Spring 2014 - University Library

Volume 7, Number 1
Stanislaus
Historical
Quarterly
Spring 2014
Stanislaus County
Founded 1854
An Independent Publication of Stanislaus County History
Indian, Mexican, and Chinese Ethnicities
in Stanislaus County’s History
Yokuts of Stanislaus County
Y
okuts began living in the San Joaquin Valley 8,000 years
ago, and by the 18th century, there was an estimated population of
18,000. Yokuts means persons or people and was never used in the
singular form of “Yokut.” Because of white contact, the Yokuts’
population decreased rapidly to 600 by 1880 from disease, illtreatment, and environmental disruption. Yokuts in the foothills,
west of the San Joaquin River, were forced by the Spanish in the
late 1700’s to reside at coastal Roman Catholic missions, and by
1833, after a disease-related epidemic, only few of them were left.
Yokuts occupying the valley floor remained mostly undisturbed by
Americans until the early 1860s,
when gold mining conditions and
success declined in the Sierra
Nevada. Americans left the mines
and bought cheap valley land,
planting grain, causing the rapid
rise and expansion of American
agriculture. This pushed the
Yokuts off their ancient lands. A
treaty was signed in 1851 between
the U.S. and the Yokuts, but it
wasn’t ratified by Congress. The
treaty consisted of plans to
relocate the northern San Joaquin
Valley Yokuts on a corridor of land
between the Stanislaus and
Merced rivers, which never
occurred.
Ethnography
pestles, stone tools, and other examples of communal living. Near
the various coastal foothill creeks, west of the San Joaquin River,
there were examples of charcoal and heat-shattered rocks Yokuts
used in cooking. The creeks were: Cottonwood, Crow, Garzas, Los
Banos, Orestimba, Romero, and San Luis. The Yokuts of this area
were the part of the Miumne tribe.
The Yokuts tribes were ruled by male leaders, and when
negotiating with other tribes, ambassadors were appointed as
representatives. Physical boundaries between the tribes were based
on food collection territories. Normally, tribes occupied drainage
basins, consisting of waterways,
giving them rights to forage and live
on both sides of streams. Tribal
boundaries were set in the highland
ridges above the drainage basins.
Yokuts Description
Tribal names: (1) Northern Valley Yokuts (2) Southern
Valley Yokuts (3) Miwok (4) Coast Miwok (5) Costanoan
(6) Esselen (7) Salinan (8) Chumash (9) Tataviam (10)
Kitanemuk (11) Tubatulabal (12) Monache (13) Foothill
Yokuts
Adapted from California Patterns, Hornbeck
Renowned ethnographer,
A.L. Kroeber, described the Yokuts
as “tall, well-built people of open
outlook, frank, upstanding, casual,
unceremonious, optimistic, friendly, fond of laughter, not given to
cares of property or too much worry about tomorrow; and they
lived in direct simple relation to their land and world, to its animals,
spirits, and gods, and to one another.”
There were sixty-three tribes of Yokuts in the San Joaquin
Valley, a region 300 miles long and 75 miles wide, from Carquinez
Strait in the north to the Tehachapi Mountains in the south. Yokuts
were the most widely dispersed group of California Indians, being
subdivided into three general groups: Northern Valley Yokuts, Sierra
Foothill Yokuts, and Southern Valley Yokuts. The division between
the northern and southern groups was near Fresno, and the Sierra
foothill group lived in the foothills from Merced to Bakersfield.
Yokuts tribes were of the Penutian language family of which there
were numerous dialects; however, basic customs and institutions
among the Yokuts tribes were quite similar. The Yokuts tribes along
the Stanislaus River, from east to west were: Tuolumne, Suenumne,
Walakumne, and Yalesumne. Just north of the Stanislaus River lived
the Chelumne, and along the Merced River, the Ausumne.
When Americans first settled the northern San Joaquin
Valley, it was easy to find Yokuts’ beads, arrowheads, awls, mortars,
Spanish explorers were the
first whites to encounter the Yokuts.
First came Captain Pedro Fages and
Fray Crespi in 1772, followed by
Captain Juan Bautista de Anza and
Padre Pedro Font in 1776. Their
descriptions of the Yokuts are
invaluable, because they are the
earliest and the purist, coming before
white intrusion. Fages sent a report
in 1775 to the Spanish Viceroy of
the West Indies, in which he
described the Yokuts:
“The captains wear their cloaks
adorned with feathers, and a great
coiffure of false hair folded back
upon their own. The common Indian
wears a small cloak, which reaches to the waist; in their hair they
interweave cords or bands with beads, among the folds of which
they bestow the trifles which they need to carry with them. The
most common of these small articles is a small horn of the antelope
containing tobacco for smoking, wrapped in leaves. They gather
great harvests of this plant, and grind large quantities of it mixed
with lime, from this paste forming cones or small leaves which they
wrap in tule leaves and hang up in the house until quite dry. They
say that as a food it is very strengthening, and that they can sustain
themselves on it for three days without other nourishment; they
usually partake of it at supper.
“The arrangement of their villages is like a chain, not continuous,
however, but broken, and in front of their dwellings they erect
storehouses or barns in which to keep their seeds, implements, and
so forth. They have stone mortars, very like the metates of this
kingdom, jars of the same material, and trays of all sizes made of
wood or reeds artistically decorated with fibrous roots of grass,
which always keep their natural color and is variable according to
the species.
———————— 602 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
“They sleep upon skins of animals and cover themselves with other
skins. The figure or form of these Indians is graceful; both men and
women are taller than ordinary. The men have the custom of smearing
their heads in the form of a cross with white mud. The women
observe in their dress the styles of San Luis Obispo, but with greater
neatness and decency; they have also the fashion of wearing the
hair in a toupee with a braid.”
Spring 2014
they were poured into deep-pocketed burden baskets and carried
to the village.
