Scott Zesch
The Chinatown War
Chinese Los Angeles and the Massacre of 1871
2012
Scott Zesch’s The Chinatown War is the best researched publication on the subject of the Chinese Massacre. Zesch includes a bibliography, an index, and annotated footnotes.
Most of the information that we have about the massacre itself is taken from testimony that has few chronological references; and events that occurred at various locations around the city. The testimony itself comes from different hearings and trials that occurred over the course of a year. Zesch put in a tremendous amount of effort to stitch together his narrative. I have very little criticism to offer for this book. What little I have relates mostly to details that were omitted.
On Page 112, Zesch describes how Yo Hing falsely accuses Que Ma of stealing a horse. Que Ma was a resident of San Bernardino and Yo Hing wanted to prevent the man from testifying in the torture trial there. But Zesch leaves out that Yo Hing’s accusation was for a theft that happened in 1868. This is a trivial detail, but may show how much influence Yo Hing had with the police, or simply how fairly Chinese accusations were treated. For reference: “Yesterday, Que Ma, an uncommonly ugly looking celestial, was brought before Justice Trafford, upon warrant charging him with horse stealing in this county in 1868.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 2, Number 282, 29 November 1870)
On Page 130, Zesch
says Ah Wing worked at the Pico hotel. He also makes no mention that
Ah Wing’s gun found was found with an empty chamber. I am not sure
where it was established that Ah Wing worked at the Pico house.
Zesch’s own footnotes explain the complicated history of Ah Wing’s
identification, but does not indicate where his location of employment
was determined. My personal impression has been that Ah Wing was a
stranger in the city, and quite possibly one of the men brought from
San Francisco to kill Yo Hing. His was the only coffin without a
name. And he was the only victim who did not have any mourners at the
cemetery. This is testimony from Marshal Baker: “then went to the
corner of Negro Alley and Los Angeles street, and saw a Chinaman they
had caught; he seemed to have come from Beaudry's building; I took
him from them; then they said he is one of them and has a pistol; I
searched him and found a four-barreled sharp shooter, with one load
out; took it from him and told him to go; as I had to get back to the
alley I was afterward informed that the same Chinaman came back, with
a hatchet in his breast, and was the first one hung.” (Los Angeles
Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 439, 26 October 1871). And to help
explain why I think he was a stranger:
“HIS NAME. -- The
body of the Chinaman taken to the cemetery night before last is said
to be that of Ah Wing.” (Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number
439, 26 October 1871). “The remaining bodies followed in rough red
wood boxes, and were generally accompanied by friends. At the
cemetery, several of these were deposited in one grave. On all but
one of these boxes, small slats of wood, on which had been written
the names of occupant, were nailed.” (Los Angeles Daily Star,
Volume 3, Number 439, 26 October 1871). “One of the hanged, whose
body has not yet been identified, was taken to the cemetery on
Tuesday night.” (Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 439, 26
October 1871). “No. 18, which lay
at the Cemetery, where he had been taken as soon as hanged, being the
first victim, was unidentified.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3,
Number 254, 26 October 1871). And finally: “UNACCOUNTABLE. -- There
is one thing in connection with one of the lynched Chinamen which is
altogether unaccountable. Of the eighteen bodies, seventeen were
claimed by their friends and interred by them with all the regular
formula of a Chinese funeral; but the solitary exception was
altogether abandoned. None of the Chinese would have anything to do
with him. Even after he was interred, they declined to offer the
departed spirit, that tribute which is customary for them to pay,
viz: placing rice, burning tapers, etc, on the grave. Four of these
unfortunates had their pigtails cut off, consequently, the loss of it
could not have been the reason why they ignored him. Such, however,
was their inexplicable conduct.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3,
Number 258, 31 October 1871)
I will note here that there was a man who worked at the Pico hotel mentioned in testimony. But that man survived the night and was not attacked by the mob. I think this is worth mentioning, since it demonstrates a crowd was not entirely (or yet) violent. “C. E. Huber, sworn … after a while I saw the crowd with a Chinaman who said he belonged at the Pico House; a party went with him to the Pico and yesterday morning I saw him hanging out clothes, Sands told me that in going up to a door he heard the click of a pistol; next Chinaman which was caught the crowd said he had a hatchet; they started off with him I supposed to the jail; afterward some one said that they hung him.” S. A. Butler repeats the same account, “was instructed by the Marshal to hail any Chinaman attempting to escape and in case he would not stop, shoot him; arrested a Chinaman an employee of the Pico House; took him there and liberated him.”
Ah hing is mentioned again, on page 135 Zesch writes, “At that point, the Chinese in the Coronel adobe had no way of knowing that Ah Wing, the first to escape from the neighborhood, had been lynched. The wild shooting overhead made them think that about following his footsteps and making a run for it.” I suspect Ah Wing was associated with the Nin Yung men who were in the Coronel building. But I think it is doubtful that anybody in the Coronel building was aware of Ah Wing’s capture.
