citizens despite where they live. The Chinese were protected against any discrimination, violence, and exploitation because of the friendly relations that is shared by both countries.

This treaty encouraged immigration of the Chinese into the United States due to the constructive output that the treaty laid out to the Chinese. The treaty did a lot as it provided rights for those to hold spaces at ports in the United States with Great Britain and Russia which allowed them to be able to trade with other countries. They would have the rights to hold any religious purposes that they do so value and build their own amenities while respecting others. They also had the privilege of becoming a naturalized citizen as they traveled, studied, and reside in any other country. China also became recognized as an eminent domain over all its territory that the United States would not interfere with. They had their own internal affairs that the United States took in account for and to not disturb any other relations.

James Burrill Angell (left) and President Rutherford B. Hayes (right)

In 1880 President Rutherford B. Hayes opposed the treaty and had James Burrill Angell change it so that Chinese immigration was suspended but not prohibited. Angell commissioned the idea that the United State would regulate and limit the flow of Chinese immigrants but not exclude it since there were already Chinese immigrants that were already living in the United States. The protections for the Chinese immigrants were still implemented because of those already living in the country yet it became reversed in 1882.

"Is it right for a Chinaman to jeopardize a white man's dinner?"

In 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act took place and the Burlingame Treaty became disregarded as it implemented the deferment of Chinese immigration in the United States. This Act lasted and banned Chinese immigration to the United States for about ten years but was then repealed by the Magnuson Act in 1943.

Chinese Immigration and other events have had a huge impact on the past and it has changed how the world is today not only that but created what we’ve done throughout to make a difference for a multicultural country/world. 


posted by Jackie Huynh

Wong Kim Ark v. U.S

Wong Kim Ark

Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. was a Supreme Court decision highly debated in March 28, 1898 that expressed the issue that determined legal United States citizenship by those who are rightfully born in the United States cannot be stripped of their own citizenship. Those who leave the country and return are considered a citizen no matter where they go. By the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States in 1868, “all person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This clause applies to any children born of any race in the United States are born a citizen to that country.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California and a United States citizen while his parents are Chinese immigrants, resided in the U.S. are not citizens of the United States. Wong Kim Ark is a citizen by birth and had any rights of being a U.S. citizen. Wong Kim Ark went on a trip to China and came back to the United States but was detained at the port due to the fact that he was “although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China.” Wong Kim Ark was restrained of his rights as a United States citizen by the collector due to the fact that that the collector’s assumption of how Wong Kim Ark looked as a Chinese man and assumed that he was an immigrant more than the fact that Kim Ark was ‘not’ a U.S. citizen. He later went to court to address the issue and was appealed on the grounds that he is a citizen.

Sworn Statement of Wong Kim Ark

This also alluded to the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 where the United States excluded the Chinese from coming to the United States or being naturalized U.S. citizens. This meant that those who are already reside in the United States are not naturalized as U.S. citizens but they are able to stay but once they leave they cannot return. This act did not apply to Wong Kim Ark because he was a natural born citizen of the United States. But this Act was eventually repealed in 1943.


posted by Jackie Huynh

Yung Ming and the Chinese Educational Mission

In 1854 Yung Wing sponsored by Samuel Robbins Brown graduated from Yale University with a bachelor degree and became the first Chinese to graduate from an American college. After Wing graduated from the University, he eventually went back to China and found employment with the Chinese government with Viceroy Tseng Kuo-Fan, and was commissioned to purchase machinery in the United States which contributed to China’s first modern arsenal.

Yung Wing

Wing also helped propose a Chinese Educational Mission in 1871 for four consecutive years, a total of 120 young Chinese students will have a chance to study abroad in the United States or New England for fifteen years where they will be later sent back to China and then serve for their own country. They will be younger than thirty years of age and will be able at that age to represent their own culture as well as their country. This mission expressed more of a military interest than education after the fifteen years have passed through this quota:

“As the young students grow up, those who are qualified should be sent to West Point and the Naval Academy as cadets and midshipmen for their advanced training.”

The reasons that I feel military interests are more expressed is that as young minds are developing they can expand on their knowledge and be able to learn and present yet they cannot do much as a young person. By mid twenties they will be able to know everything and have the mentality and physicality to be able to serve the country’s need.

In 1877 The Chinese Educational Mission named a building in Hartford, to be used as a center for learning Chinese classics. There were classrooms and rooms for about 75 students to take in the extracurricular learning’s of classics, poetry, calligraphy and composition while advancing and remembering their ethnical background. They didn’t want the Chinese students to lose contact with their Chinese background while living in the United States or New England.

