Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:42:02.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Culture of Sugar Tariffs: Immigration, Race, and Empire, 1898–1930

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2012

April Merleaux
April Merleaux
Affiliation:
Florida International University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article contends that the chronology of popular and legislative movements for restrictive tariffs and immigration exclusion in the United States ran parallel courses between 1898 and the 1930. Those who spoke for and against such policies did so using the rhetoric of race, labor, and empire. The article analyzes the career of Nevada Senator Francis G. Newlands in order to show how the sugar industry and Asian immigration were intrinsic to debates over imperial policy between 1898 and the First World War. The article then describes policy changes during the First World War. The war set the stage for renewed debates over immigration and the sugar trade in the 1920s as the newly formed Tariff Commission attempted to grapple with an oversupplied world sugar market. Their work ultimately reinforced the old associations among race, labor, and trade policy and did little to improve the global sugar crisis.

Type
Labor and Global Commodities
Information
International Labor and Working-Class History , Volume 81 , Spring 2012 , pp. 28 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc. 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Aryan, Junius, The Aryans and Mongrelized America: The Remedy (Philadelphia, 1913), 29–32Google Scholar.

2. Kathleen Mapes describes similar rhetoric used by Harvey Wiley, the influential proponent of beet sugar in the United States Department of Agriculture. See Sweet Tyranny: Migrant Labor, Industrial Agriculture, and Imperial Politics (Chicago, 2009), 31Google Scholar. See also, Hollander, Gail, Raising Cane in the ‘Glades: The Global Sugar Trade and the Transformation of Florida (Chicago, 2008)Google Scholar.

3. Mintz, Sidney, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History (New York, 1985)Google Scholar.

4. Jung, Moon-Ho, Coolies and Cane: Race, Labor, and Sugar in the Age of Emancipation (Baltimore, 2006)Google Scholar.

5. Jacobson, Matthew Frye, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad, 1876–1917 (New York, 2001)Google Scholar; Kramer, Paul A., The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, the United States, and the Philippines (Chapel Hill, 2006)Google Scholar; Love, Eric T. L., Race Over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism, 1865–1900 (Chapel Hill, 2004)Google Scholar.

6. Go, Julian, American Empire: Elite Political Cultures in the Philippines and Puerto Rico during U.S. Colonialism (Durham, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. For an overview of these differences in the context of sugar, see Ayala, César, American Sugar Kingdom: The Plantation Economy of the Spanish Caribbean, 1898–1934 (Chapel Hill, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Other commodities were traded, but sugar was by far the most significant in economic and political terms.

9. Dalton, John E., Sugar: A Case Study of Government Control (New York, 1937), 198Google Scholar.

10. For examples, see Jung, Coolies and Cane, 218; Gyory, Andrew, Closing the Gate: Race, Politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act (Chapel Hill, 1998), 23Google Scholar.

11. “Sugar tariff reduction; Data on Sugar Tariff Reduction, Compiled by Truman G. Palmer,” Presented by Senator Henry Teller (D-Colorado), May 27, 1908, S.doc.523, United States Senate 60th Congress,1st Session. See also testimony of Francis G. Newlands, 237, Maintenance of a Lobby to Influence Legislation, Vol. 1. Subcommittee on Sen. Res. 92, Senate Committee on Judiciary, 63–1 (1913).

12. On Chinese exclusion see Lee, Erika, At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943 (Chapel Hill, 2003)Google Scholar; Ngai, Mae M., Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, 2004)Google Scholar.

13. Rowley, William, Reclaiming the Arid West: The Career of Francis G. Newlands (Indiana University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

14. “Race Issue Plank for the Democrats,” The New York Times, June 17, 1912. Newlands argued that African Americans should emigrate to Africa. See, FGN Speech, April 2, 1912. Newlands Papers, Group 371, Series II, Box 69, Folder 709. For earlier attempts to insert a “white supremacy” plank in the Democratic platform, see “Platform Makers Ride over Bryan,” The New York Times, July 7, 1904.

15. Newlands, Francis G., “The San Domingo Question,” The North American Review 180 (June 1905):888Google Scholar.

16. Thomas, Aretas W., Facts in a Nutshell about Immigration Yellow and White (Washington, DC, 1912), 44Google Scholar, Series II, Box 76, Folder 776, Newlands Papers, MSSA, Yale Sterling Library. Henceforth FGN Papers.

17. 35 Cong. Rec. (1902), 3856.

18. 35 Cong. Rec. (1902), 1457, 1461.