On Page 133 Zesch states, “No shots came from the Chinese apartments, which had grown quiet and dark.” However it appears that there were shots fired from the Coronel Adobe after the building was secured: “Augustus Cates sworn, testified that he saw the crowd collected on Los Angeles and Arcadia street; saw shooting done at the doorway of one of the tenements in the Chinese block; Sheriff Burns deputized him to keep guard, instructing him that in case anyone should attempt to escape, first, to arrest them; but afterwards said; “if they wont stop when called upon to do so, shoot them; if they open the door, and when called upon to close it, do not, shoot them." While on guard, was posted opposite one of the doorways in Coronel's block on Los Angeles Street, accompanied by a Californian wearing an officer's star; heard the bar of the door withdrawn; officer gave orders to fire in case it was opened; being partially opened, one of us fired, when two or three shots were returned from the doorway; afterwards went to the stairway at the foot of Negro alley; saw the same door open again and three shots were again fired at me; heard the shots whistle by distinctly.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 255, 27 October 1871). This same testimony from Augustus Cates was also reported in the Star, albeit quoted differently: “saw several shots fired from a door in the Chinese block; Burns deputized me to guard the block, and sent me for a six-shooter I had at home, and told me to stay at that corner; I think his word to me were, "hand this block; If any persons attempt to leave the block, arrest them;" I asked for fuller orders, and he said, "arrest them, and if they don’t stop, shoot; or if they open the door and refuse to shut it, shoot." This was after I had told him that the way they were shooting. I would be a fool to run out to arrest any one; he told me and a Spanish officer and another man to watch that corner; the Chinamen on that side of the street started to open the door; we had heard that three of the shooting party ran in there, I told him to shut the door: they didn’t, and the policeman ordered the other man to fire his derringer at it; he obeyed, and the door was immediately shut; then we moved up and were standing with our backs to this door, watching the other side, when the door opened and three shoots were fired at us; I felt the wind from one of the balls we wheeled in time to see them shut the door, but didn’t fire; Cox was with us, had just come; I got behind a post and watched the door in front.” (Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 440, 27 October 1871).
And it’s worth mentioning one other snippet that may have happened during the initial affray or perhaps after the Coronel Adobe was breached: “So far as known, but one Chinawoman took part in the fight, and she fired a shotgun at a gentleman who was attempting to arrest a party of Chinamen with an empty pistol.” (Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 438, 25 October 1871)
I take minor exception to the following comment from Zesch on Page 135, “From across the alley, several men did exactly what Marshal Baker and Sheriff Burns ordered them to do; they started shooting.” To be honest, equitable, and balanced, we should present what is known about these orders. There were different orders given to men based who gave the orders and on what part of the block they were guarding. Here are various descriptions given during testimony: “Chas. Edward Huber sworn, testified to seeing the shooting that Marshal Baker placed him to guard over the house at Negro Alley, with instructions to shoot the first one that should attempt to come out, saying "let them have it."” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 255, 27 October 1871) E. Allen “heard Mr. Cates say to Mr. James that he understood the orders of Burns to be that they were to fire at every Chinaman they saw come out, that he fired at one Chinaman; saw him go about 10 feet, then fall; James and Cates had a controversy concerning the orders of Sheriff Burns, the former stating that he did not understand the Sheriff to give any such instructions as Cates stated he had.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 256, 28 October 1871) “Sheriff Burns, sworn. My order to those whom I deputized, and to the officers, were, that they should prevent any one from going in or coming out; that if they could not make arrests to bring them down, to prevent escape; heard a man on Arcadia street shout out "Here's the S-- of a b----, I'll have him;" went after the man and with some volunteers rescued the Chinaman; placed guards at various points; gave instructions to each one not to allow any one to escape; if any should be likely to do so, to first call upon him to stop, and if not shoot him.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 257, 29 October 1871) Also Burns, “it was only those in the rear that I gave orders to shoot, if they could not in any other way capture those who might endeavor to escape,” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 257, 29 October 1871)
On Page 135 Zesch describes multiple people throwing fireballs, but the impression I have is that it only occurred once, and it was only Jacob C. Cox. “Despite the warnings, a few people tried to throw fire balls into the open doorways on Calle de los Negros and the holes in the roof of the Coronel building. One would-be arsonist, J. C. Cox, claimed he only wanted to see the bodies of the dead Chinese inside“
On Page 136 Zesch states that, “The mob next tried using the fire hose to force the Chinese into the street. They shot a powerful stream of water through any open door or window. However they got no response.” This second sentence does not contain a related footnote. While it is true that the a proposal was made to flood the block, I have not found any reference to it actually happening. When a fire did break out, it was put out using buckets. George Fall offered the following during his testimony: “Concilman Fall sworn, testified … an application being made to him for the hose to wash out the block, was refused; but representations being made that they were threatening to burn the block up, he consented to its being taken and attached to the hydrant on Main and Arcadia streets.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 255, 27 October 1871). And from the other paper: “was sitting in my office, and Mr. Prudent Beaudry called on me for hose, to wash out the block where the Chinamen were; told him withal I would not lend assistance to anything of the kind; Messrs. Ferguson, Coronel and Sotello informed me that they had threatened to fire the block and then attach the hose to the hydrant and appointed a party to take charge of the hose; after the excitement had subsided, I ordered the hose put away.” (Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 440, 27 October 1871).