Chinese Educational Center

In 1881, the Chinese Educational Mission was disbanded because the United States refused to issue visas for the Chinese students who wanted to enter the Naval academy which violated the 1868 Burlingame Treaty that issued that the Chinese can have the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions in the residency in the United states but due to China’s interest of having the Chinese students enter a Naval academy to prepare for the service that they would eventually have to do, violated that treaty.

Though this mission lasted awhile and was under the ideas of expressing education through the young youths and such, it made education ideal to students now in China and still does through this day.

posted by Jackie Huynh

The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy

The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy  

Queen Lili'uokalani

Until the 1890’s the Kingdom of Hawaii was an independent sovereign state, recognized by the United States and the rest of the world. The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy by a small group of businessman changed all of that, and is seen by many as the most pivotal moment in Hawaii’s history. Hawaiian’s still feel a loss for their culture as well as their identity from this event, even today over 100 years later.

In 1887 a small group of businessmen calling themselves the Hawaiian League made it their goal to bring about a “decent and honest government in Hawaii” Later Renaming themselves the Committee of Safety on January 14, 1893 they sought to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom, depose the Queen, and seek annexation to the United States.

Aiming to reverse much of what had been imposed by the bayonet constitution in a few years prior. The Queen proposed a new constitution in January of 1893, that would strengthen the Monarchy’s power in relation to the Euro-American business elites, and as she did so the men took this as an opportunity to overthrow the Queen.
On January 17th, 1893 Queen Lili’uokalani the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii was deposed in a coup d’etat. The coup let by Lorrin A. Thurston and  aided by the United States government was successful in overthrowing the Hawaiian Monarchy.
The day of the coup four boats full of Marines 162 in total landed ashore, docked in the Honolulu Harbor, and proceeded to march through the streets to the Queen’s palace.
Queen Lili’uokalani was certain that resistance would cost many lives and that fighting would be futile. And within the following day she surrendered to the new provisional government.
With very little bloodshed the coup was relatively nonviolent, due to the Queen’s desire “to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life” for her people. The Queen ordered her subjects to surrender.

In her surrender statement, Lil’uokalani yielded under the belief that the United States government would overthrow and reinstate her “as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands”  This of course would never happen and within five years Hawaii would be annexed and become a territory of the United States. 

100 years after the fall of the Hawaiian Kingdom congress passed the Apology Resolution signed by Bill Clinton on November 23, 1993. The resolution apologized for the United States role in the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Posted by David Peterson

Oriental Public School?

Tape Family

In 1885, the Tape v. Hurley court case set a landmark in the San Francisco area. The San Francisco Unified School District’s conflict over racial inequality during the 1880s uncovered historical struggles for the Asian Americans. In September 1884, Mamie Tape, an 8-year-old Chinese American who was born in San Francisco, was denied admission to the all-white public school (Spring Valley School) in San Francisco due to her Chinese ancestry. Miss Hurley, the principal of one of the public schools in S.F., refused to admit Mamie Tape and argued the school board policy must protect the Caucasian children from mixing with the Chinese. Mamie’s parents, Joseph Tape and Mary McGladery, (first generation Chinese Americans) sued the school principal and A.J Moulder, a member of the San Francisco Board of Education, in 1885. The Tapes used the California Political Code to argue their case. The code stated that “Every school, unless otherwise provided by law, must be open for the admission of all children between six and twenty-one years of age residing in the district; and the board of trustees, or city board of education, have power to admit adults and children not residing in the district, whenever good reason exist therefore. Trustees shall have the power to exclude children of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from contagious or infectious diseases." (Political Code, § 1667.) The School Boards defended their position by stating the policy under the California constitution, which said that the Chinese are “dangerous to the well-being of the state,” so the school did not need to educate the Chinese students due to their dangerous quality.

The decision was made on January 9, 1885 when the Superior Court Justice McGuire sided with the Tapes family. The California Supreme Court case stated: “Children between six and twenty-one years of age, of Chinese parentage, who were born and have always lived in the city and county of San Francisco, are entitled to admission into the public school of the district in which they reside. And teachers are not justified in excluding them, notwithstanding a resolution of the Board of Education purports to command them so to do.” Although the decision was in favor of the Tapes family, the San Francisco Board of Education created a separate school system for the Chinese and other children of Asian descent to attend. Thus they created the Oriental Public School in San Francisco.

