Expansionism v. ImperialismI. Background Expansionism is con.docx

Expansionism v. Imperialism
I. Background: Expansionism is continuation of “Manifest
Destiny”
a. the United States was divinely ordained to enter new regions
because the country had the right government, e.g. democracy,
the proper religion, and a growing population.
b. Ideology led people to expand West (under the misguided
belief that they were not imposing on anyone else).
c. Imperialist countries seek to gain the wealth of other
countries by dominating their markets, economy, and raw
materials.
II. Annexing New Regions
a. “Seward’s Folly”
i. Secretary of State, William Seward (1861-1869) envisioned
Pan-America under the control of the United States.
ii. Purchased Alaska in an effort to secure the U.S. from
Russian expansion, and as part of his vision.
b. Hawaii
i. American settlers living in Hawaii dominated the sugar
market through the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875.
ii. Hawaii’s Queen, Liliuokalani, sought to restore power to the
people of Hawaii by regaining control of their most valuable
resource—sugar.
iii. McKinley convinced the people that Japan sought control of
Hawaii, therefore it was in U.S. interest to annex the islands as
a matter of national security.
III. Popular Influences on Foreign policy
a. New arguments emerging about the role of the United States
and its place in global affairs were clearly connected to
Darwin’s scientific work and social thought of the late 19th
century.
b. Alfred Thayer Mahan, Influence of Sea Power upon History
i.

ii.
c. John Fiske, American Political Ideas (1885) Argued that
Anglo-Saxon race was superior, or most fit to survive…destiny
of human race required spread of Anglo genes.
d. Josiah Strong, Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its
Present Crisis (1885)
i.
e. Albert Beveridge, “The Command of the Pacific” (1902)
IV. Case Study: Cuba
a. Cuba is fighting for Independence from Spain; The Cuban
War for Independence is known as the Ten Years’ War in Cuba
b. New York Journal and New York World, yellow journalism,
began covering war crimes in Cuba.
c. Why is the U.S. interested in going into Cuba?
d. Other Factors influencing U.S. involvement
i. De Lome letter---denounced McKinley for not entering the
war to help Cuba, making him appear weak.
ii. Maine: U.S. ship in the region of Havana that exploded and
sank, which was viewed as an attack by Spain, even though
research demonstrated later that a fire in coal bunker caused the
explosion.
e. Teller Amendment—
f. Concluded with the Treaty of Paris, with help from William
Jennings Bryan who represented the Anti-Imperialists but
endorsed the Treaty in an effort to bring peace.
i. The U.S. annexed Guam, Philippines, and Puerto Rico--
despite the Teller Amend.

ii. Spain disputed this annexation--so the U.S. gave them $20
Million for the three island countries.
V. Anti-Imperialist League
a. Imperialism undermines democracy
b. Pro-Isolationism; no foreign involvement
c. Inconsistency- Cuban Independence/annexation of the
Philippines.
d. Investment in Domestic Labor—Samuel Gompers/AFL
e. Undermining the Monroe Doctrine—no colonization.
f. Worry that new territories will be expensive to
maintain/secure.
VI. Debating Annexation:
VII. Gender Interpretations of History
a. What does it mean to conquer?
VIII. Annexation & Foreign Policy
a. Filipino Insurrection
i. Emilio Aquinaldo: rebel that was exiled by Spain, but brought
back to power by the United States to help the U.S. beat Spain.
ii. (1917) declared an “unorganized territory”
iii. Tydings-McDuffie Act (1934)
b. Annexing Puerto Rico
i. Function of island: Caribbean guarding station
ii. Foraker Act (1900) est. a civil government; controlled by
Presidential appointees; Puertoriqueños disillusionment
iii. 1917—Partial Citizenship
c. Cuba & the Platt Amendment:

d. Open Door Policy: This policy urged major powers to keep
China trade open to all investors and merchants; on an equal
basis.
i. Rejected by Anti-Imperialists because it subjected Chinese
sovereignty to the will of other countries.
ii. Boxer Rebellion--Chinese nationalists rebelled against the
Open Door out of discontent of foreigners overpowering the
Chinese.
iii. Gunboat Diplomacy:
IX. 1900 Election
a. Democrats—William Jennings Bryan
b. Republicans--W. McKinley and Roosevelt
X. Roosevelt
a. Roosevelt’s Background
b. Panama Canal
i. Hay-Herran Treaty (1903) agreement between U.S. Secretary
of State and Colombian Ambassador to build a canal through
Panama region of Colombia in exchange for $10 Million (down-
payment) $250,000 per year (annual usage fee); Colombia
rejected the terms; wanted $25 Million
ii. “Speak softly and carry a big stick”
iii. The U.S. did not give up control of the canal zone until
1999, when it power of the region finally reverted back to

Panama.
c. Roosevelt Corollary: Stated that the U.S. had the right to
intervene on behalf of American countries prior to foreign
intervention by European countries.
d. In theory, the policy was meant to allow the U.S. to
“police”the Western Hemisphere, and protect all American
countries from invasion.
e. This policy has had negative implications in Latin America as
many of those nations begin to feel dominated by the U.S.
Mexican American Society
1848-1890
*
Source: David J. Weber, Foreigners in Their Native Lands
Future Timing Note: This lecture took 3 hours, integrating a
five minute discussion of The Ballad of Gregorio Cortez and a
discussion of the Pablo Mares reading (15 minutes).
Problems for Mexican Americans after the war….Should I Stay
or Should I go?: The Mexican American Dilemma
Betrayal of Treaty of Guadalupe HidalgoCitizenship
ContestedRepresentation DeniedLand Claims were not
protectedNo Justice for Mexican Americans

Manifest DestinyFueled by a strong belief in “Manifest
Destiny” U.S. political leaders promoted war against
Mexico:".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and
to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has
given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty
and federaltive development of self-government entrusted to us.
It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the
earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny
of growth."
Military ConquestOutcome:Mexico lost half of its national
territoryThe United States increased by one-thirdNew states
carved out of land gains: Arizona, Colorado, Texas, New
Mexico, Nevada, California, Utah, and portions of Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Treaty of Guadalupe HidalgoGave
Mexican descendants one year to relocate south or seek dual-
citizenship before claiming US citizenshipProvided all rights of
legal US citizens to those who stayedEnsured freedom of
religion
RacismAscribed Judgments:Stephen F. Austin commented on
the war following independence as “a war of barbarism and of
despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and
Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race.”
What judgments are made about the Mexican government? Of
the Mexican population?What positive attribute does Austin
ascribe to Anglo society?

Between Two WorldsThe Treaty compensated Mexicans wishing
to return to Mexico (repatriate):Mexicans were to be provided
with land grants in Northern MexicoMexicans from Alta
California would be given property in Baja California.Hispanos
from New Mexico would receive grants in Chihuahua.Tejanos
received land in Coahuila or neighboring states.The Mexican
government even offered to pay half the passage cost and
provide additional political rights not previously granted.
*
Limitations of this repatriation effort: not well-funded or
organized. Information about how to file for new land grants
not readily accessible.
Repatriation statistics are weak:Gold discoveries would have
inspired many to stay, but also drew a number of Mexican
immigrants to the region, so repatriation figures are uncertain
by probably low. The war in Mexico against the invading
French government would have been a deterrent to repatriation.
Between Two WorldsAmong the portion of the population
choosing not to stay in the U.S, some 2,000 Mexicans migrated
across the border into Mexico, only to conquered again, this
time by a political agreement . In 1853, The Gadsden Purchase
brought an additional 30,000 sq. miles into the U.S.
Between Two WorldsAccording to the Treaty, those who chose

to stay in the U.S. became citizens, with equal protection under
the law and representation within the political process.Dual
Citizenship:The treaty also allowed conquered Mexicans the
right to retain their Mexican citizenship, though residing in the
U.S. as United States citizens, if requested within one year of
treaty.However, dual citizenship was often treated by Anglos as
a sign that Mexican Americans were not loyal, or had
immigrated to US.
Article IX requiring the U.S. to recognize Mexican Americans
as citizens was amended ex post facto by the Senate, now
stating:
“[Mexicans not choosing to remain citizens of Mexico] shall be
incorporated into the Union of the United States and be
admitted, at the proper time (to be judged by the Congress of
the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of the
Constitution; and in the meantime shall be maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property,
and secured in the free exercise of their religion without
restriction.”Citizenship remained uncertain, with some regions
of the southwest acknowledging rights, while others regions and
institutions—the Supreme Court—refused rights or remained
intentionally vague about the application of rights.
Supreme Court noted that the 14th Amendment did not clearly
state that Mexican Americans were intended to have citizenship
rights.
*
No Citizenship, No PropertyThe Texas Constitution of 1836
refused citizenship and property rights to any person in Texas
who refused to participate in the revolution, or who aided the
enemy.This policy was used against all Mexicans, regardless of

their political participation in the revolution.Mexican
Americans accounted for only 5% of the population in Texas by
1850, making it difficult to change the policy.
*
Didn’t the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Trump the Texas
Constitution?A Tejano woman (Saviego) appealed to the US
Supreme Court for official recognition of her family’s land
claim, which existed prior to Texas independence, even though
her family had not lived in the region since the 1820s.According
to the 1855 Supreme Court ruling in McKinney vs. Saviego, the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo did not apply to Texas.As a result,
the woman lost her land claim based upon the Texas
Constitution provision, which was used to argue that her family
was sympathetic to the Mexican government.
Grant Disputes, Squatters, and
the High Price of DefenseCalifornia Land Act of 1851 was a
state policy molded after the Protocol of Quéretaro; required
proof of grant validitySpanish and Mexican land grants did not
clearly define the boundaries of the grants provided, in part
because the grant was always temporary and subject to
redistribution.The U.S. usually only allotted Mexicans a portion
of their land claim, often arguing that the grants allotted too
vast a portion of land to Mexicans.In many regions of
California, so few people were allotted land by the Spanish and
Mexican governments, that when they were the land allotted
might be “between two ranges of mountains.”

