Chinese workers of the Central Pacific Railroad
From: "Jennifer Chen" jennifersiyi@gmail.com
... I am doing a rather large-scale history project on the Chinese workers of the Central Pacific Railroad.
I visited the Sacramento Railroad Museum and library recently, and I examined some payrolls in 1866. They were very hard to read and interpret, but I tried my hardest to decipher with the librarian.
It is a wonder why all the Chinese workers were paid in a company, and do you know why the Chinese were called "Ah" and followed by a single syllable of their names? Were the Chinese not called by their real names? Does it in any way show that Americans didn't even bother to learn the Chinese immigrants' names? ...
—Jennifer Chen
... I am doing a rather large-scale history project on the Chinese workers of the Central Pacific Railroad.
I visited the Sacramento Railroad Museum and library recently, and I examined some payrolls in 1866. They were very hard to read and interpret, but I tried my hardest to decipher with the librarian.
It is a wonder why all the Chinese workers were paid in a company, and do you know why the Chinese were called "Ah" and followed by a single syllable of their names? Were the Chinese not called by their real names? Does it in any way show that Americans didn't even bother to learn the Chinese immigrants' names? ...
—Jennifer Chen
posted from CPRR Discussion Group at 11:54 PM
20 Comments:
44TH CONGRESS, 2d Session. SENATE. REPORT No. 689.
REPORT OF THE JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE CHINESE IMMIGRATION.
FEBRUARY 27, 1877.
WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1877.
"Q. I simply want to know whether they were English, Chinese, or Americans ?—A. I do not want you to think that republicans have made all the money out of the Chinamen.
Q. That is immaterial.—A. That house furnished us with Chinamen. They gathered them one at a time, two, three, four of them in a place, and got them together to make what is called a gang, and each gang is numbered.
Q. Just like mules ?—A. Well, sir, we cannot distinguish China-men by names very well.
Q. Like mules ?—A. Not like mules, but like men. We have treated them like men, and they have treated us like men, and they are men, good and true men. As I say, we employed them in that way. They come together in gangs of twenty-five and thirty, as we need them to work on a job of work, and the account is kept with the gang, No, 1, No. 2, 25, 30, 50, 100, just as it is. Each gang has a book-keeper to keep the account among themselves. We have a foreman and he keeps the account with the gang and credits them. Every night the Chinese book-keeper, who is one of the workmen and works in the pit along with the rest, comes up with his book, and he says so many days for that gang, do you see? and they count it up and they agree, and each puts it down. Then the Chinese keep their own accounts among themselves; but we keep an account with the gang. When the pay-day comes the gang is paid for all the labor of the gang, and then they divide it among themselves.
Q. Does the same thing obtain with the white men ?—A. No, sir; we get the individual names of the white men.
Q. You do not pay the individual Chinaman when he works for you?—A. We pay the head-man of the gang.
Q. Some head-man ?—A. He is a laborer among them.
Q. You do not pay them in the same manner that you pay white men ?—A. In the same manner, except that we cannot keep the names of the Chinamen; it is impossible. We would not know Ah Sin, Ali You, Kong Won, and all such names. We cannot keep their names in the usual way, because it is a different language. You understand the difficulty. It is not done in that way because they are slaves.
Q. Is it not a kind of servile labor ?—A. Not a bit. I give you my word of honor under oath here that I do not believe there is a Chinese slave in this State ... "
See related discussion.
From: "Wendell Huffman" wendellhuffman@hotmail.com
Interesting question. See Comments for the name Ah.
My guess is the "Ah" was what the Chinese themselves used. I notice the "Ah" is used in the 1870 census, too. I doubt it showed deliberate disrespect or ignorance.
—Wendell
Chinese name Ah
Early on, for example the 1851 California Census, listed Chinese names with the "Ah" prefix. An examination of that Census shows that James Harvey Strobridge had 17 Chinese workers on his hay farm/Starr House Hotel property.