Posted by Mary Hungju Chen

For More Information

The Bayonet Constitution

The 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii or also known as the Bayonet Constitution was a legal document written by anti-monarchists aiming to strip the Hawaiian monarchy of most of its power and authority, and transferring power to American, European and native Hawaiian elites. It was also known as the bayonet constitution because of the intimidation used by the militia which essentially forced King Kalakaua to sign it or be deposed.

Like that of the United Kingdom the document created a constitution monarchy, stripping the King of much of his authority and empowering the cabinet and legislature of the government.


Provisions of this document included replacing the previous absolute veto power allowed to the king to one that two-thirds of the legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom could overrule. It also took the power of the king to act without the consent of the cabinet away, and gave the legislature power to dismiss the cabinet.

This new constitution also made considerable alterations to the requirements needed to vote. For the first time it allowed not just naturalized citizens but also foreign resident aliens the right to vote.

Most importantly it denied Asians including those who were previously allowed to vote, the right to vote. Denying all Asians suffrage.  It also stated that only Hawaiian, American, and European males were granted full rights to vote only if they met certain economic and literacy thresholds. 


Among these thresholds were requiring that a voter have an annual income of at least $75 or approximately $1,775 today or be a land owner with property worth at least $150 or approximately $3,550
The bayonet constitution is seen as a piece of legislature that ultimately paved the way for the eventual removal of the Hawaiian Monarchy in its entirety. 




Posted by David Peterson

Chung Sai Yat Po

Portrait of Ng Poon Chew

The Chung Sai Yat Po was the title of one of the earliest Chinese-American affiliated newspapers to be published in the history of the United States. The publisher of this magazine was a man that went by the name of Ng Poon Chew also known as the “father of Chinese journalism on the West Coast.”  He moved to California in the year of 1881 and became the first Chinese Presbyterian minister on the west coast.  After being a minister for a few years, and having a fire destroy his mission, he decided to focus on establishing a Chinese language newspaper that would be published and distributed to Chinese Americans that resided in California. Before publishing the Chung Sai Yat Po, he published his Los Angeles based newspaper, Ha Mei Sun Bo, for one year, eventually renaming it Chung Sai Yat Po, when he moved to San Francisco. The first issue of Chung Sai Yat Po was published in February 1900 and went on to be published till 1951. What was different about the Chung Sai Yat Po, was that it was a non-partisan newspaper, which meant that it didn’t declare itself to side with any of the current Chinese political parties during that time.  The newspaper was extremely popular within the Chinese community and the reason being was because the variety of its contents.  The newspaper usually contained the usual findings, such as the current happenings in the United States during that time and also communal news that was affiliated with San Francisco. 

Front page of Chung Sai Yat Po

The newspaper also reported current issues that individuals in China were experiencing.  One unique and significant factor of the newspaper was its assimilationist views.  This meant the newspaper often supported the idea of the Chinese immigrants that were successful in gaining entry to the United States, assimilating into the western culture and also advocated equal rights for these immigrants Since Ng Poon Chew wanted to promote the idea of assimilation he made the newspaper speak out against Chinese cultural customs such as foot binding.  He also allowed literary works, written by Chinese immigrants themselves, to be published within the newspaper. The literary value of this newspaper was eventually rediscovered in the early 1970s and were soon digitally scanned to be stored in the University of California library system. Issues that were published between the years of 1900 and 1904 can be found at http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt0g5016h6/.

Posted by Joshua Lasky

The Result of the Foreign Miners Tax Act

Chinese and European Americans working
 together in a gold mining operation.

During the 1850s, California society was under a strong influence of the anti-foreigners act. The anti-foreigner act was well supported by the California legislative system. John Mason, a governor of the California Military, believed that foreigners who engaged in the mining business should be treated as an intruder of the state of California. Thus the legislative system created an act that tried to decrease the high percentage of foreign miners. Peter Burnett was an American politician who served as the first Governor of California. In 1850, Burnett and the California state legislature passed the anti-foreign immigration law, called Foreign Miners Tax Act. During this period, California was going through the discovery of the Gold Rush and many of the miners were Chinese immigrants called “coolies.” The act served the purpose of imposing heavy taxation on the foreign immigrants. The act also demanded every foreign miner to pay $20 U.S. dollars each month. Due to the heavy amount of taxation, many Chinese miners refused to pay the $20 tax and left the States. The increasing number of Chinese miners leaving the country due to the Foreign Miner’s Tax, the act was then repealed in 1851. In 1852 John Bigler, an American politician who served as the third Governor of California, also advocated for the Foreign Miners Tax and issued a $4 per month tax solely for the Chinese miners. The law stated that all foreigners who engaged in mining industry must obey the tax law. This discriminatory act caused a huge rebellion from the foreign laborers and their opposition was successful. The taxation of the foreign miners was lowered from $20 to $4 each month. Even though the act lowered the amount to $4 per month, many of the Chinese miners were only making approximately $6 a month. If they failed to pay the monthly tax, the Chinese workers were forced to give up their property and personal possessions.