Zesch criticizes Harris’ decision to remain at the Coronel Adobe while murders were occurring. This is on pages 137 and 138 ”Officer Harris … For whatever reason the policeman chose to protect what was left of Sam Yuen’s property rather than human life. He guarded the merchandise during the remainder of the riot, while the massacre continued unabated.” It’s possible Harris was unaware of the events occurring outside and a block away. Henry Hazard was on the roof of the Beaudry building and was not aware of the killings taking place at Goller’s shop just a half block away.
There is no mention made in the book of the one man who was saved from certain death at Goller’s shop. I will provide the relevant testimony and news report here: “Frank Leonard sworn, testified that he was on New High street at the time that four Chinamen hanged there; saw a man named Reilly at Wilson's saloon at eight o'clock, and at other times; he wore a black coat and walking stick; Reilly was not with me at the corral; I went to Wilson's saloon immediately after the hanging of the first Chinaman; went in company with two others from Wilson's to Higby's; there saw a crowd, having a Chinaman in custody, and a man behind him holding a pistol to his head; did not know the man; afterwards went to Goller's; saw Ed. Roberts with a hatchet cut down the hanging Chinaman before Mr. Goler's (sic) door.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 256, 28 October 1871) “One Chinaman was cut down, and his life saved when nearly extinct.” (Los Angeles Daily Star, Volume 3, Number 438, 25 October 1871)
There is a very detailed and intriguing story about a man named David Thompson who stole a watch from one of the victim’s body. Thompson was likely the only person to be convicted and serve a full term for his crimes. He was arrested for stealing money from the Episcopal Church. And when he was arrested, his involvement in the riot was discovered. He was prosecuted for both crimes and sentenced to six years at San Quentin. Granted, David Thompson is not the most relevant member of the mob, but I think his story is worth telling since it represents one small instance where justice prevailed.
On Pages 156 and 157 Zesch discusses the initial editorial published in the Daily Star the day following the massacre. Other historians, and the even the Daily News, have criticized the Daily Star's rant without mentioning the Star’s explanation for deciding to include what was, by the following morning, a bad take. But Zensch does an excellent job discussing their decision for publishing that piece.
Zesch then levels much deserved criticism at the Daily News for their history of anti Chinese rhetoric. There are probably enough anti-Chinese articles in the Daily News to fill a book. But it in all fairness to the News, they did consistently express the opinion that Chinese should be treated compassionately, even while arguing they did not belong in the United States. I will offer this one example from four months before the massacre:
“Lawlessness
Nothing is more disgraceful to our civilization than the tendency towards rowdyism and lawlessness which appears to be manifesting itself in all quarters, the Hoodlum phase being the latest, but by no means the worst of its development. The Chinese in the metropolis seem to be made especial objects of attack by all who have any disposition to elevate cruelty to animals into a higher branch of science. No one can be more strenuously opposed to Chinese immigration than we; yet once landed they acquire the right to the protection of our laws, so long as they, on their part, abide by the requirements of these laws; and even where they fail, it is not by private hands that punishment should be meted out. It seems, from recent incidents, the last ending in homicide, that the authorities are inadequate to afford protection unless sustained by public opinion. Hence we think the universal voice of the people of the State should be raised in condemnation of barbarity, in whatever form it may appear, whether in inhuman treatment of a corpse, or beating a Chinaman in the streets, or even in meting out deserved punishment to the guilty. The sentiment of the press generally has been shown by the comments on each outrage as it has occurred, to agree with those we have stated above, and through the press speaks the public to strengthen and encourage its servants, the officers of the law.” (Los Angeles Daily News, Volume 3, Number 147, 22 June 1871).
1886 P. S. Dorney(AKA Patrick Sarsfield De Orny)
1894 C. P. Dorland
1916 Harris Newmark
1930 Horace Bell
1960 Paul M. DeFalla
2011 John JohnsonJr.
Comments
Post a Comment