As to the "gang" or group pay practice, that predates the CPRR employment. I have an American River Water and Mining Company billing, that lists 20 Chinese miners that purchased water from the Company, this dtd. March 9, 1863. Behind the name of Ah Sing, it is noted that he is "No. 1." Mr. Ah Sing was born in China in 1797, his age and experience could have made him a natural leader.
On October 16, 1864, "Wah Sing" took 29 ounces of gold to the Palmer and Day Assay Office in Folsom, Cal., and received an advance of $200 on the deposit.
Wishing yolu well in your research, it is my hope that someday, someone will write the true and correct history of Chinese in early California.
G J Chris Graves, Newcastle, Cal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thank you all for the responses. I am quite confused about whether early Chinese immigrants were treated fairly or not. It is understandable that the Chinese names cannot be memorized properly because they are in another language, but paying the workers in a group, in my opinion, shows the prejudice and ignorance.
Also, what is the "true and correct history of Chinese?"
Thank you,
Jennifer Chen
Oh my.
Ms. Chen, "true and correct" would mean history without expression of opinion, prejudice or ignorance.
G J Graves
Thank You for a clear, concise and thoughtful response. Without the Chinese working on the CPRR, it would have been most difficult to make the deadlines imposed by the Federal Government. According to testimony by Strobridge, Crocker and others, the Chinese work ethic was strong, they worked as a team, striving towards a common goal of success
GJG
The clearest indication that the CPRR Chinese workers were treated very fairly is that their pay in gold was similar to that of white laborers and that their savings from employment by the railroad made them wealthy by the standards of Chinese in 1860's Canton:
"The Chinese [railroad workers] ... are paid from $30 to $35 in gold a month ... They are credited with having saved about $20 a month." —Alta, California, November 9, 1868 Newspaper.
" ... Chinamen ... receive $35 per month (gold) ... Of this they save from $20 to $23. ... " —The New York Tribune, June 26, 1869.
It is wrong to substitute present day judgement for the actual preferences of people in the past. The Chinese came to California to work on the railroad by the tens of thousands because they liked the jobs offered to them and kept working until the transcontinental railroad was finished, and then went to work building more rail lines, for example, south from Sacramento to Los Angeles.
Obviously, in their judgement they were much better off due to those jobs and preferred the railroad employment to any available alternatives. It was entirely their decision to make, and very wrong for anyone from the future to second guess and criticize them by claiming that they were wrong to do what they wanted with their lives. Such rewriting of history is particularly offensive when what they chose to do in building the greatest engineering project of the 19th century was so amazing and significant.
Thought that we were disagreeing with a professional historian doing a major project, but it seems that the original poster instead may be a young student just seeking help in interpreting historical details. Hope that the above is helpful, in either case.
Thank you very much. I'm very sorry that I didn't indicate that I am a high school student and competing in the National History Day, which has the theme "Rights and Responsibilities" this year.
Originally, I've heard that Chinese immigrants were not treated fairly and risked their lives to build the Central Pacific Railroad, so I wanted to do my research project on the limited rights owned by Chinese laborers and the responsibilities of Congress, which did not act against the use of Chinese "slavery."
I think I should reconsider my topic, as I think discrimination against Chinese is more apparent in daily life but not during railroad work.
Thank you again for your responses.
-Jen
You are to be commended for your insightfulness and exceptional integrity. Best wishes with your project and let us know if we may be of any further help.
This student now seems to have a much better grasp of the historical reality than the unfortunate misinformation written in some recent books.
Check out this web site...the "western Ellis island http://www.pcah.gov/gateway-golden-mountain-angel-island-immigration-station
and for more day to day life in California read Lisa See's On Gold Mountian.
Here is that link: Gateway to the Golden Mountain: Angel Island Immigration Station
From: "Tom Baer" baerster@gmail.com
Subject: Treatment of Chinese railroad workers
... I love your website, and thank you for educating us on the contributions of
workers from China.