Many of the tax collectors abused their power and took advantage of the Chinese workers who could not speak English. In The Chinese in America: A Narrative History by Iris Chang, a quote found in one tax collectors’ diary stated: “I had no money to keep Christmas with, so sold the chinks nine dollars worth of bogus receipts.” The cruelty of the tax collectors grew to physical punishments such as whipping and beating. Although racism was at its highest point, many of the U.S. citizens opposed the Foreign Miners Tax Act, particularly due to their own understanding that the act was based on racial prejudices. Having the knowledge that someone stood up against such an appalling system during that time period in a way shows the humanity that was instilled within the society. Because Foreign Miners Tax Act the Chinese immigrants decreased during the 1880s, due to the high living cost and the racial discrimination. By the 1890 the Chinese population in southern California such as Los Angeles and its surrounding cities decreased to only 2%.

Posted by Mary Hungju Chen

The Geary Act

Thomas Geary

            During the year of 1882, there was an act that was passed and signed by Chester Arthur that denied entry to any Chinese laborer at that time.  This act would be known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, and it was originally written to be last for only ten years.  As the years went by the end of the Chinese Exclusion Act was nearing it alarmed government officials. When the Chinese Exclusion Act expired in 1892, a democratic senator by the name of suggested and supported the renewal of the act. In addition to extending the allotted time of the act by ten more years, the Geary act also added even more requirements upon the already existing rules of the Chinese Exclusion Act.  Some new rules of the act required every legal Chinese laborer register their name to acquire a certificate of residence and identification and carry it around with them at all times.  The act also denied bail to the Chinese in habeas corpus proceedings, this meant that the individual in question had to remain detained for the whole proceeding process. Another new requirement states that forging any certificates, not having one, or falsely stating that you are a race other than Chinese would be punishable by a year hard labor or deportation back to China. This just goes to show the Geary Act was incredibly harsh on the Chinese community because it only applied to the Chinese race. Even during that time, the United States government didn’t require any other racial group to carry around certificates of residence with them. In response to the passage of this act, The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association along with the Chinese Equal Rights League took action and tried to shine light on the wrongful doing of the Geary Act. 

Example of a certificate of residence

The Chinese Equal Rights league was successful in its movement to show that unconstitutionality of the act showing that it was a type of “taxation without representation.” This caused a major uproar within the Chinese community and even caused a ruckus among people that were legitimately U.S. citizens.  This act caught so much attention with the U.S. public there were protests against the Geary Act all along the country.  Several incidents happened where Chinese laborers refused to pay for registration and the matters were brought to the Supreme Court. Even by appealing these cases, the ruling was against the Chinese immigrants showing the power of the Geary Act. A few years later during the year of 1902, the Geary Act was again renewed with no terminal date included.

By Joshua Lasky

Wong Kim Ark v. the United States

Wong Kim Ark

            Wong Kim Ark was a young man that was born in San Francisco, by his parents Wong Si Pi and Wee Lee.  Although his parents were immigrants from China, he was a natural born U.S. citizen granting him automatic U.S. citizenship under the fourteenth amendment of United States Constitution, which states the following: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  During the year of 1890, Wong Kim Ark’s parents decided to go back to China and reside there. Following their choice, during the same year Wong Kim Ark decided to visit China with intentions of returning.  The same year Wong Kim returned and was granted entry since he was proclaimed a U.S. citizen since birth.  A few years later Wong Kim Ark decided to make another trip back to China, still having the intentions of coming back to United States. So he embarked on his journey, but when we returned he was denied entry into the United States on the basis of the Chinese Exclusion Act. 