the High Price of DefenseLincoln’s Homestead Act 1862
promised settlers 160 acres, in exchange for $10 registration fee
and agreement to work the land for five years.However, as early
as 1841 Congress began upholding the Preemption Policy,
giving squatters the right to take control of property appearing
unsettled and pay the owner the base price of $1.25 per acre,
without fear of eviction.By mandating Mexican American
society prove land claims, the U.S. gov’t sent the message that
grants were fraudulent, thereby sanctioning squatter
encroachment.
In Frank Triplett’s Conquering the Wilderness, a popular read
in 1883, among of the illustrations two captions were entitled
“Greasers” and “Murderous Mexicans.”
“This Territory is largely populated by ignorant and non-
English speaking Mexicans and ‘greasers,’ and has been much
harried by Indian wars.”
~ New York Times, June 4, 1880
Kupa, California 1895

As a result of these kinds of statements and policies, squatters
moved in on Mexican Americans, settled (and protected their
parcel with vigilante force) while the land- grant owner was
forced to pay fees authorizing his right to the land.
the High Price of DefenseThe litigation process was drawn out
and costly:Lawyer fees, court fees, survey costs, all served to
drain the resources and wherewithal of claimants.Despite laws
requiring translation of policies into Spanish in California and
New Mexico, this was not the practice and many claimants were
forced to pay translators in addition to lawyer fees.Land
claimants were also forced to pay travelling expenses, etc. to
make their appeal.
While 75% of claims were finally recognized, Mexican
American grant owners paid a heavy price.604 of 813 land
claims in California were recognized.
High Price of DefenseStephen Powers and James Wells of
Brownsville made a living defending Mexican land rights.
Studies show the average case lasted seventeen years, resulting
in high lawyer fees. Powers and Wells charged a hefty fee,
which they allowed to be paid in land. Mexicans who were
lucky enough to win their cases, still ended up losing the battle.
Overtime, the lawyers accumulated 44,000 acres.

the High Price of DefenseWinning land claim didn’t
matter:Preemption Policy still supported the squatter’s right to
settle, in essence, forcing the land claimant to divide his
property, and reduced his ability to sustain a bonanza farm or
land for grazing.
The Ejido is not recognized by the government:The Ejido was a
communal property grant, given by the Mexican government to
assist outlying communities with their subsistence crop
needs.These communal land grants were supposed to be
recognized according to the Treaty G.H.Loss of ejido property
had the greatest effect on poor Hispanos and Indian neophytes.
Communal Land and Resources Denied
Displaced Indian neophytes outside San Diego
Taxation was unfair by Mexican standards:Mexican taxation
was assessed according to the product produced on the land,
with ranch property taxed higher than tobacco fields and grape
vineyards.The U.S. assessed a flat property tax.
Taxes Promoted Dispossession of LandNorthern California
(Anglo)Southern California (Mexican Amer.)Pop. 120,000Pop.
6,000Property taxes totaled: $21,000Property taxes totaled:
$42,000Poll Taxes (to vote) totaled:
$3,500Poll Taxes (to vote) totaled: $4,000
*
75% of land claims favored the Mexican petitioners, but left
them “land rich but money poor,” according to Gonzales, p. 87.

Disenos, or property descriptions were offered by the Mexican
grants, but not survey-style boundary markers.
Source for California comparison: Acuna, p. 113
Voices of Reason:
Hutchings’ California Magazine, 1857
“When the American Government took California, it was in
honor bound to leave the titles to property as secure as they
were at the time of transfer, and express provision to this effect
was made in the treaty. Let us imagine that California were to
be again transferred to some other power, whose land system is
far more complex and strict than our own, and that all our
present titles should be declared incomplete and
insecure….would we not exclaim against it as extremely
unjust.”
Anglo Immigration Undermines Mexican American Citizenship
RightsOne problem limiting Mexican Americans’ ability to
contest these policy changes was the increase in Anglo
immigration to the West, shifting minority/majority
demographics.The Anglo population quadrupled in many
regions, thereby relegating Mexicans to a political
minority.Only in New Mexico did Mexican Americans continue
to outnumber Anglos.In regions where Mexicans were the
majority, Anglos tended to assimilate and relations were
cordial.
Example on next slide of cordial relations?
*

The Mexican American population in 1848 numbered
approximately 75,000, representing just 1% of the minority pop.
in the U.S.
DisfranchisementPrior to the Civil War the United States
enforced tough restrictions on suffrage.Irish were not “white
enough” Mexicans, as conquered individuals who had been
portrayed as an inferior race by US expansionists, also deemed
unworthy of vote15th Amendment (1870) prohibited govt. from
denying any male the right to vote based upon “race, religion,
ethnicity, or previous status”Jim Crow laws developed to
legally restrict “undesired” voters.
*
Methods of DisfranchisementJim Crow LawsLiteracy tests,
criminal record, proof of residency for six months, poll taxes,
etc.Greaser Act: California policy targeted vagrants of Spanish
or Indian decent, deemed them non-residents, and jailed them,
creating criminal history and providing status-quo with a
legitimate reason for disfranchising the individual.In addition,
vagrants could and were sold as slaves to work off
fines.Grandfather Clause allowed illiterate whites the right to
vote because their grandfather was alive prior to January 1,
1867
Jim Crow laws violated the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which
stated:

no individual would be denied the right to vote, hold office, or
sit on juries because of “inability to speak, read or write the
English or Spanish languages.”
People v. Elyea
The Case of Manuel DominguezDespite the California policy
ensuring Native Americans would not be immediately barred
from voting based upon traditional US understanding of tribal
organizations, one of the original signers of the state
constitution, Manuel Dominguez, was denied the right to testify
in court against Anglos due to his “Indian blood;” this just three
years after having participated in establishing the new
government.
Mintz: People v. de la Guerra p.105
*
Methods of DisfranchisementSpecifically impacted Mexican
Americans who sought to retain Mexican ties. Since many
traveled to visit family in Mexico, they were unaware or
unprepared to pay the tax at the beginning of the year, only
learning closer to the election that they would be unable to vote.
Poll taxesTax collected at the beginning of the year, which must
be paid prior to vote.Designed to eliminate impoverished
people.
“Better Luck Next Time… he, he, he”
Methods of Disfranchisement“All White Primaries”The primary
election is the real political determinant; those chosen at the

primaries will have the opportunity to change the system. If
there is not a Mexican American representative chosen, change
is unlikely.In Texas, all-white primaries continued until the
1950s.Mexican Americans who retained the ability to vote did
so because:They were protected by Anglo elitesThey did not
challenge the system openly
Mexican Americans who Voted were not RepresentedPolitical
Machines Politicians with control and influence learned to make
promises of resources, which would only be provided around
election time, and even then were limited to one or two of the
requests.San Antonio controlled by Bryan CallaghanMexicans
who voted to keep Callaghan and his family in political office
received minor community benefits around election time.
(patronage system)Brownsville was controlled by Jim
WellsWells became so determined to hold on to his power that
he began assisting in immigration operations from northern
Mexico, promising citizenship in return for a vote.
Callaghan vs. Boss Tweed
Like Boss Tweed, leader of the Tammany Hall political
machine in New York City, Bryan Callaghan was accused of
manipulating the votes, favoritism, and awarding certain sectors
of the population city services in exchange for votes. Both men
were esteemed by the minority population they preyed upon.
Unlike Tweed, Callaghan did not personally profit, nor obtain
great wealth from his manipulation of the voters.
Promoting Divisiveness Using CasteInterethnic rivalry
strengthened Anglo status-quoImmigrants from Mexico were

referred to as “Cholos,” a derogatory term used by elite
Californios to distinguish new comers from original
residents.Moreover, Mexican elites claimed to be of European
stock (from Spain) to distinguish themselves from the mestizo
majority, and intermarried with Anglo migrants from the East,
demonstrating that class & caste are more powerful than
nationalism. Anglos were able to keep Mexican political and
cultural interests from prevailing by fueling this division.This
factionalism demonstrates one of the long-term problems among
Mexican Americans in their struggle to unite for political
representation.
*
People v. de la Guerra De la Guerra ran for the district judge
seat, but his opponents accused him of being ineligible for the
position because he was “not a citizen.”In People v. de al
Guerra, the courts ruled in de la Guerra’s favor, recognizing
him a citizen.Essentially, he “passed.” His three daughters
were all married to Anglo men, who would have been negatively
effected had Pablo not been deemed “a citizen.”Pablo de la
Guerra was a second generation Spaniard with a sizable land
grant in California. Like Manuel Dominguez, he was also a
signer of the California Constitution.
Marrying Up: Method for SurvivalMariano Vallejo, “Spanish
Don”Vallejo was the largest landowner in California and had
strong Anglo alliances during the Mexican American War.All of
his children, granddaughters, and three of his sisters married
Anglos.

Some scholars accuse him of being a vendido, or sell out, while
others note his need to place family before
community.“Whitening” line ensured better treatment for each
generation.Anglo connections served to ensure legitimacy
among the evolving status quo; family retains political power.
Gonzales, 101 lists specific stats about Mesilla Valley and
intermarriage.
*
Anglos are preying upon wealthy Spanish women as a method of
easy mobility and political support.Catholic associates and
laborers on the property would throw their votes behind the
Anglo, who could become a political boss in the long
run.However, Mexican women lost their appeal as more Anglo
women entered the scene.
New Boundaries were carved out to better control political
space
New Mexico: Too Mexican?The demographics in New Mexico
continued to favor Mexicans, creating some concern for national
politics.As a territory, the region was reduced in size to ensure
Mexican American voters had limited impact on national
issues.Part of the region was taken to create the territories of
Colorado and Arizona. Early state constitution drafts also
ensured bilingual rights and education, and prohibited
segregation. Between 1850-1912, New Mexico was repeatedly
denied statehood due to large Hispanic population figures.