At the village, the acorns were emptied into a granary,
which was a circular storage unit, consisting of closely-placed
vertical sticks and horizontal cross-members, resembling an upside
down funnel. The granaries were covered with animal skins to protect
the acorns from the elements. When it was time to prepare a meal,
Fages in his 1775 report also described Yokuts government
and economics:
“Each of them collects food every day for his village. The tributes
the collectors receive for their work are seeds, fruits, game, and
fish. If a robbery is committed, complaint is made to the captain,
who holds a council of all the Indians to deliberate concerning the
punishment and reparation due. If the theft is of something eatable
or some utensil, as is usually the case, the entire punishment inflicted
upon the robber is the return of the object stolen or its equivalent.
But if the theft is that of a virgin, whom the robber has ravished,
they must inevitably marry; the same practice is observed in the
case of a simple rape, which may occur without abduction. It is to
be noted that here no one has more than one wife.
“The subordinate captain is under obligation to give his commander
notice of every item of news or occurrence, and to send him all
offenders under proper restraint, that he may reprimand them and
hold them responsible for their crimes. During such an act the culprit,
whether man or woman, remains standing with disheveled hair
hanging down over his face.
“They have two meals within the course of the natural day, one
before dawn, which lasts an hour more or less, and another in midafternoon, which lasts for the space of four hours. When it is finished
they set themselves to smoking tobacco, one after the other, from a
great stone pipe. If there is to be a dance in celebration of a wedding
or feast, they dance until dawn, or, if they stop sooner, they set
alert watchmen in the customary places, who give signals between
themselves and for the entire village, by whistling or by strumming
the cords of their bows, thereby giving notice that the enemy is
approaching, that a house is burning, or that there is some other
accident in the silence of the night.”
Acorns
The Northern Valley Yokuts relied primarily on salmon and
acorns for food. They used harpoons or dragnets to catch salmon
in spring and fall, and gathered acorns dropped from the valley
oaks, grinding them into meal and cooking it. The Yokuts word for
acorn was “putus,” with valley acorns being larger in size and
sweeter than other acorns but provided less nourishment and
spoiled quicker. An average Yokuts family consumed somewhere
near two thousand pounds of acorns a year.
Harvesting acorns occurred in early fall, with women using
a flat tray-like basket, gliding it along the ground surface, scooping
up the acorns. The acorns were then deposited into shallow baskets,
where they were separated from leaves, twigs, and grass. Then
Yokut acorn granary, mortar and pestle, and basket
Frank Latta photo
acorns were then taken from the granary and placed in a flatbottomed basket and carried to be hulled. Hulling was accomplished
by placing each acorn in a hole that had been drilled into a large
rock and striking it with hand-size rock. This method broke the hull,
exposing the acorn’s meat that was then removed for grinding and
mashing.
The meats were placed in a mortar, which was a hollowed
stone or wooden bowl. Then the pestle, which was a smooth oblong
stone, was taken in hand to grind and mash the acorn meats until
they were pulverized into flour. Next, the flour was scooped out the
mortar by hand or swept out by a soap-root husk and placed onto
a flat wicker tray. The flour was taken to a stream to remove the
bitter tannin by a process called leaching. A leaching hole was
made in the ground near the stream and was lined with leaves from
wild grapevines. Water was heated in a cooking basket from heated
rocks that were dropped into it. The hot water was then poured
over the flour, stirred, and tasted to determine how much of the
bitter taste remained. This was done again and again, until the
flavor was palatable. Then the flour was covered and left to dry.
Once dried, the acorn meal resembled a flat loaf or cake.
One could eat the loaf as it was, or pulverize it and add hot water to
form a mush. Most food was eaten by using the thumb and two
fingers, pinching the substance and placing it into the mouth. The
acorn meal was rich in oil and starch. A baseball size amount
contained nutrition equal to several modern loaves of bread.
Mother-in-Law
In the Yokuts culture, it was a custom for the mother-inlaw and son-in-law not to speak to one another. A young couple
lived the first year with the bride’s parents, with the son-in-law
———————— 603 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
sharing the responsibility as head of the household. This led to
certain conflicts with the older female, the mother-in-law, and thus,
the practice of not speaking to one another was spawned. It wasn’t
because they were angry. It simply made for a better household
environment. Once the year elapsed, the young couple moved two
or three miles away from the bride’s parents, but the no-speaking
custom still continued.
A story was told by an American ethnologist that
illustrates this fascinating custom richly. The son-in-law was at his
wife’s parent’s dwelling, while his wife was off visiting. His motherin-law was present though. An ethnologist stopped to speak to the
family and became engaged in a conversation with the son-in-law,
who spoke some English. The ethnologist became thirsty and asked
for a cup of cold water. The son-in-law felt it rude for him to leave
the visitor and go to the nearby stream. His mother-in-law was
present, but she didn’t understand English, and the son-in-law
couldn’t ask her to retrieve the water, because they didn’t speak.
This caused the son-in-law to step into the doorway and yell in his
native language to his wife, who was a few miles away to bring
water for the visitor. Obviously, his wife couldn’t hear him, but the
mother-in-law did, causing her to retrieve the cold water from the
stream. The ethnologist drank the liquid, with amusement and
amazement of what he had witnessed.
Major Savage
In 1928, Pahmit, a one-hundred year-old Yokuts man, told
a number of stories of Yokuts life to an ethnologist that he recorded.
One bears repeating here, because it reveals the gross mistreatment
of Yokuts by the American army and government, using force and
trickery. Pahmit told the story about U.S. Army Major Savage and a
peace treaty that was signed but never ratified by Congress:
“Major Savage come to Kuyu Illik [Yokuts village] make Indian
sign paper [1851 treaty], I young man ‘bout twenty-one, twentytwo years-old. My people live happy ‘till soldiers come. We have
plenty eat. We have nice dry houses to live in. We don’t fight. Lots
our people live along river above Kuyu Illik. Lots antelope, lots elk,
lots wild horses come river, drink below Kuyu Illik. When white
man come, he shoot, shoot, shoot. Kill all antelope. Kill all elk. Then
he bring cattle, make Indian buy beef.
