Mock Severity

John Bigler was the governor of California from 1852 to 1856, and gave a speech on April 1852 urging the state congress to pass laws to restrict Chinese Immigration.  As an expression of philosophy, it shows the emphases on race that was prevalent in American thinking at the time.  It is no coincidence that during this time America developed a firm us (free white persons) versus them (non-white foreigners) dichotomy for dealing with unnaturalized persons living in America. In support of this view, Bigler pushes the idea that Chinese immigration is exposing the nation’s resources to foreign interests, which is only reasonable if we accept his assertions that the Chinese were mere indentured laborers without any capacity or intention of becoming good American citizens.  Time has obviously judged such pronouncements as grossly inaccurate, and it is worthwhile to consider what generated such counterfactual thoughts.

The idea that only free white persons can be trusted was clearly in currency with Californian politicians.  It was extremely short sighted, but still reasonable to expect from the time period.  The white settlers of America were jockeying for position among European countries; expansion, cultural pride, and independence of white America were all evident in American politics – America was a nation struggling to prove itself in the newly emerging global community.  The us versus them mentality solidified because of the American identity, not in spite of it.

In “Notes on the State of Virginia”, Jefferson supports the racist attitudes of the country by appealing to the observable criteria of culture.  Jefferson extends the example of judging “horses, dogs, and other domestic animals” by the criteria of beauty to human beings in order to legitimize his view that observational differences between blacks and whites show the white race to be superior.  This superiority justified “free white persons” in treating non-whites as untrustworthy.

The predisposition toward eurocentricity in 19th century America is best understood as a vehicle for the American ego, rather than as a result of observable intents and characteristics in non-whites.  In forging a distinct American identity, I believe it was inevitable that such an us versus them dichotomy would develop.  This view of racist attitudes gives strong evidence of a bias in white politicians to see and generalize all Chinese immigrants as being mere indentured servants.  If all these hard working, wage reducing Chinese were forced to be in America and mine California gold on behalf of foreign interests, then it would give America very good reason to bar, or at least limit, Chinese immigration.  As Bigler put it, “numbers of Asiatics have been and are being sent here, under contracts to labor for a term of years in our mines at merely nominal wages, and their families have been retained as hostages for the faithful performances of the contracts.”  Such people would have few reasons for loyalty to America, and very good reasons, like the safety of their families, to extradite American resources to China.

I don’t believe that the people who passed laws similar to those proposed by Bigler cared about the racial climate they were creating.  Some of them may or may not have been aware of the deepening racist tendencies, but on the whole I think they felt indifferent toward non-whites.  It appears that the more important issue for them was the interest and welfare of their country.  The supposed founding ideals of America – upholding the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the words of Jefferson – appear to me as being mere rhetorical devices, made to disguise selfish motives.  While hardly universal among Americans, something closer to a true founding ideal might be rational self-interest, the promotion of white male power above all else.  It would certainly explain the political actions of early America better than the promotion of humanity’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.