Harper’s Weekly on New Mexico
“Of the present population,...nine-tenths are Mexicans, Indians,
“greasers,” and other non-English speaking people…..The
proposition of the admission of New Mexico as a State is, that
such a population, in such a civilization, of industries, and
intelligence, and with such forbidding prospects of speedy
improvement or increase—a community almost without the
characteristic and indispensible qualities of an American state—
shall have a representation in the national Senate as large as
New York, and in the House shall be equal to Delaware. It is
virtually an ignorant foreign community under the influence of
the Roman Church, and neither for the advantage of the Union
nor for its own benefit can such an addition to the family of the
American States be urged.”
Anglo development in New Mexico was specifically attentive to
mercantile and transportation development. The majority of
New Mexicans, or Hispanos, were pastoral, meaning their
economy was largely based on raising sheep for meat and wool.
This way of life was viewed by Anglos as “backward.”
Santa Fe RingNew Mexico remained a territory until 1912,
making it easier to control local politics.The territorial governor
is chosen by the president of the US, and all other offices in
New Mexico are chosen by the governor. (no
democracy)Thomas Catron—gov., lawyer, U.S. Attn.
Gen.Stephen Elkins—gov., lawyer, Pres. of BankLe Baron
Bradford Prince—gov., lawyer, chief justice of New Mexico.
Men stayed in power, rotating governor seat by lobbying GOP

and using Hispano elites
Research for future material using Lamar’s The Far Southwest
(already started reading some)
*
The United States established new state boundaries, often
positioning land grants in more than one state, which would
then require appeal in both states.Politicos in New Mexico
monopolized the state’s resources (surveyor, judges, etc.) to
ensure their claims were won.Under the Santa Fe political ring,
80% of Mexican American land claims were denied.
Santa Fe RingCycle of displacement under territorial
government: Governor appoints lackeys, who control the
creation and enforcement of policies. In the case of the “ring”
leaders, surveyors spent most of their time surveying the
politicians’ land grants.{IF grant survives and is approved}
Laws are created to weaken the influence of undesirables
(expensive water works program, fancy development),
increasing property taxes so the poor have to sell. {If you can
pay for these improvements} Mexican American farmers
needing capital to expand their production might, find
exploitative interest rates among bankers and merchants, also
seeking to bring about land forfeiture. However, bankers often
denied credit to ensure eventual failure.See Milagro Beanfield
War
Clip of film: Seeks work—denied; looks at development that
doesn’t benefit him; looks at property—kicks water and has an
idea; becomes a social bandit.

Santa Fe RingCatron and friends managed to amass millions of
acres, most notable were:Tierra Amarilla Grant, bordering New
Mexico and Colorado; 600,000 acresMaxwell Land Grant, which
included part of the communal property owned by Taos
residents. When gold was discovered on the property, Anglo
residents began to lay claim to parcels.Formed the Squatters
Club, an organization to protect the rights of squatters
(individuals occupying the land)
Gorras Blancas / “White Caps”In reaction to the state’s neglect
of ordinary Mexican land claims, politicized vaqueros formed
their own organization and targeted “land-grabbers.” Known
for cutting fences, destroying rail lines, severing telegraph
connections, and burning elite ranches.While political leaders
condemned this group as an ignorant vigilante horde, some
journalists were quick to sympathize with New Mexicans:
“While fence-cutting is wrong, in the eyes of the law a heinous
crime, still the crime of grabbing land, fencing up pasturage,
water, wood and road-ways from the people to whom the
privilege of access belongs, is still a greater crime.”
~Las Vegas Optic, 1890
Richard King, an associate of Charles Stillman (Brownsville
founding father, rancher, and legal swindler) amassed a vast
property in south Texas. Before he died he compiled more than
600,000 acres, and surpassed 1 Million acres under his widows
authority. (She was of Spanish ancestry) A profiteer on the

level of Cornelius Vanderbilt, King used political connections
and legal chicanery to obtain Mexican property.
King Ranch Corporation
*
Research Thomas B. Catron and the Santa Fe Ring, Foreigners,
p. 157.
The Cerda AffairThe Cerda family lived near Brownsville, on
property neighboring the King Ranch.Research demonstrates
that the men of the Cerda family (father and three sons) were
hunted down and killed for “cattle rustling” by Texas
Rangers.King took control of
the property.
Rangers “discover” four Mexican “bandits”
Anglos Assumed Control of the LandMexican Americans who
continued to appeal for legal land grant recognition were
threatened, intimidated, and even killed to ensure Anglo rights
to the property or resources.Anglos burnt crops and razed
orchards, stole or destroyed livestock, and tormented vaqueros
to drive Mexicans off the land.One Anglo noted that if the land
owner wouldn’t sell the property, “than his widow would.”
Anglos Assumed Control of the Economic Structure
The Cart War of 1857Mexican tradesmen and muleteers were
targeted by Anglos seeking to control commerce in

Texas.Anglos murdered leading businessmen.They stole their
oxen and destroyed freight carts and products.Despite official
Mexican pleas for support, local and federal Anglo officials
disregarded the injustice.
*
Develop later: Range Wars, Lincoln County wars, Cortina War,
Salt War
Anglos Assumed Control of the Economic StructureSalt War
(1860s)Feud over control of salt bed outside of El Paso
:Mexicans on both side of the Rio Grande treated the resource
as communal propertyHowever, as Anglos realized the salt’s
location and sought to control the commodity, one Anglo
political boss claimed salt land and monopolized salt sale and
distribution, thus causing an insurrection.A Mexican farmer
killed one of the Anglo bosses, deemed just by the
protesters.The Texas Rangers retaliated against the community,
killing more than ten people in the process.
Justice In Texas: Texas Rangers
The Texas Rangers were known for “shooting first” and
“asking questions later.” Mexican Americans were frequently
killed in “the course of being captured.” Rarely were these
cases investigated.
Committees of VigilanceLynching & terror campaigns were
condoned:Vigilante justice did not acknowledge killing of

Native Americans as a crime; it seems Mexican Americans were
easily written off too.Public whippings and branding were also
common.Fair Trials: Not for MexicansWhen, in 1876, a
Mexican murdered an Anglo rancher, his friends sought justice
by murdering local Mexicans.Nearly forty were killed in this
incident.
No Double Gender Standard Here…Mexican Americans were
denied proper justice: The Case Against Juanita, 1851She was
accused of stabbing to death an Anglo man who broke into her
home in the middle of the night, where children were
present.Rather than acknowledge her right to self-defense, she
was found guilty of murder.Her jurors: the Anglo miner’s
friends.Her sentence: lynchingShe was the first and only woman
in California to ever be executed.
Surrender of Land, Economic OppressionMany Mexican
American families were reduced to the debt-peonage labor
system.Debt-peonage is the equivalent of institutionalized
sharecropping or slavery. Labor is provided (service in fields
or by care of livestock) in exchange for shelter and share of
crop.The landowner may also own a store where laborers can
access tools, additional food items, or clothing on credit. As
long as a debt remains on the books, the laborer is tied to the
landowner.
Border CultureSource: Américo ParedesArgument: As two
cultures confronted each other along the border, violence

prevailed, group identity was challenged and reshaped, and a
new border folklore emerged among Mexicans seeking to retain
a space for their unique experience.
Vaquero Image & “Cowboy” Culture
Bottom: Luis Jimenez’ “Vaquero” in Moody Park, Houston
Right: Pres. Teddy Roosevelt
Paredes argues
Anglos viewed the
vaquero as super-masculine, taming the wild and controlling
nature. Anglos assumed this identity, modifying it with the
Stetson hat and six-shooter.
Border CultureParedes also makes clear that the border was part
of the U.S. imagination, but not a barrier preventing
intermingling or cultural interaction.Families existed on either
side of the border. Relatives travelled over the border to visit
and exchange resources. Explains that “folk attitudes” favoring
the bandit and smuggler developed in reaction to the rigid
hostility associated with border regulations and “los rinches.”
Border Culture: Folk HeroThe Bandido is a popular outlaw
character in western culture, i.e. Zorro.The character reinforces
popular stereotypes without investigating root causes of
protests.“Social Bandit” is a lawbreaker who has popular
support, usually because his crime is viewed by society as a
reaction to structural oppression.Joaquin MurietaRanch was
raided by Anglo vigilantes, crops were destroyed, wife
was raped.He began retaliating by robbing

stagecoaches and banks
His name and character became synonymous with “Robin Hood”
*
Border Culture: Folk HeroLegendary bandits become part of the
popular culture:The corrido, story set to music, immortalized
banditryAt the same time, Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show
tended to reinforce stereotypes of the Indian and Mexican
American population.
Border Culture: Folk HeroMany historical figures have been
immortalized by border corridos, but Paredes does argue there
are limitations.Drug traffickers have not captured popular
favorAlso notes that corridos have been written favoring
Mexican Americans and Anglos alike.“A Zaragosa” honors the
efforts of U.S. born Ignacio Zaragosa in the battle against the
French in Mexico (Cinco de Mayo).“A Grant” honors
President/General Grant for victorious work against the
Confederacy.
Helen Hunt Jackson, RamonaH.H. Jackson was a popular writer,
who questioned the ethics of U.S. policy in relationship to
people of the west.A Century of Dishonor —Native American
treatment Ramona –denounced forced Americanization of
Mexican Americans and Native AmericansShe tried to soften
the west, and humanize the “foreign.”Her portrayal of the
region was so sweet and rich that it actually fueled Anglo
settlement and resulted in the development of the “Spanish

fantasy heritage.”Settlers want the “rancho” life, without the
“brown” people.
*
Source: David J. Weber, Foreigners in Their Native Lands
Future Timing Note: This lecture took 3 hours, integrating a
five minute discussion of The Ballad of Gregorio Cortez and a
discussion of the Pablo Mares reading (15 minutes).
*
Limitations of this repatriation effort: not well-funded or
organized. Information about how to file for new land grants
not readily accessible.
Supreme Court noted that the 14th Amendment did not clearly
state that Mexican Americans were intended to have citizenship
rights.
*
*
*
75% of land claims favored the Mexican petitioners, but left
them “land rich but money poor,” according to Gonzales, p. 87.
Disenos, or property descriptions were offered by the Mexican
grants, but not survey-style boundary markers.
Source for California comparison: Acuna, p. 113
Example on next slide of cordial relations?
*
*
Mintz: People v. de la Guerra p.105
*
*
Gonzales, 101 lists specific stats about Mesilla Valley and

intermarriage.
*
Men stayed in power, rotating governor seat by lobbying GOP
and using Hispano elites
Research for future material using Lamar’s The Far Southwest
(already started reading some)
*
Clip of film: Seeks work—denied; looks at development that
doesn’t benefit him; looks at property—kicks water and has an
idea; becomes a social bandit.
*
Research Thomas B. Catron and the Santa Fe Ring, Foreigners,
p. 157.
*
Develop later: Range Wars, Lincoln County wars, Cortina War,
Salt War
His name and character became synonymous with “Robin Hood”
*
Labor, Unions, and
Urban Development
Assessing the West During the
Second Industrial Revolution
Immigration Theory
• The “push-pull” theory holds that the migrating
population is “pulled” into the receiving country
while being “pushed” out of the country of origin.