“When Indian get hungry, he go with gun shoot some quail, maybe
cotton tail, maybe dove. White man ‘rest him, put in jail. Now my
people no keep gun. They no have rifle; they no have shotgun in
house . . . Soldier come with big man from Washington to sign
paper with Indian. Major Savage come to Kuyu Illik. He come
horseback. He have blue clothes. He have six, seven men. They all
have blue clothes. They all got gun; they all soldier. Major Savage
he talk my grandpa, Tomkit. He tell him big father at Washington
send him to see Indians. He say we haf bring all Indian chief here
talk big man from Washington. He say we haf bring all Indian chief;
fifty, sixty chief, Kuyu Illik, talk to big man from Washington. My
grandpa, Tomkit, talk rest our chief. They think that’s bad business.
“[Tomkit to Major Savage:] “Why you want us to do this? What
they gonna do that paper we got sign?” Then Major Savage tell
Spring 2014
Tomkit, “I big medicine man with big father at Washington. You haf
do what I say. I hurt you if I want to. I make all your people die. I
make all fish go out river. I make all antelope, all elk go ‘way. I make
dark. You do what I say, nothing hurt you. But you no hurt me. You
shoot me bow, arrow, I live. You shoot me with pistol, you no hurt
me.”
“Major Savage have nice six shooter. My people never see six
shooter before. Major Savage put white handkerchief side oak tree.
He load six shooter one, two, three, six bullet, he stand close tree.
He shoot handkerchief, one, two, three, six time. Every time he make
hole in handkerchief. Major Savage load six shooter agin. We see
him put powder, paper, bullet. [Savage used blanks.] Then he give
to our man. “Now, you shoot me, you no hurt me, you no kill me.
Then he stand close our man. Our man shoot, bang! The Major
Savage grab bullet in air with his hand. He don’t fall down. Our
people look at each other. They say he big medicine man. He shoot
six time. Major Savage, he grab in air six time. Our people all come
close, look. Then Major Savage hold out hand, open it. We see six
bullet our man shoot. Major Savage catch’em all his hand.
“My grandpa, Tomkit, he see that. He b’lieve ‘em. I see that. I
b’lieve ‘em too. All my people see that. They all think Major Savage
big medicine man. They all think they better do what he say. My
grandpa, Tomkit, he send men to bring all Indian chief. Big man
from Washington come with paper. Lots ‘em come. We got give big
Father in Washington all our land. We got go down valley, live.
Washington send us clothing; send us flour, send us blanket, send
us horse. He say big white Father send us teacher. Our people no
like that. Then Major Savage he go wagon. He bring whiskey, he
bring tobacco. All Indian make one puff. All white chief make one
puff. The Major Savage give ‘em lots whiskey. Then they make
sign-mark on piece paper. Take long time.
“Then white chief go ‘way. Major Savage go ‘way. He go Kings
River. White man there shoot Major Savage like our man shoot ‘im.
Major Savage he die. Why he no catch ‘em bullets? Ha! Ha!”
Yokuts Basket-Making
Yokuts baskets were constructed by tribal women, or
“mokes.” In fact, they handcrafted nearly all domestic appliances
that were needed, because they performed the household labor.
Yokuts baskets, or “aw-suh,” consisted of three components:
bundles of grass stems, light-cream colored root thread to bind,
and dark colored root thread to bind and create abstract designs.
They did not weave the baskets in the true sense but stitched or
sewed them together. This practice took patience and an immense
amount of time, because it was meticulous labor, usually taking up
to six months to complete one basket. The end product was a sturdy
and watertight basket, used to transport items or used in cooking.
The cooking baskets were not placed directly over a fire but served
as receptacles into which heated stones were dropped and then
acted as a stove to cook the food.
The primary material used in making a Yokuts basket were
long stemmed bunchgrass (epicampes rigens) found along the
valley’s waterways. The bunchgrass was tightly bundled into straw-
———————— 604 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
sized cords or coils called “chawkish.” These cords would then be
stitched tightly together by light-cream colored thread.
The thread came from the valley’s swamp grass’ (cladium
mariscus) long roots, found in wet areas near waterways. The
roots were four-feet long and stringy, being removed carefully with
a long thin stick that probed and loosened them. Once the roots
were excavated, their bark was stripped off, and the root was
sectioned length-wise producing crude threads, called “hoo-pud”
or “hupud.”
The splitting of the crude threads into usable ones was
painstakingly slow. The basket-maker held one end of a crude thread
by her teeth, while slowly separating two other threads from it with
her fingers. This provided three thick threads that were then scraped
with the sharp edge of a rock or knife to produce thin threads.
These threads were of such minute dimension that when they were
used to stitch the cords together, it was possible to have forty
stitches or more per inch. This density of sewed material made the
baskets strong, durable, and leak-proof. To insert the thin thread
between the cords, an awl, or “bah-ok,” commonly a sharply pointed
bone, was used to poke holes between the cords or coils for the
insertion of thread. As the sewing process advanced the basket
grew in size.
Important features of the Yokuts baskets were the dark
red or black designs. These abstract symbols were created by the
basket-maker through substituting dark colored threads, or
“muhnokits,” for the light-cream colored threads during the
stitching process. The dark colored threads originated from bracken
fern’s (pteridium aquilinum) roots. They were extracted from the
mire and dyed by boiling them in dark slushy mud from swamps, or
by burying them in swamp mud for a few days. Once dyed, the
roots were dried and then split into dark colored threads.
Wicker Baskets
Yokuts’ wicker baskets, or “tah-meuk,” were constructed
from young black willow or cottonwood shoots. A sifter basket
was the most common. It was used to sort foodstuff, such as seed
from chaff, or to wash greens for eating. It was a shallow bowl-like
basket, almost flat, where the wicker stalks were arranged about
one-eighth of an inch apart and sewed with thread. If a design was
desired in wicker baskets, then slender shoots of redbud shrub
(cercis occidentalis) were used in narrow strips. The coloring of
the redbud was red or maroon, similar to manzanita. Wicker baskets
were light, rigid, and a favorite utensil. During the manufacturing
process, all wicker baskets and baby cradles were soaked
continuously in water to keep the material pliable and practically
unbreakable.
Burden Baskets
Burden baskets, or “shaw-nil,” were cone-shaped, having
a strap that wrapped around the middle of the basket and then
around the carrier’s forehead for carrying. When a tribal member
was worried, he might say, “Mik-its nim shaw-nil,” or “Great is my
burden.” The burden basket was two feet deep and about 18 to 24
inches wide at its opening on top. Its woven structure was looser
than the other baskets allowing for more flexibility while being
transported. This basket was used commonly for hauling acorns.