19. For contemporary critiques of reciprocal trade treaties, see Laughlin, J. Laurence and Willis, H. Parker, Reciprocity (New York, 1903), 79–80Google Scholar; Coman, Katharine, The History of Contract Labor in the Hawaiian Islands, Publications of the American Economic Association (New York, 1903), 27Google Scholar.

20. 31Cong. Rec. (1898), 5830; See also, Extension of Immigration and Contract Labor Laws to the Hawaiian Islands, Senate Report No. 1654, February 13, 1899, 55th Congress, 3d Session.

21. Coman, Contract Labor, 46.

22. Caspar Whitney, “Hawaiian-America; Part V—The Labor Question,” Harper's Weekly 43 (2211), 464. See also 35 Cong. Rec. (1902), 1459.

23. April 29, 1902, 32 Stat. 176 renewed Chinese exclusion indefinitely and extended it to US territories.

24. Act of December 16, 1903 (33 Stat. 4).

25. “Admission of Chinese into Cuba,” Foreign Relations of the United States 1902 (Washington: GPO, 1903), 263–266Google Scholar. See also Salyer, Lucy, Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law (Chapel Hill, 1995), 102–103Google Scholar.

26. John B. Jackson to Secretary of State, Habana, June 9, 1911, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1918), 110Google Scholar

27. See Go, Julian, “The Chains of Empire: Building and ‘Political Education’ in Puerto Rico and the Philippines,” in The American Colonial State in the Philippines: Global Perspectives, ed. Go, and Foster, (Durham, NC, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Sparrow, The Insular Cases, 78; Taft, William Howard, Civil Government in the Philippines (New York, 1902), 98Google Scholar. See also, Kramer, The Blood of Government; Quirino, Carlos, History of the Philippine Sugar Industry (Manila, Philippines, 1974)Google Scholar; Lopez-Gonzaga, Violeta B., The Socio-Politics of Sugar: Wealth, Power Formation, and Change in Negros, 1899–1985 (Bacolod City, Philippines, 1989)Google Scholar.

29. Taft, Civil Government, 103.

30. The Philippine Islands Sugar Industry. Panama Pacific International Exposition. San Francisco, California (Manila, P.I., 1915)Google Scholar.

31. Kramer, Blood of Government, 237, 241.

32. Sparrow, The Insular Cases, Article 4.

33. Cited in Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176 (1901), 181.

34. For a critique of this category, see Ramos, Efrén Rivera, “Deconstructing Colonialism: The ‘Unincorporated Territory’ as a Category of Domination,” in Foreign in a Domestic Sense: Puerto Rico, American Expansion and the Constitution, ed. Duffy Burnett, Christina and Marshall, Burke (Durham, 2001)Google Scholar.

35. 32 Stat. 54 (1902); These rates were reconsidered in 1905–06. See Newlands, “A Democrat in the Philippines,” The North American Review 181 (December 1905):933–943Google Scholar.

36. 31 Stat. 77

37. 30 Stat. 750

38. 31 Stat. 141

39. On tariff politics in general, see Frank, Dana, Buy American: The Untold Story of Economic Nationalism (Boston, 2000)Google Scholar; Sanders, Elizabeth, Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917 (University Of Chicago Press, 1999)Google Scholar; and Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in United States (Cambridge, MA, 1995)Google Scholar.

40. Quoted in Ayala, American Sugar Kingdom, 67.

41. Almaguer, Tomás, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California (Berkeley, CA, 1994)Google Scholar. See also, Coman, Contract Labor, 47.

42. McKee, Delber L., “The Chinese Boycott of 1905–1906 Reconsidered: The Role of Chinese Americans,” Pacific Historical Review 55 (May 1986):165–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. Okihiro, Gary Y., Cane Fires: The Anti-Japanese Movement in Hawaii, 1865–1945 (Philadelphia, 1992), 30–31Google Scholar.

44. Thomas, Facts in a Nutshell about Immigration Yellow and White, 41.

45. Daniels, Roger, The Politics of Prejudice: The Anti-Japanese Movement in California and the Struggle for Japanese Exclusion (University of California Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

46. “To Exclude Japs. Newlands Would Draw Color Line on Immigrants,” Portland Oregonian, February 8, 1909Google Scholar.

47. Francis G. Newlands to Nevada Governor Denver S. Dickerson, February 3, 1909. Newlands Papers, Group 371, Series II, box 69, folder 704, FGN Papers. Newlands' statements were well-received by Southern newspapers. See, e.g., “Bond of Sympathy with the West” The Macon (Georgia) Daily Telegraph, February 12, 1909, 4.