– Origins of Theory:
• “Push” Mexican Revolution stirrings by 1910
• “Pull” Second Industrial Revolution in the U.S.
• This lecture will provide evidence demonstrating how
investors lured
immigrants into U.S. employment, but it will also show that
investors
wanted to create the perception that migrant labors, and more
specifically Mexican Americans, were all immigrants. Why
might the
status quo want to perpetuate an immigrant identity for one
particular
ethnic group?
• Proponents of this theory argue the “push” factors
in the country of origin are directly linked to the
investments made by global capitalism, often
represented by the receiving country.
– In the case of Mexican migration, scholars argue
United States’ investment in Mexico effects the
country in ways that promote migration; rather
than improving conditions, the investment weakens
Mexicans desire to remain in Mexico.
Immigration Theory
Why is it better to go

than to stay?
Population is displaced
by foreign investment
Population
DECIDES
better to go
than to stay
“pushed”
Population
sees new
pulled
Second Industrial Revolution: In Brief
• Pacific Railway Bill (1862)
– Lincoln offered government funded land grants to private
investors to build the transcontinental railroad.
– By 1869, the Central Pacific and Union Pacific were
joined together in Promontory, Utah.
Second Industrial Revolution: In Brief

• Immediate Effects of the Railroad:
– The railroad increased property values
– stimulated local mining interests
– increased Anglo settlement and Mexican
transmigration patterns
– collapsed old transportation industries, such as
muleteering
– created new ones dependent upon the United
States banking system, thereby devaluing the peso.
Southern Pacific Rail
• The Southern Pacific entered El Paso in 1881
and linked to the Mexican Central by 1884.
Laboring on the Railroads
• Ex-soldiers and Irish immigrants labored on the
Transcontinental Railroad; they worked from the East.
• (90%) Chinese immigrants imported from China strictly

as labor by private investors with the railroad, however,
some may have already been in the United States from
the lure of the California gold rush.
• Chinese laborers were asked to step aside.
• Private US investors worked with Porfirio Diaz, dictator of
Mexico, to fund railroads in northern Mexico.
• These lines connected Tombstone, El Paso, San Antonio,
and Laredo in the United States to Nogales, Guadalajara,
and Cananea in Mexico allowing easy transportation in
and out of the country to migrant workers recruited by US
• Mexican laborers were recruited, along with the
Chinese, Irish, Greek, and Italian population, to work on
railroad maintenance. For many Mexicans in northern
Mexico, the railroad made it easier to reach US
employment opportunities, than those in the interior
of Mexico. Mexican railroad workers were the
predominant labor force as far east as Chicago.
Opportunities on the Railroad

Opportunities on the Railroad
• Mexicans rarely gained
skilled positions, such as
engineer, or conductor, but
they made up 85% of the
work gangs responsible for
laying ties and leveling
roads. Between 1907-1920,
Mexicans remained the
lowest paid ethnic group
among maintenance
workers.
• Railroad development suffered from lack of
efficiency—the result of private investors laying
track with differing equipment from peers—
keeping labor demands high.
• Low pay was justified by
employers based on:
– Language limitations
– Difficulty of Mexican population to
work in harsh winter weather
– Irregular shop attendance (not
consuming local products)
– Lack of ambition

– Temporary status
– Drinking after payday
Employers Rationale
Nativism & Chinese Exclusion Act
• Increased settlement along the Pacific Coast reduced
job opportunities and led to depression of wages.
• Low wages and lack of success by labor organizers led
to an eruption of riots and violence against the Chinese,
often blamed because they refused to strike.
– Chinese workers feared that striking would result in
deportation.
• Congress reacted to labor concerns
with the Chinese Exclusion Act
(1882); this policy forbid US entry to
Chinese immigrants unless they
were professionals or students.

Shuttling Workers: Nogales to Tucson
• Mining was the backbone of Mexico dating back to
Spanish colonization in the 1530s.
• Nogales was the major copper mining city in
Sonora, thereby producing a wealthier, more
educated upper class of Spanish elites.
– Nogales functioned as a recruitment city, but also a
portal for early chain migration to the US
– Chain migration is when one family member
immigrates, gets settled and finds employment,
then calls on other family members to migrate too.
Mineral Resources Drive Economy
• While gold discoveries at John
Sutter’s mill in California brought
miners flocking to the region, copper
proved to be as valuable and in
greater quantities.
• Copper was necessary for electrical
wiring, which was revolutionizing the
East by 1880.

Exclusion from Mineral Rights
• While many Mexican American landowners held
property rights to copper and gold mines, most were
unable to benefit from their mineral rights or were
overshadowed by larger investors.
• In California, state congressmen attacked Chinese and
Mexican laborers with the Foreign Miner’s Tax,
creating an obstacle to limit their participation. Mexican
American miners were assumed to be FOREIGNERS.
• When gold was discovered in Lynx Creek, Az a local
Anglo politician passed a law stating “no Mexicans
shall have the right to buy, take up, or preempt a
claim on this river or in this district for the term of
six months.”
Copper Queen Mining Company
• Copper discoveries in Bisbee, Az were exploited by

Anglo investors who were able to obtain financial
support from the Bank of Arizona, establishing Copper
Queen Mining, which outpaced local Mexican copper
mine owners.
• Anglo investors had
access to credit with the
local banking institutions,
making it possible to
finance the advanced
technological equipment
necessary for maximizing
production and profits.
Copper Queen Mining Company
• Rapid expansion of mining industry increased
demand for cheap labor, resolved with
Mexican importation. However, competition
for work did increase ethnic tensions.
• Company housing and work
gangs were segregated to limit
conflict.

• However, early refusal to include
Mexican miners in unions made
Europeans protests for higher
wages impossible.
• Housing varied region to region. In Tulsa, tent cities
were created for Mexican work gangs. In Santa Fe
city investors supplied laborers with scrap metal and
second-hand materials for use in building a
shantytown. Occasionally workers were housed in
boxcars, or lived in dugouts.
• Camps like the one
in the photo were
designed to provide
employers with easy
access to laborers.
Examination of Housing Conditions
• Labor organizations such as the Western Federation of
Miners restricted Mexican participation. In 1903 the union

gained a legal victory when the Arizona legislature agreed
to reduce the underground labor day to eight hours, which
had a negative effect on Mexican miners who needed to
work 10-12 hours per day to make ends meet.
Company Guards at Old Dominion Mine, 1917
• Mining necessitated fortifications to protect investment
– Increased soldiers added new demands for beef, stimulating
the ranching industry for Anglo ranchers who were able to
obtain government contracts, but depressing business for
Mexicans.
Concerns of Indian attack on businesses were resolved with
resettlement of the Apache and Calvary-led massacres, such
as the Chivington Massacre, which resulted in the execution
of 700+ Cheyenne and Arapaho in the Santa Fe region.
The Little Lion of the Southwest
• Landowning Mexicans, especially in
the Arizona region, were united with
Anglos in their effort to contain the

Apaches.
• During the Civil War, Manuel
Chaves rode with Col. Chivington
and Union forces stomping out pro-
Confederate factions at the Battle
of Glorieta Pass, but was known
among elite Hispanos for his fierce
bravery in fighting Indians.
Railroad Transforms the Southwest
• Prior to the Railroad muleteers shipped products and
merchandise along the southwest border.
• While the railroad did provide resources cheaper and
faster, its development eliminated an entire field of
employment for Mexican Americans, most notably
Estaván Ochoa, considered King of the freighting
industry. His business extended all the way to Kansas.
• The Southern Pacific
transported goods from Yuma
to Tucson at the rate of 1.5¢
per pound and took only one

day to deliver, whereas a
muleteer charged 5.5-14¢ per
pound and took 20 days.
Railroad Transforms the Southwest
• Military fortifications increased demand for beef
and agricultural products. In response,
advertisement for job opportunities and journalistic
comments such as, “Mexicans are plentiful,
generally peaceable, and are satisfied with
very low social conditions,” fed into the push-
pull transmigration pattern of the border
population.
– Cattle Ranching Boom
– California fruit and vegetable expansion
–
– Sugar-beet production in Colorado
– Lumber yards, Railroad, and mines of the Northwest
Struggle for Resources: Range Wars
• Joseph Glidden’s invention of barbed wire
transformed the “open range” ranching system of

the southwest.
• Traditionally, sheep and cattle were free to graze,
but branded and “driven” by a team of ranch
hands, or vaqueros.
• Fencing in grazing land intensified ethnic feuds
and led to fence cutting and trespassing by
those needing water access.
• As communal land grants were denied, and the
land sold, savvy Anglos obtained the land and
starved out their Mexican competitors.
• Gustavas Swift’s invention
of the refrigerated railcar
did weaken Mexican cattle
ranchers because Anglo
businessmen were able to
broker shipping deals.
• The Lincoln County War was the
most serious range war, occurring
between two Anglo cattle-ranchers
competing for resources and a

government contract to supply beef
to the local military fort.
– Newspapers spun the affair as a
race war, focusing less on the
landowners and more on the two
principle antagonists, Juan
Patrón and Billy the Kid.
Newlands Reclamation Act
• By 1902 the US government sponsored an irrigation
development program to assist struggling
homesteaders in healthy farm development.
– Dams, like the Roosevelt Dam, were created
– Water was rerouted…sometimes away from
traditional Mexican communities.
• Desert Land Act offered 640 acres (free) to anyone
willing to invest their own money in community
irrigation projects.