Spring 2014
Blackberry Baskets
The blackberry basket, or “chawmish,” was used to carry
picked berries. It was pear-shaped, measuring five inches across
the opening on top and narrower at the bottom. The basket contained
a buckskin strap that hung from the berry-picker’s neck, allowing
the basket to dangle at waste level. This permitted the berry-picker
to have her hands free, so she could pick and drop berries into the
basket quickly and efficiently. The basket was of wicker
construction consisting of willow twigs that stood upright and
held in place by sewed thread. For designs, red-dyed threads were
used. When not being used for blackberries, blackberry baskets
were convenient containers for beads, brushes, shells, threads,
and other items.
Cradle Baskets
It was a common practice for Yokuts to have two baby
cradles. One was temporary cradle, known as “be-etch,” used when
the baby was first born to the age of three or four weeks. Then a
larger permanent cradle, or “ah-keet-ze,” was used until the baby
walked. The temporary cradle was constructed by the mother or
grandmother. It was mat-like, being made from soft cottonwood
stems that would run lengthwise and tied together by thread. Straps
constructed from milkweed fiber were tied to the cradle to strap the
baby to the matted board. When the baby began using the permanent
cradle,
the
temporary
cradle
was
rolled
up,
placed high in
an oak tree, and
tied in place. It
remained there
until the baby
walked. Yokuts
feared that if
the temporary
cradle
was
removed from
On the left is a Yokuts permanent cradle
the
tree
basket and on the right is a temporary
prematurely, the
cradle basket
Frank Latta illus.
baby’s walking
efforts would be jinxed.
Once the baby’s sex was known, then construction on the
permanent cradle began, because the cradles were shaped for boys
or girls. A boy’s cradle was wider at the top, while the girl’s cradle
was narrower. The grandmother typically constructed the permanent
cradle, because the mother was caring for the baby and herself. The
cradle’s dimensions were two-and-a-half to three feet long, eight
inches wide at the bottom, and 18 inches at the top. It was flat and
rigid, containing two layers of cottonwood twigs. The bottom layer
of twigs ran crosswise, while the top layer was lengthwise. Then
the two opposing layers were sewed to one another, forming a
fairly soft and sturdy board. It took ten days to complete the
construction.
At the top of the cradle board was a sunshade to keep the
sun and rain off the baby’s face. It was made from wicker or soap-
———————— 605 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
root that was pounded into a paste, dried, and smoothed. A wicker
handle was attached from one side of the cradle to the other, in a
looped fashion, with the sunshade being connected to it. Little
trinkets for the baby’s amusement hung from the sunshade by
threads, usually items made from shells. Hanging with the trinkets
would be a piece of soapstone, steatite, or talc, called “kodis,” to
scrap off pieces, serving as talcum to soothe the baby’s irritations.
Along the two sides of the cradle, milkweed straps were
connected and passed over the top of the baby, lacing him down
securely. To cushion the baby against the back of the cradle board,
bird feathers and animal skins were used as soft matting. To transport
the cradle on the mother’s back a strap fabricated from milkweed
was attached to the top part of the cradle and wrapped around the
mother’s forehead. This way the cradle was held firmly against her
back, neck, and head. A cradle could easily be stood against a tree
trunk, river bank, large rock, or any such object.
Abstract Designs
The women basket weavers wove into their baskets
abstract designs or symbols, representing Yokuts’ customs, history,
and beliefs. They depicted tribal stories through symbolic patterns
serving as the tribe’s written record that were passed along to
subsequent generations. They became symbolic tapestries used in
storytelling. A typical grandmother would sit with children, holding
the baskets, telling tales of Yokuts’ lore, mostly of life and death.
The basket-maker had to be a craftsperson, artisan, designer,
mineralogist, botanist, and mathematician, besides a storyteller,
philosopher, theologian, wife, mother, and grandmother, an
astounding
accomplishment
for someone
without formal
education, living
in a primitive
environment.
T h e
abstractions
represented
ants, caterpillars,
deer, eagles,
flies,
geese,
Three rattlesnake baskets, showing suitgophers, pine
able abstract designs. Lower left basket is
trees,
quail,
a blackberry basket Frank Latta Photo
snakes, water
spiders, worms, and other environmental life. The most popular
designs were those of snakes, primarily because the abstract
designs closely resembled authentic snakeskin markings. The
rattlesnake’s diamond-shaped designs were depicted commonly
on all types of baskets but especially on bottleneck baskets used
to hold rattlesnakes for tribal shaman. Other snakes were depicted
as well, such as, king, garter, gopher, and water snakes, but since
tribal stories were mostly of life and death, the rattlesnake
represented evil. Because of this, all other living creatures were
friends to the Yokuts, because they were able to kill the demonic
rattlesnake.
King and gopher snakes were known to suffocate
rattlesnakes. When they are near, a rattlesnake balls up, because it
Spring 2014
instinctively knows its venom will not harm them. The king or
gopher snake will then wrap itself around the rattlesnake suffocating
it. Ants with repeated stings can kill rattlesnakes and then will
consume them. A deer, or similar hoofed animals, can stomp
rattlesnakes to death. Birds with repeated pecks can kill rattlesnakes
as well, while bugs will devour rattlesnake carcasses. Thus, every
creature in the environment can in some way do harm to the dreaded
rattlesnake, and hence were the Yokuts’ friends. These primeval
battles were featured prominently in abstractions woven into
Yokuts’ baskets.
The location of designs on a basket was significant. For
example, on the neck of a bottleneck basket, used for holding
rattlesnakes, there were symbols of ants, bugs, and quail to warn
the rattlesnakes to stay put inside and not try to escape.
Basket Stories
This is a Yokuts’ basket story: The evil rattlesnake was
overheard by a quail declaring it was going to kill certain Yokuts.