Wong Kim Ark's Signature

The Chinese Exclusion Act denied entry to any Chinese immigrant that wasn’t already a U.S. citizen, and prompted them to obtain permission from the Chinese government to gain re-entry into the United States.  Although Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States, his citizenship was put into question because he was born to two individuals that were subjects of the emperor of China, which in turn made Wong Kim Ark a subject of the emperor of China.  The situation went to the Supreme Court and became known as Wong Kim Ark v. the United States. In the case the district attorney argued that Wong Kim Ark was in fact not a U.S. citizen and asked for a ruling for Wong Kim to be deported back to China. In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark and he regained entry into the United States. The ruling of this came became a landmark for cases concerning citizenship and was even cited in cases that followed such as Perkins v. Elg and Afroyim v. Rusk.  Even though this Supreme court ruling took place 116 years ago, it still is under attack today from anti-immigration organizations which feel as if the court’s ruling was wrong.

Posted by Joshua Lasky

Scott Act 1888

The Scott Act

The Scott Act was introduced to build upon the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It was part of a series of legislation passed which intended to curb then ultimately ban any and all immigration to the United States from China.
Introduced by Representative William Scott of Pennsylvania, chair of the Democratic National Campaign Committee, the Scott Act aimed the permanently ban the immigration and or return of Chinese laborers to the United States also ending the certification or exit visa process.

Unanimously passing the House of Representatives the bill only met slight resistance in the US Senate.
The Scott Act which was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on October 1st, 1888.

Following waves of anti chinese sentiment among americans which included the Anti Chinese Riots of 1885-1886. The Chinese Government concluded that due to the inability of the American government to protect Chinese citizens living in America they, China, would have to limit emigration themselves. Proposing a new Sino-American treaty be drafted the Chinese foreign office negotiated with the U.S. State Department as to how this problem should be addressed.

Ultimately the Bayard-Zhang Treaty was proposed which would prohibit Chinese immigration or the return of Chinese laborers to the US for 20 years, unless the laborers had assets worth at least $1000 or had immediate family living within the United States. In return the United States Government agreed to protect Chinese people and chinese property in America.

Having been met with massive opposition in China, mainly in provinces where most Chinese immigrants to America originated. The Chinese backed out of the agreement agreeing only to ratify it if more exceptions were allowed for the return of Chinese Laborers.

Fearing the Bayard-Zhang Treaty would not be ratified, Congress acted to pass the Scott Act.  The passing of the Scott Act left 20 to 30 thousand Chinese who had temporarily left the United States to visit China unable to reenter the United States as it left their reentry certificates null and void. These people were left stranded in China having already built a life in America only to find themselves unable to return. The Chinese Government refused to recognize the bills legitimacy.


Posted by David Peterson

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

The Constitution Project: Yick Wo
and the Equal Protection Clause

On May 10, 1886, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a law that was impartial to any racial background, particularly the Chinese immigrants. In the 1800s, there were millions of Chinese immigrants living in Southern California and many faced discrimination due to their Asian background. Many of them faced legal issues and economic drawback from the community due to the bias that went on during the time period. Because of this, around 89% of the Chinese immigrants who lived in the San Francisco area went into the laundry business. During the up-rising of the laundry career, the city of San Francisco passed a law that declared an individual could not have a laundry business in wooden buildings without a permit from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Supposedly, the law for having a permit was strictly out of the concern for safety, but the story later revealed that it was more than a logical reason; instead, it was more of an act of racial discrimination. More than half of the laundry businesses in the city of San Francisco were owned by Chinese immigrants. The Board of Supervisors would withhold the legal permits for Chinese immigrants that wished to continue his/her business.

Yick Wo came in the picture and changed the whole thing for the Chinese immigrants. Wo owned a laundry business for years and held an official license (issued by the Board of Fire-Wardens) to run his business. However, Wo was fined $10 for his violation of the law. Wo went to prison after he failed to pay the fine and he sued for a writ of habeas corpus. Wo went to court and stated that even before the new laundry law, his laundry business in the wooden building always passed the fire safety inspection. The Court found that the new laundry law was created out of discrimination. They also found that the administrators of the law abused their authority. Even though during this time the Chinese immigrants were not yet Americans, the court still issued the rights for equal protection for Chinese laundry owners under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Because of Wo’s fight with the administrators of law, all the charges against the other laundry owners were also dropped. Although Wo’s fight did not make a 180 shift for the racial issues that occurred during that time period, it was certainly a step towards equality for all Americans. 

Posted by Mary Hungju Chen