• Result: massive commercial agriculture, or bonanza
farms, developed in regions with healthy climates.
Cotton & Campesinos
• Importation of Mexican laborers by companies like
the Arizona Cotton Growers Association for
cotton production was designed to ensure wages
remained low and competition for employment
high following the Civil War.
• As the Western Federation of Miners strengthened,
Mexicans were forced out of the mines, but found ready
work in the cotton fields.
Map: Darkest regions represent higher concentration of cotton.
Labor Camps and the Contractista
• The labor camps provided rudimentary shelter, with
little to no sanitation, and were breeding grounds for
disease, however, they did bring camaraderie.
• The labor camps also functioned as a recruitment
center for contractistas, contract employers.
Following the end of the cotton harvest, laborers

followed contractors to other regions, such as
California, for grape or tomato harvesting.
• Cotton production, from clearing the
land to harvest day, lasted seven
months. Campesinos, or farm
workers, lived in labor camps near
the ranch or on the border of the city.
Contractista Process
• Businessmen pay contractor to complete the harvesting of
crops (contractor is not paid to hire workers).
– The contractor hires campesinos from a camp, pays
them a wage, minus 25% to be paid upon completion
of the job.
• However, the contractor did not pay fairly and
avoided paying the last lump sum.
– Wages are siphoned: campesinos were paid according
to weight of sack, which could be altered on the scale
or declared heavy due to wet cotton.
– Food or shelter provided by the contractor was

deducted from worker’s wages, giving the contractor
great leverage.
– The contractor could abandon the fields before paying.
Workers at a California grape
vineyard
Labor Camps and the Contractista
• Worker’s Lacked Bargaining Power to
Fight the Contractista system:
– Workers who protested high fees of contractor
or weak cotton payments were blackballed, or
expelled from the fields.
– Continued protest could result in threats of
deportation.
– Worker’s could not hold the property owner
accountable because the businessman did not
hire them…no connection, no contract.
• Any group of people migrating for work is made more
vulnerable by the fact that they are not surrounded by support
structures, i.e. family, community, friends, known legal
systems.

Cotton & Intra-Migration Patterns
• Unlike other options in the agricultural sector,
harvesting cotton was something everyone in
the family could do, therefore many migrants
sought work in this field at least part of the year.
Entertainment for Workers
• Lydia Mendoza "la
cancionera de los
pobres“
– Travelled to farms to play
music for laborers
– recognized as one of
America's great roots
music singers.
– recipient of the National
Heritage Award and
National Medal of the Arts

Populist Party Exclusion
• Small farmers and sharecroppers blamed Mexican
laborers for broader problems of overproduction,
keeping wages low, etc.
• Populist Party developed in the 1890s, representing
farming concerns at the national level.
– Pushed for government funded warehouses, silver
currency, popular election of senators, regulation of
the railroad, and protection for property owners.
– However, just like the labor unions, farm organizations
viewed Mexicans as part of the problem.
• Institutional Racism: Scholars have noted that isolation
of labor camps and exclusion from labor unions, etc. made
acculturation impossible for Mexican Americans.
Sugar Beet Production
• In the early 1890s Hawaii, which had been the
primary sugar producing region, elected to
nationalize the sugar industry and kick out the

US sugar imperialists.
– Attempts were made to overthrow the Queen, but
President Cleveland did not approve. However, by
the late 1890s, President McKinney sought to
annex Hawaii, but not before putting new pressure
on the country but cutting off sugar imports.
• Dingley Tariff of 1897 raised the tax on imported
sugar, resulting in rapid domestic growth and new
pressure to provide labor.
Sugar Beet Production
• Sugar Beet farming was located in California and
northern Colorado.
• Many of the migrant farmers working in this field
were hispanos, from northern New Mexico, who
became dependent upon supplementing their
income by working elsewhere for part of the year.
– Workers encountered heavy discrimination, as

communities stereotyped all migrant workers
as immigrants.
– Depression of wages led most other ethnic
groups to abandon the sugar beet farms to
Mexican laborers, or betabeleros.
Mexicans Versus Mexican Americans
• Scholars contend that immigrant farm
workers from northern Mexico, depressed
wages and displaced Mexican-US
Nationals.
• Since Sugar Beet work paid more than
agricultural work in border states, many
Mexican Americans migrated north—to
escape discrimination and exploitative
wages just as African-Americans left the
south for the mid-west.

• Sugar Beet production expanded into Idaho, Nebraska
and the Dakotas, and with it, Mexican migration and
settlement.
• Recruitment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UodwP1V0kE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UodwP1V0kE
Japanese-Mexican Labor Association Strike
• In 1903 Mexican and Japanese sugar beet workers
in California organized against the Western
Agricultural Contracting Company for withholding
wages. (decline from $ 6.00 per acre to $ 2.50)
• During the course of striking, one Mexican worker
was killed, resulting in WACC concessions.
• Strengthened by the victory, workers formed the
Sugar Beet and Farm Laborers Union of Oxnard
and sought affiliation with the American Federation
of Labor (AFL).
– Samuel Gompers, AFL founder, denied affiliation
unless Mexicans promised exclusion of Japanese
and Chinese laborers, which Mexicans would not
agree to.
American
Federation of
Labor

Western
Agricultural
Contracting
Company
Independent
Agricultural
Labor UnionJapanese-
Mexican
Labor
Aliance
• Japanese-Mexican Labor Alliance
Most of the farms surrounding Oxnard in 1900 grew sugar beets
destined for the second largest sugar mill in the country nearby.
Japanese and Mexican laborers were imported to work in the
fields.
When mill owners and bankers cut wages in 1903, workers
formed the
Japanese-Mexican Labor Alliance and struck. California State
Labor
Federation organizer Fred Wheeler supported their action and
helped the
JMLA negotiate. They won: the union was recognized and
wages
were restored. Despite lack of support from the AFL, the Sugar
Beet
and Farm Labor Union went on to win overtime pay and
reduction to a
9-hour labor day.

Labor Struggles of Women
• Mexican American women worked as
domestics and in laundry/garment
industry during off-peak seasons.
• While EuroAmerican women were
hired as skilled hands and paid $16.55
per week, Mexican women were
considered unskilled and paid half--
$8 per week.
– Their pay was justified by Anglos who
argued Mexicans had fewer needs since,
as the advertisement stated, Mexicans
were “satisfied with very low social
conditions.”
Claiming Space
Assessing the Immigrant Experience

East Coast versus Southern Border
The Barrio
The Mutalistas
Acculturation versus Americanization
Comparing the Immigrant Experience
• Scholars note that several aspects made immigration
to the United States different for Mexicans.
– Permanence: Not part of the original plan.
– Geography: Low wage farm jobs limited opportunities for
social mobility.
– Land Ownership: Low wages and discrimination in the
credit system weakened immigrants ability to create an
alternative path to success.
– Status: While periodically immigration laws were enforced,
this was usually rare, therefore overlooked but conveniently
used against immigrants later.
– Race: Indian and mestizo ancestry and history of conquest

are used by the status quo to justify discrimination.
• Ellis Island. In 1892 the federal government opened the
immigration station
on Ellis Island, located in New York City’s harbor, where about
80 percent of
the immigrants to the United States landed. As many as 5,000
passengers
per day reported to federal immigration officers for questions
about their
background and for physical examinations, such as this eye
exam. Only
about 1-2 percent were quarantined or turned away for health
problems.
Comparing Immigration
Comparing Immigration
Living in the Barrio
• As immigrants realized that poor wages would
prevent quick wealth to take back to Mexico and
year-round work opportunities continued, many
families began to establish themselves
permanently.
• Colonias /Barrios developed, providing a
community setting that reinforced Mexican identity
and culture.

– Colonias also functioned as recruiting stations for
contractistas.
Living in the Barrio
• The most obvious
difference between Mexican
immigration and East Coast
immigration is the fact that
immigration from Mexico
remained constant. Each
wave of immigration
brought new political ideas
to the barrio while
reinforcing old traditions
and beliefs.
Scholarly Perspective
Aguantar is a Spanish word that means “to endure

one’s fate bravely and with a certain style.” There
has long been a tendency to assume that Mexican
Americans adopted a tragic view of life, suffering
disappointments and reversals with passive
acceptance. But far from being fatalistic in the
face of prejudice and discrimination, late 19th and
early 20th century Mexican Americans created a
wide range of organizations to preserve their
cultural and religious traditions and to better their
economic condition.
~Steven Mintz, Mexican American Voices
• Art, Churches, and local Spanish language radio stations
and theaters kept Mexican history present, reinforcing
language, religion, family values, and civic virtue.
Mutalistas
• Mexican Americans formed mutalistas, mutual aid
societies or brotherhoods, to address labor and

political issues, and later discrimination.
• One of the most successful mutalistas was the
Alianza Hispano Americana, formed in
response to nativist (anti-immigrant) sentiment
on the Arizona border.
– They also stepped in to assist the needs of sugar
beet workers and their families during strikes.
• However, many politically-based mutalistas, such
Los Hijos de Texas and Hijos de México, divided
the Mexican/Mexican American population based
upon national or even regional origin.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XRFxeIC2Ds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XRFxeIC2Ds
• Similar to the old Spanish cofradias, mutalistas paid
for burials, community holiday materials, such as
food, entertainment, and decorations. They
provided employment information, and sponsored
newspapers and political speakers.
• Mutalistas also functioned like settlement houses. In
Chicago, Jane Addams’ Hull House provided immigrants
with English classes, soup lines, Mother’s Day Out nursery
programs, etc. In San Antonio, Luisa M. De González ran
a similar settlement house. However, some settlement
houses, such as the Rose Gregory Houchen House in El
Paso was designed to “Americanize” Mexican
Americans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6cunWo_bC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6cunWo_bC0
“Americanization”
• Attempted first with Native Americans, Progressive thinkers
and activists tried to mold differing ethnic groups into
“Americans.” Begs the question: “what is American?”
• Education programs:
– Girls were key: Women are the keepers of culture, family
values, etc. Special programs aimed at transforming the
Mexican family from within were est.
– “Special Needs” segregation allowed in California.
Reinforced with IQ and standardization exams, which
were written in English.
– “Tracking” Vocational programs as opposed to diploma
and higher ed.
• Missionary work: YMCA transformed youth.
Examining Scholarship: Sarah Deutsch “Women