The quail told the water spider, who scurried across the water and
land on its long legs to inform the ants. The ants attacked the
rattlesnake stinging it to death and eating it. Sometimes this story
was told with king and gopher snakes doing the killing. These
were stories of good versus evil, not unlike tales told the world
over and typical in modern visual media. There were “creation
baskets” that told the Yokuts’ creation story, featuring symbolic
depictions of bows and arrows, blackberries, eagles, moon, oak
trees, people, snakes, sun, turtles, and water. Each of these was
represented abstractly, with its own distinct symbol.
The quail was depicted with only its top-notch and was
considered to be a peacemaker, judge, and protector of honesty
and goodwill. The water spider was symbolized by five rectangles
and a fly by four rectangles. An inch worm, another popular creature
in basket artistry, was represented by a line for its path of travel.
The deer was depicted by two small triangles for hoof markings.
Caterpillars and worms were pictured in groups with many zig-zag
lines. Individual worms, such as those at the top of a basket, were
featured in short solid bars. Lightning was portrayed by zig-zag
lines. Pine trees were a series of stacked triangles, with the smaller
triangles being on top. The eagle was depicted by triangles for its
head and tail, with horizontal lines serving as its wings. If broken
designs appeared on any basket, it commonly meant that the artist
was still in the learning process. Because basket design was art,
the only true interpretation of the abstraction came from basket’s
creator. Other basket-makers normally would not interpret another’s
basket.
Yokuts Population
1800 - 18,000
1850 - 13,000
1880 - 600
1900 - 550
1910 - 533
1970 - 595
1990 -1,327
Sources: Brian Bibby, The Fine Art of California Indian Basketry;
A.L. Kroeber, Handbook of the Indians of California; F.F. Latta,
Handbook of Yokuts Indians; and Stephen Powers, Tribes of
California.
Written by Robert LeRoy Santos
———————— 606 ————————
Chinese in Stanislaus County
C
hina heard the exciting news of gold in California, a distance
of some 9,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean. Young Chinese
gathered their simple possessions and boarded ships, heading
towards the golden hills of California. Over the next three decades,
Chinese continued immigrating to the state, peaking at 300,000 at
one point, who worked not only in the gold fields, but in railroad
construction, laundries, kitchens, vegetable gardens, and other
occupations white Americans shunned. During the early years in
Stanislaus County, Chinese were found in significant populations
in Knights Ferry and La Grange, with a few in Hill’s Ferry on the
western side of the county.
Chinese Immigration
funeral expenses. The company promised employment in California,
through its agents, who met them in San Francisco.
Before they left China, they were required to provide proof
that they were debt-free. The passage to California took 45 days to
three months by steamship, with ships carrying up to 1,400 Chinese.
They were housed in the steerage section, which consisted of bunks
six feet long, 14 inches wide, and three tiers high. The passengers
brought their own cooking and eating utensils for the passage and
for later use in California. Normal voyage illnesses occurred, but
one vessel in 1854, suffered massive scurvy, where 20 percent of
the passengers died.
The goal of these Chinese adventurers was to accumulate
as much wealth as possible in California, returning to China, buying
property, marrying, and having a family. This was not any different
from the many other races or nationalities encroaching on California
in search of instant wealth. It is apparent that California had the
makings for a transitory culture, ripe for exploitation, chaotic
economics, and acts of ruthlessness.
Early Chinese immigrants were principally from the Chinese
province of Kwangtang, while others had resided in nearby Kwangsi
and Fukien provinces. This was the Pearl River Delta, rich in
agriculture on its rolling hills and known geographically as the
Southern Uplands. The major harbor of
Canton was located 75 miles to the east,
Coolie Labor
where also were the port settlements of
British Hong Kong and Portuguese
In San Francisco, the Chinese
Macao. These major depots of shipping
immigrants were met by their sponsoring
attracted international trade, especially
company’s agents. (The original four
ships from America and Europe.
companies were enlarged to six
The Pearl River Delta had four
companies in San Francisco because of
ethnic groups: Sam Yup, Sze Yup, Young
discord, becoming known collectively as
Wo, and Yan Wo. These groups, known
“Chinese Six Companies.”) The company
as associations or companies (“hui
was the initiator of employment, while
kuan” in Chinese), consisted of
also being responsible temporarily for
different dialects and clans. They were
food, shelter, and medical assistance. The
notoriously known for feuding with
new immigrant could work for one person
each other, perhaps because of the
as a servant or laborer, or could be placed
serious socio-economic declination
in a contractual working unit of 20 or so
occurring in the delta. There was
men. The latter became known as “coolie
Chinese mining gold near Auburn in 1852
political corruption, injustice, and poor
labor,” whose contracts placed them in
California State Library photo
governmental administration. Peasant
servitude, not unlike slavery. Some
uprisings and raids by local bandits were common. Along with this historians disagree, classifying it as a system of employment and
turmoil, there were droughts and floods, which destroyed crops, not one of exploitation. The word “coolie” came from the Chinese
causing further poverty and starvation. It is no wonder that word, “k’u li,” which meant “bitter strength.” Nevertheless, during
significant numbers of Chinese in the delta decided to leave the the Gold Rush, the vast majority of the Chinese immigrants headed
misery, immigrating to places such as California, Canada, Cuba, in work groups to the Sierra gold fields as contracted prospectors.
Hawaii, Mexico, Peru, and Southeast Asia. “Gold in California” was
Non-Chinese miners took what gold was easily extracted
their compelling attraction though, causing scores of Cantonese to from the riverbeds and moved on. Once white prospectors deserted
immigrate to “Gold Mountain” (“Gum Shan” in Chinese), which a gold site, the Chinese moved in. It was these miners and late
was California, arriving at “Big City” (“Dai Fow” in Chinese), which American arrivals to the gold fields, who meticulously farmed the
was San Francisco. By 1850, 4,000 Chinese had entered California, riverbeds and riverbanks, using various methods of washing gravel
and dirt to extract the gold. The Chinese mined the gold fields in
and by the end of 1852, the number had swelled to 20,000.