48. Newlands, Speech on Senate Resolution No. 279, February 18, 1909, In Series II, box 69, folder 704, FGN Papers. The speech and public correspondence are summarized in Newlands, “A Western View of the Race Question,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 34 (September 1909):49–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. Graves, John Temple, Grasshopper Immigrants, 1909Google Scholar.

50. Balch, Emily Greene et al. , “Restriction of Immigration—Discussion,” The American Economic Review, 2Google Scholar; Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (Mar., 1912):71.

51. Quirino, History of the Philippine Sugar Industry.

52. See e.g., Newlands to Erving Winslow. July 22, 1909. Series I, Box 18, Folder 177, FGN Papers. On opposition to Philippines allotment, see 44 Cong. Rec. May 19, 1909. 2184.

53. 44 Cong. Rec. May 25, 1909. 2373. Newlands and Foster had traveled to the Philippines together in 1905 as part of William Howard Taft's delegation to the Islands. “Plans for Taft Party,” The Washington Post, March 26, 1905. See also, Rowley, Reclaiming the Arid West, 118–120. Foster also opposed the reciprocity treaty with Cuba in 1903. See, “Sectional Issue in Cuban Debate,” New York Times, December 13, 1903.

54. 36 Sat. 83–84 (1909) provided for free trade between the Philippines and the United States, with specified limits. 36 Stat. 11 exempted the Philippines from the Act, and positioned the Islands as outside of the United States. This language would prove to have a long life in tariff lawmaking. Export duties authorized in 36 Stat. 130.

55. Department of Commerce, Annual Report of the Chief of Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce to the Secretary of Commerce for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1916 (Washington: GPO, 1916), 20Google Scholar.

56. A typical articulation of this theory is Frank C. Lowry, Sugar at a Second Glance 1913, Serial Set Vol. No. 6524, Session Vol. No.9. 63rd Congress, 1st Session. S. Doc. 23.

57. Newspaper coverage was much heavier in Western and Southern states. See, e.g., “Caucus Hears The Newlands Plan,” Salt Lake (Utah) Telegram, May 6, 1913, Evening edition, 10; “Senators to Discuss Tariff with Wilson” Olympia Record, April 25, 1913, 1; “Tariff Hearings Will Not be Held,” Portland Oregonian, May 17, 1913, 7.

58. J. Kuhio Kalanianaole to FGN, May 23, 1913. Series I, Box 37, Folder 377, FGN Papers.

59. Helen Stewart Campbell to FGN, April 12, 1913. Series I, Box 35, Folder 358, FGN Papers.

60. R.C. Bialy, Treasurer, Nevada Sugar Company to FGN, April 30, 1913. Series I, Box 36, Folder 366, FGN Papers. See also “Receiver is Named for Sugar Company,” Salt Lake (Utah) Telegram, September 23, 1913, 6.

61. J.H. Kent to FGN, May 21, 1913, and May 26, 1913. Series I, Box 37, Folder 376, FGN Papers. See also, Rowley, Reclaiming the Arid West, 146.

62. FGN to President Wilson, June 4, 1913. 7. Series I, Box 38, Folder 383, FGN Papers.

63. Campbell, Robert B., “Newlands, Old Lands: Native American Labor, Agrarian Ideology, and the Progressive-Era State in the Making of the Newlands Reclamation Project, 1902–1926,” Pacific Historical Review 71 (2002):203–238Google Scholar.

64. There were some attempts to hire Mexican and Japanese workers in 1913, a point upon which Newlands received some criticism. See H.R. Cooke to FGN, May 24, 1913. Series I, Box 37, Folder 378, FGN Papers.

65. 38 Stat. 114, 192 (1913).

66. Blakey, Roy G., “Sugar Prices and Distribution under Food Control,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 32 (August 1918):567–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67. “Sugar Crops of the World,” Weekly Statistical Sugar Trade Journal, January 6, 1916Google Scholar, cited in Blakey, “Sugar Prices and Distribution under Food Control,” 569. See also, “Sugar Crops of the World,” Weekly Statistical Sugar Trade Journal, January 6, 1921, 5.

68. Bernhardt, Joshua, Government Control of the Sugar Industry in the United States (New York, 1920), 8Google Scholar. See also, “News Letter from Our Havana Office,” The Louisiana Planter and Sugar Manufacturer 57 (December 23, 1916):407–408Google Scholar.