Missionaries and Cultural Conquest”
• Argument: While conquest has traditionally been
viewed as masculine because of military action, the
second element to conquest is psychological, and in
this arena “women did the possessing.”
• 200+ women entered the
business of
“Americanization” in the
southwest between 1900-
1914
• 19 of 21 mission schools
were run by women
• English-only Americanization
school in Tempe, Arizona.
Examining Scholarship: Sarah Deutsch “Women Missionaries
and Cultural Conquest”
• Justification for American schools: Moral imperative
– Stated Purpose: “to convince of a full and free salvation
through the savior of the Cross; to make true American

citizens, intelligent and enthusiastic supporters of our
institutions, and to give a moral and technical education that
will enable them to cope with the social temptations and
problems of the twentieth century.”
Examining Scholarship: Sarah Deutsch “Women Missionaries
and Cultural Conquest”
• Assimilation/Americanization & Identity Conflict
– Polita Padilla: “I am a Mexican, born and brought up in New
Mexico, but much of my life was spent in the Allison School
where we had a different training, so that the Mexican way of
living now seems strange to me.”
• Deutsch notes that villagers condemned the assimilated as
“extinguished lights.”
In New Mexico 90% of schools operated
less than 3 months per year.
– No state funding and limited local
tax resources
– No high school until 1917

– Teachers not qualified to teach
Spanish-speakers….therefore,
parents viewed schooling as
unproductive
League of United Latin American Citizens
(LULAC)
• Organized in Corpus Christi in 1929 to safeguard the
civil rights of Latino/as, LULAC merged the issues of
political and regional mutalistas and fought against
discriminating Americanization programs.
– Issues: Voting, desegregation, inequality
• Parochial schools were established to reinforce
religion, holidays, culture, and language.
– However, the organization was criticized for not
allowing non-citizens membership.
Post WWI Xenophobia
• Xenophobia– fear of the other.
• US position: withdraw from world affairs; immigration
policies were created to cut off everyone except Northern

Europeans.
– Concern with the unfulfilled Mexican Revolution also
played a role in US concerns with North American
migration.
• US Culture: “America must be kept American”
– Revival of the Ku Klux Klan
• Reed-Johnson Immigration Act contained a literacy
aspect designed to reduce Mexican immigration.
– However, contract workers imported into the country
were able to bypass this policy if they agreed to pay the
$ 8.00 head tax.
• Arizona Mining Association
http://www.azcu.org/publicationsHistory8.php
• Arizona State University’s Latino Organizations
• http://www.asu.edu/lib/archives/website/organiza.htm
Ranching Map &
Resource Links
http://www.azcu.org/publicationsHistory8.php
http://www.asu.edu/lib/archives/website/organiza.htm

Are All Primary Sources Reliable?
iA primary source is any artifact created during the time period
being studied. Primary sources may be
textual, such as a diary entry or a news article, or non-textual,
such as a map, chart, or sculpture.
Primary sources can also be unconventional, or non-traditional.
Historians researching health, culture,
and disease often reference anthropologists’ study of a
community water well, village dump sites, and
even feces. Tools, ceramics, and children’s toys all speak to the
depth of a culture, the values held by a
community, as well as their methods for solving problems.
Occasionally scholars disagree about
whether a source qualifies as
primary, for instance, if a journalist
interviews a second-hand witness
who reports a version of the event
based on someone else’s
experience. In fact, this is how
most folk tales and oral histories

come to be recorded, but the fact
that these sources have been
communicated from one
generation to the next, with
imagined details added by later
generations and actual details
sometimes omitted, means the
historian must not accept a primary
source at face value. Read Shifting
Through Sources for the Truth.
Primary sources must be evaluated
closely to determine the intended
audience. Some primary sources
are intended to be private, for
instance a personal diary is not
usually intended for a broad audience. However, historians
must be cautious about making
assumptions on this matter. There are great examples of the
private writings of Thomas Jefferson and

Benjamin Franklin, which paint them in a positive, thoughtful
light, but historians know that was exactly
their intent. These men were writing “private” diary entries
knowing that their association to United
States’ independence had made them legends. They knew
historians would pour over their inner-most
INTRODUCTION TO SOURCES IN
MEXICAN AMERICAN HISTORY
If primary sources always told the truth, the historian’s
job would be much easier—and also rather boring. But
sources, like witnesses in a murder case, often lie.
Sometimes they lie on purpose, telling untruths to further
a specific ideological, philosophical, or political agenda.
Sometimes they lie by omission, leaving out bits of
information that are crucial to interpreting an event.
Sometimes sources mislead unintentionally because the
author was not aware of all the facts, misinterpreted the
facts, or was misinformed. Many are biased, either
consciously or unconsciously, and contain unstated

assumptions; all reflect the interests and concerns of
their authors. Moreover, primary sources often conflict.
As a result one of the challenges historians face in writing
a history paper is evaluating the reliability and usefulness
of their sources. (Rampolla, p. 9)
Sifting Through Sources for the Truth
thoughts and they chose to sanitize their “private” writings to
ensure a positive historic view. This
means, in addition to analyzing the information within the
source, the historian must also evaluate the
motive of the author and who the author thought their audience
would be. Why did the author write
the diary entry? Who was the intended audience? When was
the source composed? Did the “author”
of the source have the literary skills to write the source or was
the source transcribed by a second
individual?
Top-Down Primary Sources Versus Bottom-Up Primary Sources
History is often recorded by those with power and influence,
such as government authorities. Much of
the history we study in classrooms is based upon the

experiences of political and military leaders, and
on changes to government policy. Why is this? What impact
will the mass production of these views
and this understanding of history have for future students?
What additional purpose might be served
by studying only these perspectives? How would the study of
uninfluential people differ? Why would
the status quo promote or publish the views of marginalized
groups?
Evaluating a historic event using the records, comments, and
views of the influential only is considered a
“top-down” approach to investigating history. Ethnohistorians
find the top-down approach particularly
troubling, especially when the marginalized groups historians
want to study are considered the “out-
group.” The study of history using the top-down approach
means historians may not be able to fully
evaluate the views and beliefs of commoners and those on the
fringes of society. Historians begin to
wonder if traditional textbook information about everyday
people represents the actual experiences of
everyday individuals or just the elite perception of the
“bottom.” Ethnohistorians value the study of
uninfluential individuals, and many believe the best way to

understand those on the margins is to
evaluate non-traditional sources, and private, more authentic
records. For example, folk tales, songs,
budget records, quilts, toys, tools, and photos are all less
susceptible to manipulation or
misinterpretation. Additionally, when attempting to identify
with the people of the past, one must
determine whether the existing sources are representative of a
broad number of the people from that
period, or if the sources note exceptional experiences. For
example, a government record noting a
public celebration may denote tradition or may represent a rare
occasion; if sources like this one are
limited then the historian would have to evaluate other
records to sort out the difference.
One of the ways marginalized people make their
experiences known to the public is through art.
Muralists frequently reaffirm the beliefs, values, fears,
and history of Mexican Americans. Carlos Flores work,
entitled “Our Heritage,” communicates pride in ancestry
and identity. David Siqueiros, like Diego Rivera, is a

famous Mexican muralist who
highlighted oppression, classism,
corruption, and the aspirations of
everyday people. In the image on
the left, Siqueiros offers a “top-
down” interpretation of the early
20th century, noting the
experience of those who
benefited from the Porfiriato, or
period of Diaz dictatorship. The
image on the right provides
viewers with a “bottom-up”
interpretation of the period.
However, art and other images
may distort the facts of daily life.
As John Hollitz explains in Thinking
Through the Past, images typically

tell a story about how we want to
remember the past, rather than
the actual past. The image of
Vicenta Sepulveda Yorba tells a
story of power, privilege, and
marriage alliances to Anglos. The
image does not communicate
agency of Mexican American
women; we do not know if they
participated in the marital
decisions, valued those
relationships, or if they had any
influence beyond the perception
of status.
Songs, ballads, and corridos are
non-traditional sources which
typically capture the experiences
of everyday life; this is particularly true of the pre-radio era.
Like oral history, teaching ballads to young

children helped communicate an unwritten history and helped
preserve awareness about the past in the
face of
institutional
oppression.
Does this image communicate power? Oppression? Status?
Who decides what an image will communicate to the viewing
audience?
Access the Film Clips on Blackboard
Study the Ballad of Gregorio Cortez links, including the lyrics.
Then examine the history and
lyrics of Lydia Mendoza. What experiences are preserved in
these non-traditional sources?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=im
ages&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiC65yRuKDdAhUD
7awKHeMbCzgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalisp
here.org%2Fitem%2Fark%3A%2F13030%2Fkt8c60209g%2F&p
sig=AOvVaw3akhsENLEm6FEdXGKNgVnq&ust=15361192027
32594
EVALUATING NONWRITTEN PRIMARY SOURCES
FOR ARTIFACTS

for?
used it and the period in which is was
made?
FOR ART WORKS (PAINTINGS, SCULPTURE, ETC.)
other works?
If so, by whom?
contemporaries respond to it and how do their
responses compare to the ways in which it is understood now?
FOR PHOTOGRAPHS
photograph?
that publication or venue have a
particular mission or point of view?
FOR CARTOONS

images combine to convey that message?
originally appear
(newspaper, magazine, etc.)? Did that publication
have a particular agenda or mission?
context be significant?
FOR MAPS
cal, military,
etc.)?
intended purpose?
what do they add to our understanding
of the map itself?
FOR SOUND RECORDINGS
recording and what kind of recording it is
(music, speech, interview, etc.)?
why was it broadcast and who was the
intended audience?

ecording complete or has it been edited? Has part of
the recording been lost due to poor
treatment? What is the context of the full recording? How
might an edited version be misused or
offer information out of context?
Source 1:
According to the news provided by the Office of Emigration,
annexed to the Jefatura Política of the
Bravos District [apparently at El Paso], between the first and
fifteenth of the month [of July], 3,142
persons who crossed the boundary line registered at that office.
They came from the following States of
the Republic: 1,322 from Guanajuato; 931 from Michoacán; 600
from Jalisco; 207 from Zacatecas; the
rest from Durango, San Luis Potosí, Aguascalientes, Coahuila,
Sinaloa, and Tamaulipas.
As can be seen from the foregoing alarming figures, the greater
part of those unfortunates emigrate
from our state, in search of work which undoubtedly is not
found on our soil…..