The many foreign traders, who frequented the Chinese groups, sharing what they found, seeing much success in their
ports of Canton, Hong Kong, and Macao, saw the chance for fat meticulousness.
profits. They advertised California’s gold through circulars and
posters, wanting emigrant passengers to travel on their ships. The
Anti-Chinese Activity
Chinese emigrants were sponsored by the Pearl River Delta’s four
Anti-Chinese agitation began to germinate as the
companies that provided passage to California under the credit- occidental culture encountered the oriental culture. As the gold
ticket system. The emigrant paid from $10 to $40 for a company supply dwindled in the Sierra, white miners became frustrated and
membership, which included travel costs across the ocean, plus moved to rural and urban environments for employment. Times
———————— 607 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
weren’t easy, or at least, not as easy as the young white miners
thought they would be. Frustration and greed became the driving
forces, and a scapegoat was needed to punish for their failures.
The whites saw large numbers of Chinese working in the gold fields,
taking the place of white miners, and they saw that they were
successful. Incensed, they harassed the Chinese, which soon
escalated into widespread racial hatred.
Young American males were confident and aggressive,
rich in American ideals of freedom and independence, coming from
pioneering environments, and witnessing the oriental culture for
the first time – a culture that was completely unlike their own. They
saw diminutive men,
dressed in odd attire,
with strange eating
habits,
religion,
language, morality,
customs,
and
mannerisms. Also,
Chinese immigrants
were on American soil,
trespassing
on
American economics
and property. It grew to
be
an
explosive
situation.
The
only
common
ground
between the two races
was their recreational
vices. Young Chinese
Anti-Chinese cover on popular San
and white males were
Francisco magazine of the time,
drawn to gambling,
1877
U.C. Bancroft Library illus.
alcohol or drugs, and
sex, but here too there were differences. The Chinese saw alcohol
intoxication as a disgrace, because it lacked restraint, while whites
couldn’t understand the passivity of an opium trance. Gambling to
the Chinese was merely another way of making a living. It didn’t
have the sin stigma as in Protestant American society. Fan tan,
dominoes, blackjack, stud poker, dice, and keno were favorites to
both Chinese and whites. White males especially enjoyed the
raucous Chinese New Year, with its firecrackers, brilliant colors,
and celebratory antics.
The Chinese found ways to exist in the foreign white
American environment. For one, they kept their distance and did
not allow awkward circumstances to arise. As noted earlier, they
mined gold fields only after the whites left. They entered occupations
that white males considered unmanly, such as washing clothes,
sewing, cooking, and truck gardening, which were primarily female
duties in a white society. Also, Chinese took on manual labor that
was tedious and arduous, such as railroad construction, land
reclamation, farm work, and mining second-hand gold fields.
In the 1870s, when Chinese immigration was peaking,
California suffered from high employment and a depressed economy,
a climate that was ripe for scapegoating. The Chinese were very
noticeable with their long queues of hair and loose black clothing,
besides they were quite numerous, having become the largest
Spring 2014
minority in the state. Anti-Chinese sentiment grew steadily, causing
sporadic incidents of violence that soon developed into a systematic
campaign to drive them from the state. By the 1880 Census, only
one-third remained of the nearly 300,000 Chinese immigrants that
touched California’s shores.
Those 100,000 who remained in California were subjected
to a steady flow of anti-Chinese legislation, such as the Foreign
Miners Tax, Fishing Tax, An Act to Prevent the Issuance of Licenses
to Aliens, An Act to Prevent the Further Immigration of Chinese or
Mongolians to This State, An Act to Protect Free White Labor
Against Competition with Chinese Coolie Labor, and the Exclusion
Act of 1882, to name a few. Even the state’s new Constitution of
1879 had provisions against the Chinese. It stated that no
cooperation was to be given to “employ, directly or indirectly, in
any capacity, any Chinese or Mongolians . . . No Chinese shall be
employed on any State, County, Municipal, or other public work.”
In 1882, the first of the exclusion acts was passed, which suspended
the immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years. Also, Chinese
could not become naturalized citizens, a condition that lasted until
1943. Because of these restrictions, Chinese living in California fell
from a high of 100,000 in 1880 to 45,000 in 1900.
Stanislaus County
Chinese began arriving in Stanislaus County with the Gold
Rush, occupying the river ways and gold fields. Just west of
Newman, in the foothills, there was a site named China Cabin Flat,
which had evidence of mining activity, but no information exists
concerning it. In fact, researching Chinese history in the county is
difficult, because very little was recorded. In the early years, the
Chinese population in the county amounted to a trifle and was
illiterate; consequently, there are no written records, while the white
population took little interest in recording information about them.
Even so, what has been written provides a glimpse into early Chinese
habitation in the county.
Every city in California had its “Chinatown.” It could
consist of a shack or two, or develop into very large community like
those in Stockton and San Francisco. Chinatown was normally
located on the fringes of the American urban community. This was
because Chinese were shunned by the white majority and also
because the Chinese wanted to be unnoticed and thus, unharmed.
Chinatown could be found along the shores of waterways, a similar
environment to the Pearl River Delta, or in the town’s red light
district with its bordellos and saloons. This latter location did not
bother the Chinese, because they were uncritical of their neighbors,
and besides the white carousers patronized their businesses.
There were two Chinese settlements just south of Hill’s
Ferry in 1850: China Ford and China Island. They were on the San
Joaquin River, near the boundary line with Merced County. China
Ford was Hill’s Ferry’s Chinatown of 20 residents. This location
was near the confluence of Merced and San Joaquin rivers, being
on the west bank of the San Joaquin. The Chinese caught and sold
fish, and grew vegetables, selling them house-to-house. They had
laundries and worked as cooks and farm laborers. During the
steamboat period, they were hired for threshing grain and loading
the river vessels. When the railroad came to the West Side in 1888,
they moved from Hill’s Ferry to the new town of Newman, right
———————— 608 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
along with everyone else. China Island rested in the middle of the
San Joaquin River, which apparently had some occupants because
of its name. There is no historical information given about it.
Two significant Chinese settlement were on the eastern
side of the county, located in Knights Ferry on the Stanislaus River
and La Grange on the Tuolumne River. They accumulated at these
sites in great numbers, because of gold mining. Also, Chinese Camp
in Tuolumne County had a significant settlement of Chinese, being
further east of the two settlements. Stanislaus County was carved
from Tuolumne County in 1854, so Chinese Camp had been in the
same county for four years. These three Chinese settlements
mirrored one another in culture and activity.
