Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
One of the basic aims of American foreign policy has been to maintain the right of all countries to trade with China on an equal basis. The first formal declaration of this aim came with the sending of the Open Door notes in September, 1899. The origin of these notes has received much attention from historians in recent years, and certain aspects of their origin, particularly the part played by W. W. Rockhill and the Englishman, Alfred Hippisley, have become very well known. At least one aspect, however, has been entirely overlooked: namely, that special business interests in the United States were concerned over the possible loss of the Chinese market; were eager to have the government take just the sort of action which it did take; and were active in bringing pressure to bear on the government. It is the thesis of this article that they were partly responsible for the sending of the notes and, consequently, for America's Open Door policy.
1 See Dennis, A. L. P., Adventures in American diplomacy, 1896–1906 (New York, 1928), chap. 8Google Scholar; and Griswold, A. Whitney, The Far Eastern policy of the United States (New York, 1938), chap. 2 and the Appendix.Google Scholar
2 Vagts, Especially A., Deutschland und die Vereinigten Staaten in der weltpolitik (New York, 1935)Google Scholar; and Pratt, J. W., Expansionists of 1898; the acquisition of Hawaii and the Spanish islands (Baltimore, 1936).Google Scholar
3 Department of State, Miscellaneous Letters, May, 1898, part I.
4 Ibid., July, 1899, part 2. Some of Cary's shares were held for Vanderbilt interests; similarly Stillman represented Rockefeller interests as well as his own.
5 Vagts, , op. cit., vol. 2, p. 962.Google Scholar
6 Denby to Gresham, May 10, 1895, Ibid., p. 963.
7 Olney to Denby, Dec. 19, 1896, Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1897 (Washington, 1898), p. 56Google Scholar. This letter, of course, was not in response to Denby's letter to Gresham mentioned above.
8 Denby to Olney, Jan. 10, 1897, Ibid., pp. 57–59.
9 Sherman to Denby, Mar. 8, 1897, Ibid., pp. 59–60.
10 These figures have been compiled from Commercial relations of the United States, 1899, vol. 12.
11 Consular reports (Washington, 1899), vol. 59, chart following p. 560.Google Scholar
12 Many statements about the future of the Chinese market can be found in business journals of the period.
13 American cotton exporters had just had an object-lesson of what to expect. In 1896 Russia's ally, France, annexed the island of Madagascar and the next year introduced a tariff favoring French products. The United States had been the leading supplier of cotton to Madagascar, but after the new tariff her exports dropped from $431, 688 in 1897 to $245 in 1899, while French cotton exports rose correspondingly. See Commercial relations, 1900, vol. 1, p. 294.Google Scholar
14 Philadelphia, Press, Jan. 4, 1898.Google Scholar
15 Cary, Clarence, “China's complications and American trade,” Forum, vol. 25 (1898), p. 25.Google Scholar
16 Journal of commerce and commercial bulletin, Jan. 4, 1898.Google Scholar
17 The American Asiatic Association, 1899 (unpublished pamphlet), p. 10.
18 Ibid., pp. 10–11; Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, Annual report, 1897–1898, p. 74.
19 New York Chamber of Commerce to McKinley, Feb. 3, 1898, Miscellaneous Letters, Feb., 1898, part 1. Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, Annual report, 1897–1898, p. 75.
20 Sherman to Orr, Feb. 11, 1898, Department of State, Domestic Letters, vol. 225, pp. 386–87.
21 Sherman to White, Feb. 11, 1898, Instructions, Germany, vol. 20, pp. 371–73.
24 New York Chamber of Commerce to Day, Mar. 16, 1898, Ibid., Mar., 1898, part 2. Apparently without any direct connection with the Committee on American Interests were similar resolutions sent to the government by the China and Japan Trading Company and by the New England Shoe and Leather Association. See ibid, and Domestic Letters, vol. 227, pp. 474–75.
25 The State Department also received a request for support from another source. On March 8, 1898, a memorandum was received from Great Britain, asking for the “co-operation of the United States in opposing action by foreign Powers which may tend to restrict freedom of commerce of all nations in China.” The American government refused to commit itself. See Dennis, , op. cit., pp. 170–71.Google Scholar
26 Sherman to Hitchcock, Mar. 16, 1898, Instructions, Russia, vol. 18.
27 Foord, John, “The genesis of the Open Door,” Asia: Journal of the American Asiatic association. vol. 2 (1901–1903), p. 122.Google Scholar
28 For accounts of the imperialistic sentiment at the turn of the century see Dulles, F. R., Americans in the Pacific; a century of expansion (Boston and New York, 1932)Google Scholar; Pratt, of. cit.; Harrington, F. H., “The anti-imperialist movement in the United States, 1898–1900,” Mississippi Valley historical review, vol. 22 (Sept., 1935), pp. 211–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weinberg, A. K., Manifest Destiny; a study in nationalist expansionism in American history (Baltimore, 1935).Google Scholar
29 Pratt, , op. cit., pp. 267–71.Google Scholar
30 Events transpiring in China at the time also helped keep up public interest in that country. Japan secured a pledge from China not to alienate the valuable province of Fukien to any other country; Kwangchow Wan was leased to France; Kowloon and Weihaiwei were leased to Great Britain.