…Perhaps there are other reasons that oblige our workingmen,
so attached to the land, to abandon the
country, even at the risk of the Yankee contempt with which
they are treated on the other side of the
Bravo [Rio Grande].
One newspaper says we must make known the innumerable
prejudices, hardships, and oppression that
they receive far from the fatherland, to all those persons who
are deluded by the offers of the so-called
“recruiters” and go abroad in search of work which they believe
to be better recompensed. The greater
part of the time they will be unsettled and abandoned among
people whose language they do not know
and may not be able to use, not even to beg for help.
What our government should do, we say, is lower the high taxes
which weigh heavily upon the people,
and put a stop to bossism, in order that our workingmen will not
abandon their birthplace, despairing of
the misfortune which grinds them down.1
Source 2:
Comparatively few people in the United States have any
conception of the extent to which Mexicans are
entering this country each year, of their geographical

distribution, or of their relative importance in the
various industries in which they are employed after their
arrival. Nor are the social problems resulting
from the influx of Mexicans fully appreciated by many persons
who are not acquainted with the
situation at hand. This is primarily because the attention of
students of the race problem has been
focused upon the more important development of European and
eastern Asiatic immigration to the
eastern states, and upon Chinese, Japanese, and East Indian
immigration to the Pacific coast. Other
factors in diverting attention from Mexican immigration have
been the relatively noncompetitive
character of their employment in certain parts of the country,
and the lack of adequate data with regard
to their numbers.
1 Diario el Hogar (Mexico City), August 2 & 8, 1910.
Translated by David J. Weber and republished in Foreigner in
the Their Native Land: Historical Roots of the Mexican
Americans, by David J. Weber, ed. University of New Mexico
Press, 1973.
Case Study: Primary Source Views on Immigration and
Citizenship, circa 1900

Socially and politically the presence of large numbers of
Mexicans in this country gives rise to serious
problems. The reports of the Immigration Commission show
that they lack ambition, are to a very large
extent illiterate in their native language, are slow to learn
English, and in most cases show no political
interest. In some instances, however, they have been organized
to serve the purposes of political
bosses as for example in Phoenix, Arizona. Although more of
them are married and have their families
with them than is the case among the south European
immigrants, they are unsettled as a class, move
readily from place to place, and do not acquire or lease land to
any extent. But their most unfavorabale
characteristic is their inclination to form colonies and live in a
clannish manner. Wherever a
considerable group of Mexicans are employed, they live
together, if possible, and associate very little
with members of other races.
….although the Mexicans have proved to be efficient laborers in
certain industries, and have afforded a
cheap and elastic labor supply for the southwestern United
States, the evils to the community at large

which their presence in large numbers almost invariably brings
may more than overbalance their
desirable qualities. Their low standards of living and of morals,
their illiteracy, their utter lack of proper
political interest, the retarding effect of their employment upon
the wage scale of the more progressive
races, and finally their tendency to colonize in urban centers,
with evil results, combine to stamp them
as a rather undesirable class of residents.2
Source 3:
The great numbers of Mexican workers who pass daily from
Mexico to the United States ought finally to
make both governments open their eyes. There is not a day in
which passenger trains do not leave from
the border, full of Mexican men who are going in gangs to work
on railroad lines in the United States.
The Mexican government loses the labor which could make its
fertile lands very productive, its mines
more developed, its herds larger, and the country more
prosperous and united.
This [Mexican government] should make life easier in the
country, establishing colonies where the
worker is able to become a landowner—well-organized colonies
that are able to make life more

independent and the spread of education completely
unrestricted.
Once the foundation of these colonies has been laid, preparing
young people to develop themselves,
they should be fit for the struggle of life. They will no longer
have to leave their country to go in search
of life in a foreign country, where they are always viewed as
inferiors. No longer will Mexico have to
experience the delay [of progress] that comes from the scarcity
of workers.
For its part, the American government ought to put an end to
this disagreeable immigration. The
American journeyman is more at the level of modern methods of
work. Once invaded by the
competition of the Mexican worker who, for lack of familiarity
with American money and ignorance of
2 Samuel Bryan, “Mexican Immigrants in the United States,”
The Survey 28 n. 23 (Sept 1912): 726, 730. Reprinted
in Foreigner in the Their Native Land: Historical Roots of the
Mexican Americans, by David J. Weber, ed. University
of New Mexico Press, 1973.
the machinery of the country, works for what he is given, he
[the American] will be demoralized, and

with reason. He is made more insecure and his living more
disagreeable.3
Source 4:
….Here, as in Metcalf, two miles to the north, the mines are
fabulously rich in copper. The number of
miners and other workers is estimated at three thousand men.
The societies prosper in Morenci and Metcalf. La Alianza
Hispano-Americana, La Saragoza, and Obreros,
have very good lodges [i.e. mutualistas]. Men of high standing
make up these organizations. But despite
this good fellowship, the public administration is very weak,
and abuses in the area of justice are
shameless. It is charged that the Justice of the Peace in Metcalf
has seized a family and has detained
them until they can pay certain bills they owe. In other words,
he uses the tool of a criminal case to
solve a civil case. In Morenci it is assured that the justice of
the peace is a little more than a
businessman. In various cases the prosecuting witnesses have
been fined for the simple reason that the
accused did not have the money to pay his Honor….
The political condition is demoralized in the extreme, and there
is only one remedy that can save the

situation. That is that many of the Mexicans who live in these
mining camps become American citizens.
….The fact that there is almost not a man among those who
know how to read who is not a subscriber to
some newspaper demonstrates that there generally exists good
communication, and all that is lacking is
that the great majority make themselves citizens in order to use
the sword of suffrage in the defeat of
corruption.4
Source 5:
In my youth I worked as a house servant, but as I grew older I
wanted to be independent. I was able
through great efforts to start a little store in my town. But I had
to come to the United States, because it
was impossible to live down there with so many revolutions.
Once even I was at the point of being killed
by some revolutionists. A group of revolutionists had just taken
the town and a corporal or one of those
who was in command of the soldiers went with a bunch of these
to my place and began to ask me for
whiskey and other liquors which I had there. But, although I
had them, I told them that I didn’t sell
liquor, but only things to eat and a few other things, but nothing

to drink. They didn’t let me close the
store but stayed there until about midnight. The one in
command of the group then went to another
little store and there got a couple of bottles of wine. When he
had drunk this it went to his head and he
came back to my store to bother me by asking for whiskey, and
saying he knew that I had some. He
bothered me so much that we came to words. Then he menaced
me with a rifle. He just missed killing
3 El Labrador (Las Cruces, New Mexico), August 19, 1904.
Translated by David Weber and and republished in
Foreigner in the Their Native Land: Historical Roots of the
Mexican Americans, by David J. Weber, ed. University of
New Mexico Press, 1973.
4 “Editorial Message” in El Labrador, July 15, 1904.
Translated by David J. Weber and republished in Foreigner in
the Their Native Land: Historical Roots of the Mexican
Americans, by David J. Weber, ed. University of New Mexico
Press, 1973.
me and that was because another soldier hit his arm and the
bullet lodged in the roof of the house.
Then some others came and took the fellow away and let me
close the store. On the next day, and as
soon as I could, I sold everything that I had, keeping only the
little house—I don’t know in what

condition it is in today. The Villistas [followers of Pancho
Villa], pressed me into the service then, and
took me with them as a soldier. But I didn’t like that, because I
never liked to go about fighting,
especially about things that don’t make any difference to one.
So when we got to Torreon I ran away
just as soon as I could. That was about 1915.
I went from there to Ciudad Juarez and from there to El Paso.
There I put myself under contract to go to
work on the tracks. I stayed in that work in various camps until
I reached California. I was for a while in
Los Angeles working in cement work, which is very hard. From
there I went to Kansas, and I was also in
Oklahoma and in Texas, always working on the railroads. But
the climate in those states didn’t agree
with me, so I beat it for Arizona. Some friends told me that I
could find a good job here in Miami. I have
worked in the mines here, in the King, the Superior and the
Globe. In all of them it is more or less alike
for the Mexicans. Here in the Miami mine I do everything. The
work here is very heavy, but what is
good is that one lives in peace. There is no trouble with
revolutions nor difficulties of any kind. Here

one is treated according to the way in which one behaves
himself and one earns more than in Mexico. I
have gone back to Mexico twice. Once I went as far as
Chihuahua and another time to Torreon, but I
have come back, for in addition to the fact that work is very
scarce there, the wages are too low. One
can hardly earn enough to eat. It is true that here it is almost
the same, but there are more comforts of
life here. One can buy many things cheaper and in payments. I
think that as long as we have so many
wars, killing each other, we will not progress and we shall
always be poor.
….I don’t care about political matters. It is the same to me to
have Calles as Obregón in the government.
In the end neither one of them does anything for me. I live
from my work and nothing else….why should
we poor people get mixed up in politics? It doesn’t do us any
good. Let those who have offices, who get
something out of it, get into it. But he who has to work hard,
let him live from his work alone.5
EVALUATING SECONDARY SOURCES
What is a Secondary Source?
Secondary sources are interpretations of the past written by
someone who did not experience the

event. Secondary sources do not include encyclopedias, which
are categorized as tertiary sources.
Typically, a journal, textbook or review of another source is
considered secondary. Popular internet
sites are also filled with interpretations of non-participants and
categorized as secondary sources.
Lectures and information gathered from guest speakers are also
typically categorized as secondary
unless the guest speaker is addressing an event in which he/she
was a participant.
5 Manuel Gamio, “The Mexican Immigrant: His Life-Story,”
first published in 1931 and reprinted in Peoples of Color
in the American West. (Toronto: D.C. Heath and Company),
1994.
Historical Interpretation
One of the most common comments history professors receive
from students is that history does not
change. While the events themselves do not change, actually the
"History" -- that is the study of the past
-- does change and has changed significantly over the past
century. What many new students do not
realize is that there is more to the study of history than just the
past events. While most will try to