Spring 2014
1868, Chinese helped rebuild it. In the 1870s and 1880s, Abraham
Schell, owner of Red Mountain Winery, located a few miles north of
Knights Ferry, employed 35 Chinese laborers regularly to work his
75 acres of vineyards. Also, Chinese dynamited a hillside to build
Chinese Camp
Ah Chi was the first Chinese on record in Tuolumne County.
He owned a business in Sonora before 1849. In 1849, a group of
English prospectors hired Chinese laborers and established Camp
Salvado on the opposite side of the hill where Chinese Camp would
be. E.W. Emory operated a store at Camp Salvado, catering mostly
to Mexican miners from Sonora, Mexico. Before long, prospectors
extracted all the surface gold and left the area. Then the Chinese
came to further mine the fields, which still contained vast amounts
of gold. A new camp was then established called “New Chinese” or
“Chinese” or “Chinese Camp.” Because there was no water to wash
the dirt, the Chinese used the winnowing method, which was
borrowed from the Mexicans. Chinese miners would hold the four
ends of a rectangular cloth, shoveled dirt on to it, and bounced the
dirt in the wind with the heavier gold nuggets falling to the cloth.
They also transported the dirt by wheelbarrow to Six Bit Gulch, a
mile away, where there was water.
Chinese Camp served as a distribution center of necessary
supplies for the southern mines. At one time, it is estimated that
there were 5,000 Chinese residing in Chinese Camp. Their culture
could be seen everywhere, in the community’s signs, buildings,
food, and daily activity. The camp had the standard complement of
opium dens, gambling joints, and prostitutes. It was also home to
the infamous Chinese War of June 1856, in which 800 to 2,000
Chinese, depending upon the historical account, battled at nearby
Shoemaker’s Ranch (or Kentuck Ranch or Crimea House or Mound
Springs, depending upon the source). In the foray, four combatants
were killed and 20 wounded, being witnessed by nearly 5,000 white
spectators. The fight was between the Chinese companies of Sam
Yup and Yan Wo. Sam Yup was from Rock River Ranch and carried
muskets, while Yan Wo wielded lengthy spears and rattan shields.
The two companies had a long history of feuding in China, and this
was a continuation of their bad blood. The battle was stimulated
when one company rolled a boulder onto the other’s turf and refused
to remove it.
Knights Ferry and La Grange
Knights Ferry’s Chinese lived on Main Street, near the
bridge, along the bottomland, with its gardens occupying the hillside
just above. At one point, there were at least a dozen stores. One
account states that Chinese men carried freight on their shoulders
for white teamsters at $1 a pound in the rainy season of 1862. The
freight wagons were bogged down in the treacherous roadway and
by the flooded river. When the nearby dam was washed away in
La Grange’s Chinatown
McHenry Museum photo
an underground cellar for Schell’s wine storage, a practice they
learned from mining and railroad construction.
La Grange’s Chinese were located at the lower west end of
town. At its peak, there were nearly 1,000 Chinese miners in
residence. In 1871, 600 Chinese and 900 other laborers were hired
by the La Grange Ditch and Hydraulic Mining Co. to excavate a
ditch that would be 17 miles long, eight feet wide at the top, and
four feet deep. The ditch brought water into La Grange from the
Tuolumne River for
hydraulic mining
and was completed
in three months.
The Chinese were
paid $1.50 a day,
while the whites
received $2.
Chinese
built rock fences
along Willms Road,
between Knights
Ferry
and
Waterford and can
Modesto’s China Alley
still be seen today.
McHenry Museum photo
They were hired by
ranchers to build fences from the volcanic rocks found in the
surrounding fields. The rocks were extracted, carried over rough
terrain, and stacked in interlocking configuration constructing a
very substantial fence. The pay was meager, and the workers
provided their own food, lodging, and transportation.
Modesto
Modesto was founded in 1870, with there being little town
planning in the early years. Chinese opium dens and gambling
joints could be found alongside respectable businesses and near
residential areas. These early Chinese facilities were located in spots
that would later be occupied by the Modesto Theater, the city hall,
———————— 609 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
Spring 2014
and fire station. The majority of the nearly 500 Chinese in Modesto and drink, but FCF was offered in powdered form that was added to
were found in China Alley, located between Seventh and Eighth hot water and consumed. This convenient FCF medicine attracted
streets and F and G streets. Tunnels of some 14 feet were dug non-Chinese customers, which saved numerous lives in 1918 during
the deadly Spanish Influenza Epidemic.
underground to provide protection during raids. Web’s Drive-In
During the epidemic,
on Seventh Street had
Sue distributed FCF without
sunken areas where tunnels
cost to Modesto residents and
had once existed.
to those in the surrounding
When the local
farming community. His flu
vigilantes raided dance halls,
powder saved many lives, and
saloons, gambling houses,
because of this, he gained a
and opium dens in August
dedicated following of white
1879, they roped and pulled
customers and a new respect
down many of the buildings
for his people. City officials
in China Alley. They then
looked upon the herbal
burned them in the street
practice with good will,
along
with
opium
treating local Chinese with
paraphernalia, fan tan
Newman’s Chinatown
better regard. N.S. Sue
Newman Historical Society photo
gaming layouts, and faro
patented his flu powder in
tables. Newspaper articles in the 1880s expressed hatred towards
1920 with the U.S. Patent Office.
the Chinese. J.D. Spencer, editor of Modesto Daily Evening News,
regularly ridiculed the Chinese in his column, with remarks, such as
“pidgin English,” “coolie pigtails,” and other such terms.
