In 1924 the U.S. Congress passed legislation severely limiting immigration from Europe, and cutting off almost all immigration f
rom Asia. Two years earlier the Supreme Court had ruled that Asians were ineligible for U.S. citizenship. The Japanese viewed such measures as deliberate insults, and responded by organizing boycotts of American products. The following editorial appeared in the April 29, 1924 issue of the Japan Times and Mail. The fact remains that the Senate has passed, with an overwhelming majority, an amendment which they know is a most humiliating one to the Japanese race, and the event cuts the Japanese minds deep, a wound that will hurt and rankle for generations and generations....
...[T]he Senate has been most unfortunate in the choice of time for taking its action. While professing to be jubilant over the increased prospects of permanency of peace in consequence of the Washington Conference, all Japanese have ever since felt in the secret recesses of their heart that their country has been considerably weakened in its naval strength. To add to this there came that great devastating earthquake of last year [1923, when a massive earthquake destroyed a large section of Tokyo], with its far reaching effect in all directions, seen especially in the ever-increasing balance of the country’s trade on the wrong side. It has been said openly more than once in different quarters abroad that Japan is as good as crushed to a naval and economic helplessness, from which there will be no recovering for a generation or two. Mark, then, it is at such a time that the Senate of the United States has said practically this: “We deliberately offer you this insult, knowing that you can do no more than make a wry face.”
This is extremely unfortunate. For a friendly turn in the hour of need will be remembered permanently, but an unfriendly act that takes advantage of one’s helpless condition makes nothing of all the past and darkens the long future....
QUESTION 7 STANDARD RI.1
Why did Japan refer to the actions of the Congress and the Supreme Court an act of war?
At the conclusion of World War I, allied victors took a coercive approach to Germany. Vigorous negotiations culminated in the "war guilt clause" of the Versailles Convention, which established Germany as the primary party responsible for the war and pressured it to pay reparations.
"as a question of property rights" is the best option as to how slave labor in America was primarily seen in the 1850s, since it was an issue of state's rights.