present a balanced opinion, each professor, teacher, textbook or
website selects and presents the
events in a way that fits his or her teaching style. We refer to
this as "historical interpretation." In a
sense, they are interpreting the past events just as someone
would interpret a foreign language for
another person who does not speak that language. A skillful
interpreter must know how to translate
individual words, but some phrases mean more than just the sum
of the words. In those cases, the
interpreter must also explain the meaning of the phrase. In the
same way, the historian must not only
"tell" the events but also "explain" the events, by connecting
them to an overall theme or thesis.
It is not possible to discuss every event, idea, or figure in
history, so the historian selects which
things or people that he or she feels in most important. For the
professor, this teaching style might be
based on his or her own background (what he or she was taught
or experienced), by personal interests
(such as a specific time period or topic which he or she enjoys
talking about) or it might be based on
current events (such as an emphasis on military history during a
war time or economic history during a

recession). No two professors will teach exactly alike.
Understanding a person's perspective will help
you understand why the instructor chose to present those
specific facts.
Source 6:
A substantial number of political refugees came to the United
States in response to the political tensions
in Mexico during the regime of Porfirio Diaz (1876-1911). The
Porfiriato [the regime of Diaz] attracted
foreign capital that built 15,000 miles of railroad. Most lines
ran north and south, with spurs providing
better access to local and regional markets. In this scheme,
mines attracted armies of Mexican workers
to northern Mexican states and Arizona, New Mexico, and
Colorado.
The demand for Mexican labor was directly related to the
decline in population of Chinese workers and
Indians. Mexicans moved from pastoral occupations to menial-
wage work. They took jobs at the lowest
rung of the ladder. Increasingly, they became wage earners,
driven from subsistence farming by the sale
of common lands (ejido land grants).6 At the same time,
thousands of Mexicans migrated to California

from Mexico and elsewhere in the Southwest.
Much of this labor was segregated. For example, 13 miles south
of San Jose, the Almaden mercury
mines, active since the Mexican Period, employed mostly
Mexicans. Fifteen hundred miners worked at
6 Some property owners tried to hold on to their property
despite the strength of the railroad. According to
Acuna, “In 1889, Modesta Avila was hauled before the Orange
County Superior Court and accused of placing a sign
on the tracks of the Santa Fe railroad that read, ‘This land
belongs to me. And if the railroad wants to run here,
they will have to pay me ten thousand dollars.’ Avila posted the
sign some 15 feet away from the doorstep of her
home. Local authorities had told Avila not to do this, to which
she replied, ‘If they pay me for my land, they can go
by.’ Avila was sentences to 3 years in jail and died in San
Quentin; she was in her mid-20s at the time of her death.”
the Quicksilver Mine Company. Using ancient methods, they
hauled ore out of the underground mines
with 200-pound sacks strapped to their foreheads and resting on
their backs. Minders produced 220,000
pounds of ore per month. The company kept tight control of its
workers. It segregated them not only by
race, but also by occupation. The Cornish miners, for example,
lived separately from the Mexican

miners, who were provided with a distinctively lower standard
of l
After the Civil War (1861-1865), transportation costs dropped
dramatically, and interest in copper
revived. Copper was the best and least expensive conductor of
long distance transmission of electricity.
Transcontinental railroads played a huge role in making the
giant copper camps profitable, as did the
“electric age.”
On January 19, 1903, the Arizona legislature passed an act
prohibiting miners from working more than
eight hours per day underground. The eight-hour law was a
major victory for union men. However, its
true purpose was to eliminate foreign-born Mexicans, who had
to work 10 to 12 hours a day to make
ends meet with their lower wages. The cut in hours meant that
Mexican minders would take less money
home. On the morning of June 3, miners responded by walking
off the job, shutting down the smelters
and mills, and beginning what Jeanne Parks Ringgold,
granddaughter of then-sheriff Jim Parks of Clifton,
called the “bloodiest battle in the history of mining in Arizona.”
Between 1,200 and 1,500 strikers
participated, of whom 80 to 90 percent were Mexican. Armed

miners took control of the mines and
shut them down.
….Among the demands of the strikers was free hospitalization,
paid life insurance for miners, locker
rooms, fair prices at the company store, the hiring only of men
who were members of the society, and
protection against being fired without cause.
The governor ordered the Arizona Rangers into Clifton-
Morenci, and on June 9, 1903, workers staged a
demonstration of solidarity. In direct defiance of the Rangers,
2,000 Mexicans marched through the
streets of Morenci in torrential rains. A clash seemed
inevitable, but the storm dispersed the strikers,
and a flood drowned almost 50 people and caused some
$100,000 worth of damage.
A distinguishing characteristic of this strike and others of the
decade is that the workers organized them
through their mutualistas. These associations varied greatly in
their political ideology, ranging from
apolitical to reformist to radical. Mutual aid societies met the
immigrants’ need for “fellowship, security,
and recreation” and were a form of collective and voluntary
self-help and self-defense. Their motto—

Patria, Unión y Beneficencia (country, unity, and
benevolence)—became a common unifying symbol
throughout the Southwest and eventually throughout the
Midwest as well. Shut out of mainstream
unions, Mexicans often used mutualistas as a front for union
activities.7
Source 7:
The Democratic Party, the self-described “party of the white
man,” dominated Texas politics after
Reconstruction. Political disenfranchisement of Tejanos set in
as Anglo-Texan Democrats used voter
7 Rodolfo Acuña, Occupied America, A History of Chicanos
(New York: Pearson Longman), 2007.
fraud and election-law trickery and racism to retain power over
them, just as they did with blacks and
poor whites. Voter fraud was rampant in the Rio Grande Valley
counties and in those precincts with
large Spanish-speaking populations. Entrenched South Texas
political bosses such as James B. Wells, the
products of Democratic political machines appearing throughout
the Texas border region, had large
numbers of aliens from Mexico brought in just before elections,

naturalized, and declared legal
residents; the new residents were then expected to vote for the
bosses. Certain precincts voted more
than the entire population combined. In a failed attempt to stop
this political bossism, the State of Texas
passed a law in 1895 requiring six months’ residency before a
person could vote. Some Tejano
Democrats had access to public office. Unreconstructed
Confederate Army veteran and banker-
merchant Thomas A. Rodríguez of Brownsville served three
terms in the Texas state legislature
representing parts of Atascosa, Karnes, and San Patricio
counties. Confederate Army veteran and
Laredo businessman Santos Benavides held the most terms in
the Texas House of Representatives,
serving from 1879 to 1884. However, owing to increased
disenfranchisement, Thomas A. Rodríguez was
the sole Tejano in the Texas House of Representatives by the
end of the nineteenth century.
Relying on Jim Crow techniques, Anglo-Texans retained full
control of the Tejano vote via the poll tax.
Between 1879 and 1899 six attempts were made to pass poll-tax
legislation in Texas. All failed because
of opposition from blacks and Tejanos, labor groups, and

Populists. In 1901, the Texas Legislature finally
passed the poll tax, which state voters approved the following
year by a two-to-one margin. Requiring
Texas residents to pay $1.75 to vote, the poll tax effectively
created a barrier to keep Tejanos from
voting. Because of greatly restricted district electorates, Texas
Democrats dominated political
leadership. In addition to the poll tax, gerrymandering
weakened voter strength. Finally, the white
primaries undercut manipulation of the Tejano vote by
prohibiting Tejanos from joining the Democratic
Party or participating in primary elections.
The efforts of Anglo-Texans to further consolidate their
political power took a strange turn in 1896. In
the same year in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld racial
segregation in public accommodations in
Plessy v. Ferguson, Ricardo Rodríguez appeared in federal
district court in San Antonio, Texas. The
Tejano, a five-year resident of San Antonio employed as a street
cleaner, made an application for United
States citizenship that would grant him the right to vote. His
actions initiated concerted legal
maneuvers by Anglos to disallow Tejanos the right to vote in
the state of Texas.

The Rodríguez case involved the right of naturalization. It
focused attention on the fact that Tejanos
born in Mexico could not vote unless they applied for
naturalization. At the center of the debate was an
1872 federal statute that ruled that only Caucasians and
Africans could become U.S. citizens. Under this
law and reflecting nineteenth-century color designations of
black, white, red (American Indian), and
yellow (Asian), Ricardo Rodríguez did not qualify for American
citizenship because the state of Texas
considered him neither “a white person, nor an African, nor of
African descent.”
At issue was the question of racial and educational qualification
for achieving U.S. citizenship. Interest in
the Rodríguez case was high among Tejanos who were facing
desperate times in Texas during which
what remained of their political rights were being threatened.
They rallied to condemn the “effort being
made in Federal Court to prevent Mexicans from becoming
voting citizens of the United States.” In his
court testimony, Rodríguez claimed his cultural heritage to be
“pure-blooded Mexican,” but the Tejano

stated to the court he was not a descendent of any of the
aboriginal peoples of Mexico (American
Indians), nor was he of Spanish or African descent.
Defense lawyers for Ricardo Rodríguez and witnesses who
testified on his behalf asserted that he had
the right to become an American citizen. They argued that
since 1836 both “the Republic of Texas and
the United States had by various collective acts of
naturalization conferred upon Mexicans the rights and
privileges of American citizenship.” The defense further
observed that the U.S. Congress in 1845 had
extended citizenship to Mexicans after Texas annexation. The
defense noted that Article VIII of the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo automatically conferred American
citizenship on Mexicans who did not
leave the territory after one year as long as they did not declare
their desire to become Mexican
citizens. On May 3, 1897, the federal court ruled in favor of
Rodríguez. Re Rodríguez declared that the
Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all people born or
naturalized in the United States
regardless of color or race. What was more, the Rodríguez
decision upheld the legal right of Mexicans
as “white,” legally affirmed the rights of Tejanos to vote, and

prevented further attempts by Anglo-
Texans to use the courts to deprive them of their voting rights.8
8 Zaragosa Vargas, Crucible of Struggle, A History of Mexican
Americans from Colonial Times to the Present Era.
(New York: Oxford University Press), 2011.

Expansionism v. ImperialismI. Background Expansionism is con.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Expansionism v. ImperialismI. Background Expansionism is con.docx

Similar to Expansionism v. ImperialismI. Background Expansionism is con.docx (15)

More from rhetttrevannion

More from rhetttrevannion (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Expansionism v. ImperialismI. Background Expansionism is con.docx