A friend told me that many of the Chinese railroad workers were slaves, and I suspect that this is not true. Everything I have read says that their working conditions were very dangerous (e.g., handling high explosives and scaling cliffs), pay was low and hours were long, but I have not seen anything saying that they were slaves. The construction company did not own them in the way that plantation owners before the Civil War "owned" slaves, and they were free to leave the job to go to, for instance, the goldfields.
Can you enlighten me on this? Have you ever heard anything like this?
—Tom
The testimony of Charles Crocker at a Congressional inquiry regarding Chinese immigration was that he was an abolitionist and the CPRR workers were definitely not treated as slaves:
"Q. Were you or were you not very much opposed to negro slavery?—A. I was, always. I was an abolitionist from a boy. ...
Q. You were so much opposed to slavery that you would have aided a negro to escape ?—A. If a negro slave came to my door and wanted bread he would get it, and if he wanted a little money to help him along to freedom he would get it.
Q. Do you or do you not believe that the Chinese immigration to this country has the same tendency to degrade free white labor as that of negro slavery in the South ?—A. No, sir; because it is not servile labor.
Q. It is not ?—A. It is not; it is free labor; just as free labor as yours and mine. You cannot control a Chinaman except you pay him for it. You cannot make any contract with him, or his friend, or supposed master, and get his labor unless you pay for it, and pay him for it. ...
A. ... They gathered them one at a time, two, three, four of them in a place, and got them together to make what is called a gang, and each gang is numbered.
Q. Just like mules ?—A. Well, sir, we cannot distinguish China-men by names very well.
Q. Like mules ?—A. Not like mules, but like men. We have treated them like men, and they have treated us like men, and they are men, good and true men. As I say, we employed them in that way. They come together in gangs of twenty-five and thirty, as we need them to work on a job of work, and the account is kept with the gang, No, 1, No. 2, 25, 30, 50, 100, just as it is. Each gang has a book-keeper to keep the account among themselves. We have a foreman and he keeps the account with the gang and credits them. Every night the Chinese book-keeper, who is one of the workmen and works in the pit along with the rest, comes up with his book, and he says so many days for that gang, do you see? and they count it up and they agree, and each puts it down. Then the Chinese keep their own accounts among themselves; but we keep an account with the gang. When the pay-day comes the gang is paid for all the labor of the gang, and then they divide it among themselves.
Q. Does the same thing obtain with the white men ?—A. No, sir; we get the individual names of the white men.
Q. You do not pay the individual Chinaman when he works for you?—A. We pay the head-man of the gang.
Q. Some head-man ?—A. He is a laborer among them.
Q. You do not pay them in the same manner that you pay white men ?—A. In the same manner, except that we cannot keep the names of the Chinamen; it is impossible. We would not know Ah Sin, Ali You, Kong Won, and all such names. We cannot keep their names in the usual way, because it is a different language. You understand the difficulty. It is not done in that way because they are slaves.
Q. Is it not a kind of servile labor ?—A. Not a bit. I give you my word of honor under oath here that I do not believe there is a Chinese slave in this State, except it may be a prostitute. I hear of that, but I do not know anything about it. If you do, you know more than I do.
Q. Can a Chinaman immigrate from this State on your steamers or the Pacific Mail Steamship Company's steamers as free as a white man can?—A. Certainly."
No system similar to slavery, serfdom or peonage prevails among these laborers. Their wages, which are always paid in coin, at the end of each month, are divided among them by their agents, who attend to their business, in proportion to the labor done by each person. These agents are generally American or Chinese merchants, who furnish them their supplies of food, the value of which they deduct from their monthly pay. We have assurances from leading Chinese merchants, that under the just and liberal policy pursued by the Company, it will be able to procure during the next year, not less than 15,000 laborers. With this large force, the Company will be able to push on the work so as not only to complete it far within the time required by the Acts of Congress, but so as to meet the public impatience.
LELAND STANFORD
Pres't C. P. R. R. Co.
Central Pacific Railroad Statement Made to the President of the United States, and Secretary of the Interior, on the Progress of the Work. October 10th, 1865. H.S. Crocker & Co., Printers, 92 J Street, Sacramento.
Post a Comment
<< Recent Messages