In the mid 19th century, the economy of the Western Hemisphere was growing exponentially. However, this trend of prosperity required a special price: cheap manual labor. Due to factors in both the United States and China, the introduction of “Coolies” was heralded as a promising new type of laborer to fulfill the needs of the agricultural south, the industrial north, and to build the foundations of the transcontinental railroads. Obviously, the sudden flood of foreigners into the states did not go unnoticed. Those aghast at the steady loss of jobs for native “whites” criticized the Chinese by labeling them as no better than slaves. Many who benefited from the Chinese presence applauded their endeavoring spirit, which initiated a new age of paid laborers. Thus the debate regarding whether the Coolies were slaves or free workers continues to this day. This essay will now show that simply put, they were both, creating a paradox due to the environment at home and abroad. Before this argument can be properly settled, an examination of the factors allowing the creation of Coolies must first be conducted. In order to establish the historical context of the situation, June Mei’s research of China in the middle of the 19th century points out that China had become a shadow of its former glory, with western powers exploiting its ports through unfair trade treaties and “backed up with superior military force” (470). This economic drain throughout Southeast Asia is further compounded by prevalent civil unrest plaguing the region. With loyalist contingents hunting down rebel forces, neighboring counties feuding over lands, and farming infrastructures demolished due to warfare, a peaceful life was only a dream for many who were simply trying to survive. All these combined formed a “push” movement, forcing the native Chinese to look elsewhere for self-sufficiency, and perhaps send remittance home to their families.
Meanwhile, the United States economy is dealing with the increasing lack of labor as a direct result of the end of slavery. Originally used for plantation work, these inexpensive (practically free in terms of pay) manual laborers were no longer available for the wealthy landowners to exploit. Furthermore, with the Industrial Revolution in full swing in the urban northeast, factory owners and managers were soon faced with union strikes and contentious employees, most of whom were immigrants of European descent. Thus, faced with a growing need for inexpensive, reliable manpower, business owners turned to an unexpected direction to satisfy their needs – the Far East. This search was soon validated by the Memphis Convention of 1869, which met to exclusively discuss the validity of using Chinese laborers in the work force, and endorsing the beginnings of the “pull” effect which the need for workers created. Combined, this push-pull effect proved to be a fertile environment in the US for these Chinese laborers, aptly named “Coolies” by many during the period.
The initial deployment of Coolies was met with mixed attitudes, with employers proclaiming their industrious virtues, and yet there were those who did not directly benefiting from Coolie presence but were concerned about a resurgence of slavery. This then begs for formal definitions and a comparison between “slaves” and “free laborers”. The first, and perhaps the easiest to define, are the slaves. Taken by force from their native lands, most memorable are the African slaves during the colonial period, these involuntary laborers were then traded around from one “employer” to the next as one would transfer property. Furthermore, as owners, the people who employ slaves usually subject these laborers to severe cruelty, and in some instances would take more care in maintaining inanimate objects rather than spending any extra resources on the slaves. This mentality was so prevalent throughout the southern North American continent (including Cuba and Peru) that when the Civil War and slavery ended, many citizens found ways to curb the integration of former slaves into society.
On the other side of the spectrum are the free laborers, such as the European immigrants who came to the US searching for a new home and ways to support themselves. However, a derivation of this type of labor is the practice of indentured servitude, where a person signs a contract agreeing to work for a certain period of time in order to pay off a debt incurred; the fare for passage to the U.S. from Europe for example. Usually, these contracts are faithfully honored, and the contractor is considered a free person after the agreed time period passes. Likewise, there have been instances where steps were taken by the employer to unfairly extend the time period, but those are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm. Upon completion of the contract, the freed person can then move about at their whim, typically finding a spot to settle down and become a citizen of the growing nation. Regardless of their time here, these laborers differed from the slaves in the most obvious sense in that these workers chose to migrate voluntarily and be compensated for their labors, whereas the slaves were uprooted involuntarily and at best kept from death. Yet, the question of who and what the Coolies were still needs to be addressed.
The initial contingent of Chinese arriving in the American West was what many had called “Coolies” at the time. These unskilled workers were contracted laborers, similar to the indentured servants of European origin, with one minor difference: the Chinese usually returned home upon the completion of their contracts. This divergence lies mainly with the mindset of the Chinese, basically sojourners to the West, who were here simply to earn money and return to China afterwards. These simple farmers (who owned little to no land) and peasants (similar to seasonal workers, wondering from one farm to the next in search of work) from Southeast China, particularly the Canton region where Western trade ports were well established, were either enchanted by exaggerated tales of prosperity, settling with a creditor to resolve an outstanding debt, or kidnapped outright for harsh manual labor (such as sugarcane farming). This disparity in how Coolies are introduced into the Western labor market is what prompted the original question in regards to a Coolie’s status. The concern is further complicated by the way the laborers are treated by their contract holders once they were deployed onto the field.