31 Asia, vol. 1 (1898–1901), p. 45.Google Scholar
32 The American Asiatic Association, 1899, op. cit., p. 2.
33 Miscellaneous Letters, June, 1898, part 2. For the complete list of members at a later date see The American Asiatic Association, 1900 (unpublished pamphlet), pp. 27–32.
34 House doc. 536, 55th Cong., 2nd Sess.
35 J. S. Fearon to C. N. Bliss, Sept. 24, 1898, Miscellaneous Letters, Sept., 1898, part 2. Bliss referred the letter to the State Department.
36 New York Chamber of Commerce to Hay, Oct. 10, 1898, Ibid., Oct., 1898, part 1.
37 Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1898 (Washington, 1901), p. lxxii.Google Scholar
38 It might perhaps be more realistic to treat the war as having ended with the armistice of August 12, 1898, although the United States did not ratify the peace treaty until February 6, 1899. Nevertheless, it has seemed better to include events of the last months of 1898 in the section dealing with the war, although events of January, 1899, have not been included in it.
39 To the Secretary of State, Jan. 3, 1899, Miscellaneous Letters, Jan., 1899, part 1.
40 Hay to Pierce, Feb. 2, 1899, Instructions, Russia, vol. 18, p. 156, no. 213. Hay to Conger, Feb. 2, 1899, Instructions, China, vol. 5, p. 644, no. 126.
41 Hay to Tower, Mar. 10, 1899, Instructions, Russia, vol. 18, pp. 171–72, no. 14.
42 Foord to Hay, Jan. 7, 1899, Miscellaneous Letters, Jan., 1899, part 1.
43 Foord and Brewster to Hay, Mar. 23, 1899, Ibid., Mar., 1899.
44 Hay to Conger, Apr. 3, 1899, Instructions, China, vol. 5, pp. 660–61, no. 155. Another episode of early 1899 which should perhaps be mentioned was the visit of Lord Charles Beresford to the United States. Beresford was a member of Parliament who was anxious to have the United States co-operate with Great Britain in maintaining the Open Door. While'in America Beresford addressed the Asiatic Association and, in consequence ofa petition (signed by officials of the Association among others), spoke to the New York Chamber of Commerce as well. For an account of his trip in the United States see his book, The break-up of China (New York and London, 1899)Google Scholar, chap.29.
45 Journal of commerce and commercial bulletin, Jan. 24, 1899.Google Scholar
46 Ibid., Mar. 18, 1899. One wonders if John Foord, as editor of the journal, did not write these words and then, as secretary of the Asiatic Association, help launch the propaganda campaign described below.
47 Minute-Book of the American Asiatic Association, 1898–1919, p. 17, meeting of Mar. 2, 1899; Ibid., p. 19, meeting of Mar. 17, 1899.
48 For information regarding the campaign see The American Asiatic Association, 1900, op. cit., p. 19. For a complete list of contributors to the propaganda fund see Asia, vol. 1, p. 58 and p. 108.
49 Journal of commerce and commercial bulletin, Nov. 11, 1899.Google Scholar
50 Ibid., Jan. 27, 1900.
51 Asia, vol. 2, p. 5.
52 Journal of commerce and commercial bulletin, Feb. 20, 1900.Google Scholar
53 Asia, vol. 1, p. 73.
54 References to the cordial reception given the Open Door notes can be found in many business journals. See also the Literary digest, vol. 19 (Nov., 1899), p. 607Google Scholar; Proceedings of the thirtieth annual meeting of the national board of trade, Jan., 1900, p. 290Google Scholar; Proceedings of the fifth annual convention of the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America, Apr., 1900, pp. 113–14.Google Scholar
55 See Rockhill, W. W., Treaties and conventions with or concerning China and Korea, 1894–1904, together with various state papers and documents affecting foreign interests (Washington, 1904), pp. 259–77Google Scholar. It is interesting to come across Alfred Hippisley's remark to his friend, W. W. Rockhill: “China can hardly decline to do so [conclude the contract with the Development Company] much longer in view of what American diplomacy is doing for her” (Papers of W. W. Rockhill, Nov. 4 1899).