69. See Kennedy, Over Here. See also, Brownlee, “Wilson and Financing the Modern State.”

70. Senator Furnifold Simmons (D-North Carolina), Congressional Record 53 (1916): 5777; “To repeal the free-sugar provisions,” February 28, 1916, Congressional Serial Set Vol. No. 6903 Session Vol. 1; “Tariff on sugar.” March 28, 1916. Congressional Serial Set Vol. No. 6898 Session Vol. 2.

71. Brownlee, W. Elliot, “Wilson and Financing the Modern State: The Revenue Act of 1916,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 129 (June 1985): 177Google Scholar.

72. Dalton, Sugar, 290.

73. Kramer, The Blood of Government, 353–358.

74. For example, “The Plan to Resist Philippine Sugar Tariff Reduction,” The Louisiana Planter and Sugar Manufacturer, January 6, 1906, 2Google Scholar. 53 Cong. Rec. 7201 (1916). May 1, 1916. 7201.

75. “A Consumption Tax on Sugar” New York Times, January 24,1916, 10; “Says Japan Is Preparing To Take Over Philippines,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 1916, 11; “Japan Denies Investment,” New York Times, March 5, 1916, 16. The following year the Bureau of Insular Affairs privately confirmed purchase of sugar mills in the Philippines by Japanese investors, Carmack to Samuel Fergeson. December 15, 1917. Box 325, File 1770–103. RG 350, NARA.

76. “Hawaiian Letter,” The Louisiana Planter and Sugar Manufacturer, September 2, 1916, 152Google ScholarPubMed.

77. 39 Stat. 877 (1917). Japan was not included in the “Barred Zone.”

78. Alanis, Fernando Saul, El Primer Programa Bracero y el Gobierno de México, 1917–1918 (San Luis Potosí: El Colegio de San Luis, 1999)Google Scholar.

79. Okihiro, Cane Fires, 39, 55.

80. “Dimnet Says Debt Must Be Canceled,” New York Times, Aug 18, 1923, 3.

81. Culbertson, William S., Raw Materials and Foodstuffs in the Commercial Policies of Nations (Philadelphia, 1924)Google Scholar.

82. “Caucasian Solidarity Urged to Insure Safety of World,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 17, 1923, 3; Culbertson, William S., International Economic Policies; A Survey of the Economics of Diplomacy (New York, 1925), 487–488Google Scholar.

83. Dunn, Robert W., American Foreign Investments (New York, 1926), 122Google Scholar.

84. Jenks, Leland Hamilton, “The Dance of the Millions,” Our Cuban Colony, A Study in Sugar (New York, 1928)Google Scholar; Ayala, American Sugar Kingdom, 87–88.

85. 42 Stat. 942 exempted the Philippines from the provisions that authorized Tariff Commission comparative cost of production studies.

86. See Ayala, Chapter 6 in his American Sugar Kingdom; Carr, Barry, “Identity, Class, and Nation: Black Immigrant Workers, Cuban Communism, and the Sugar Insurgency, 1925–1934,” The Hispanic American Historical Review 78 (February 1998): 83–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87. Truman G. Palmer to President Calvin Coolidge, August 20, 1924, Reel 83, File 147, Coolidge Papers; A.E. Carlton to Coolidge, August 21, 1924, Reel 83, File 147, Coolidge Papers.

88. Roller, Arnold, “Black Ivory and White Gold in Cuba,” The Nation 128 (Jan 9, 1929): 55–56Google Scholar. Cuban nationalists made the same point. See Sánchez, Ramiro Guerra y, Sugar and Society in the Caribbean: An Economic History of Cuban Agriculture [1927] (New Haven, 1964), 27, 71–72, 142Google Scholar.

89. Kramer, The Blood of Government, 392–399; Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 120–121; Mapes, Sweet Tyranny, 204–205.

90. Bernhardt, , The Sugar Industry and the Federal Government: A Thirty Year Record, 1917–1947 (Washington, DC: Sugar Statistics Service, 1949), 164Google Scholar.

91. Dalton, Sugar, 206.

92. On commodity nationalism, see, for example, McAlister, Melani, Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, & U.S. Interests in the Middle East since 1945 (Berkeley, 2001)Google Scholar; Frank, Buy American; Hollander, Raising Cane in the ‘Glades; Derby, Lauren, “Gringo Chickens with Worms: Food and Nationalism in the Dominican Republic,” in Close Encounters of Empire: Writing the History of U.S.-Latin American Relations, ed. Joseph, Gilbert M. et al. (Durham, NC, 1998)Google Scholar.

93. On the concept of racial formation, see Omi, Michael and Winant, Howard, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s (New York, 1994)Google Scholar.