One of the first divisions of Coolies arriving in the Western Hemisphere were those bound for the sugarcane plantations in Spanish-controlled Cuba in 1847. These workers were bound by a fairly clear contract stipulating length of servitude and compensation, but the contract holders were under no incentive to treat the Coolies as free men. Even though regulations in 1849, and again in 1854, were established in regards to the treatment and discipline of Chinese laborers (such as prohibiting corporal punishment), Evelyn Hu-DeHart is adamant in acknowledging that they were by and large “ignored by the planters and their administrators” (73). Furthermore, the freedoms of a Coolie were reduced again in 1860 when new legislation restrict Coolies who had just completed a contract to enter a subsequent contract, leave the country within two months, or be arrested for vagrancy and placed in a holding cell awaiting a new employer, thus completely denying the Chinese any right to reside in Cuba independently. In addition, Hu-DeHart notes that subsequent batches of Coolie laborers recruited from China were usually induced “by force and deception” (75) such as a repayment of a debt back in China, as opposed to voluntarily choosing such an endeavor. It is then quite obvious in this instance that the Coolie laborers in Cuba were no better than slaves in economic and legal terms.
During the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad in the United States, railroad companies, especially the Central Pacific Railroad, were faced with a chronic labor shortage. Granted, the Union Pacific Railroad in the east was able to recruit large amounts of European immigrants, the Central Pacific had no such recourse. Consequently, a decision was made in 1865 to introduce Coolies into the pool, with the total number employed topping 10,000 by project’s end. In contrast to their brethren in Cuba, Alexander Saxton points out that the Chinese in California signed up voluntarily at first, “in gangs of fifty to a hundred” (149). Each of these groups were then managed by their own agent, of their own choosing, which dealt directly with the railroad executives in a variety of issues, ranging from compensation to complaints. This was a definitive characteristic of free laborers, reinforced by the relative autonomy the Coolies enjoyed from their Caucasian masters during their employment. However, as the initial demand drained all willing Chinese laborers in the California area, importations of Coolies from China resumed despite a legislative ban on such practices in 1862. According to Saxton, the need for laborers became so critical that “an unofficial but firm agreement” between shipping firms and labor contractors prohibited “any Chinese from taking passage out of California unless he carried a clearance from the Six Companies”, which “served as enforcement agencies” for Coolie labor (150). Of course, the Coolies were paid for their labor, usually more than what their counterparts in Cuba earned, and most were able to send parts of it home to their families. Although the Coolies in the American West were fairly free in both legal and economical terms, it was the unofficial and unspoken boundaries that allowed corporations and merchants to claim plausible deniability against accusations of slavery and indentured servitude while maintaining a firm grip on the fate of thousands of Chinamen.
Both scenarios depicted above shows an almost contradicting pattern with regard to the issue of Coolie labor. In California the Chinese laborers were actually ex-miners who signed up voluntarily without external inducement, whereas those destined for Cuba went on their own free will at best while coerced in doing so at worst. However, the trend in the Cuba degenerated into a neo-slavery institution ensuring its own economic welfare rather than worrying about those who toiled to support it, and yet the Central Pacific in California was able entice thousands of Coolies even though the risks of the job were high. Granted, the Coolie in the western US received little to no gratitude upon the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad, but at least they were given the freedom to proceed with their lives as they saw fit when discharged, whereas the Cuban legislation all but ensured that discharged Coolies would not stay independent for long. Thus it should not be difficult to now discern the fact that while European immigrants were considered free laborers and African captives were transformed into slaves, Chinese laborers filled both niches during their first decades in the Western Hemisphere. Partly by their own choice due to the dismal living conditions in Southeast China, but also partly by forces fueled by self-interest of those who sought to exploit new sources of cheap labor with the wide-spread abandonment of slavery, the Chinese laborers who came to the United States were literally “at the right place and at the right time”, or the opposite of the saying, depending on how one interprets the Coolie’s fortunes.
Although it may seem unlikely at first, trying to place Coolies into either “free laborer” or “slave” category would only prove to be false in both instances. History has shown that while Coolies did exist in deplorable times paralleling that of slavery, they also excelled to an extent as free laborers. The fact that the Coolies were versatile enough to adapt to both extremes would be unfair and unjust to hold it against them for doing so when the environment in which they found themselves in demanded such flexibility. On a whole the Chinese laborers were merely responding to a crisis developing at home, and seeking out a better life for themselves and their families.