Newman and Oakdale
The vigilantes struck again on Saturday night, April 5,
As noted earlier, in 1888, some 100 Chinese moved from
1884. They were called the San Joaquin Regulators, and among Hill’s Ferry to the new railroad town of Newman. They settled on
other raiding activities, they demolished Chinese opium dens and the east side of the tracks on San Joaquin and L streets. The
destroyed any opium that was found. During the raid, Modesto Chinatown was one block long containing six buildings. In 1908,
Constable Clark protected the Chinese laundries and stores, while there were three Chinese laundries and 12 dwellings. The Bank of
being harassed by the regulators. In 1885, the city passed a zoning Newman was known to assist Chinese in sending money to relatives
ordinance restricting Chinese to the China Alley, and Chinese
in the Hong Kong area. Jo Jug was recorded as the first Chinese
laundries were condemned for being unhealthy and fire hazards. In settler in Newman, where he operated a laundry at 1148 M St. To
1891, most of China Alley’s 20 buildings were gutted by fire, but
avoid clothing theft, he hung washed clothes to dry on the laundry’s
most of the residents continued to reside there until 1911.
roof. In 1910, Chinese assassins arrived by train and murdered a
Chinese folk medicines were supplied by local Chinese Chinese man at a rooming house. A chase ensued, with one assassin
herbalists. In 1912, N.S. Sue Herb Company moved to Modesto being wounded, while all were captured, tried, and sent to prison.
from Stockton to sell its herbs locally. An office was rented at 701
Oakdale possessed a small Chinese section on the east
Eighth Street, near the railroad tracks, being located on the fringe side of the railroad tracks along East Railroad Avenue, between E
of Modesto’s Chinese community. The herb company developed a
and F streets. In 1885, there were three dwellings, and in 1890,
medicinal product called “FCF,” short for “Flu-Colds-and-Fever.” Chinese lived on Fourth Street, between E and F streets.
Normally, N.S. Sue provided raw herbs for patients to boil, strain, Sources: Local docs. and pubs.Written by Robert LeRoy Santos
Chinese in California Prior to the Gold Rush
There is historical evidence that a group of Buddhist monks may
have traveled to California in 458 A.D. There is other evidence that
in 499 A.D., a Chinese subject, Hui Shen, reached “Fusang,” which
is thought to be California. According to 1815 historical records,
Ah Nan was the first Chinese to live in California. He served as a
cook for California Governor Pablo de Sola in Monterey. It is recorded
that Chinese seamen on the trading ship, Bolivar, came in contact
with California in 1838. Also on record is Chun Ming as being the
first Chinese merchant in California in 1847.
Chinese Women
Chinese women were rare California residents in the early
years. A Chinese man who wanted to marry in California either
married a prostitute, or if he were wealthy, had a bride sent from
China after viewing her picture. They were called “picture brides.”
Most Chinese women prostitutes were forced into prostitution
because of their poverty, with most being addicted to opium to
ease emotional distress and physical pain. Married women were
cooks and launderers, especially if her husband’s business hired
Chinese laborers. Because there were few Chinese marriages in
California, the Chinese population decreased as the older single
males passed on. The second generation males in California tended
to marry and have families, making the state their home.
Chinese Medicine
Chinese immigrants practiced traditional medicinal
techniques. For major injuries and illnesses an “herb doctor” was
consulted. For minor medical problems, an herbalist was sought. If
an herb doctor was present, a diagnosis was done on the patient,
———————— 610 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
with a prescription written for an herbalist to fill. A well-stocked
herbalist had a counter of nearly 100 drawers filled with plants,
roots, bark, nuts, and insects. The herbs were generally brewed to
be consumed as a liquid, which had a muddy coloration and was
bitter. The herbalist also kept bottles of medicines containing
ointments, oils, and various pills. Plants were brought from China
and also grown in California to supply fresh herbs, such as the
ailanthus tree (tree of heaven) that was used in the treatment of
arthritis.
Chinese Religion
Forms of polytheism were commonly practiced by the
Chinese immigrants, which were composites of folk religion,
mysticism, and ancestor worship. Most followed Buddhist doctrines
and Confucian training. The Chinese were superstitious and
Spring 2014
practiced rites to ward off evil. Taoism was popular in which the
worship of Kuan Kung was the most common. He was a thirdcentury military leader of high ideals and considered to be the God
of War by some. Respect for deities and departed ancestors were
demonstrated through personal offerings of food, drink, and burning
incense. Paper offerings or written messages were burned to transfer
them to the unseen spiritual world through rising smoke. Their
temples were colorfully decorated in gold and red, having large
statues, especially one of Buddha, rosewood tables, brass candle
holders, and urns. The responsibility of the Chinese company was
to ship a deceased member’s bones from California to his home
village. The bones were exhumed, polished, inventoried, and placed
in a box or urn and sent home. This was done to prevent the Chinese
immigrant’s soul from wandering endlessly in the transitory land of
California.
RLS
U.S. Census Historical Statistics - Chinese in Stanislaus County
Chinese Population in California and Stanislaus County
Year
1852
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
California
9,809
34,933
49,277
74,132
72,472
45,753
36,248
28,812
Stanislaus County
No data
192
306
518
No data
236
161
87
Percentage of Chinese Population by Gender
in Stanislaus County
Year
1860
1870
1880
1900
1910
% Male
96.0
89.5
89.3
89.4
87.9
% Female
4.0
10.5
10.7
10.6
12.1
Size of Chinese Households in Stanislaus County
Year
1860
1870
1880
1900
1910
1 Person
6
30
57
75
18
2 Persons
6
15
25
27
4
3 Persons
6
17
19
7
7
4+ Persons
13
18
44
11
8
Average Assessed Real Property Value
in Stanislaus County
Year
1860
1870
1880
1890
1899
Chinese
$ 39.75
250.00
52.50
70.71
62.22
White
$ 200.92
748.75
933.57
1,996.08
1,048.69
Average Age of Chinese in Stanislaus County
Year
1860
1870
1880
1900
1910
Male
32.1
33.8
33.9
46.1
47.2
Female
No Data
27.8
30.1
47.2
36.1
Chinese Children in Stanislaus County
Year
1860
1870
1880
1900
1910
———————— 611 ————————
17 Years of Age and Under
17
10
20
15
7
Mexicans in Stanislaus County
Part 1: Mexico and Mexicans: The Beginning
A
nthropologists tell us that Mexico was first inhabited by
human life around 10,000 B.C. At first, they were hunters and then
began to farm the land around 6500 B.C. As the population grew,
farming, village industries, and forms of native religion took root,
becoming entrenched and sustaining. Soon there were major tribes,
powerful rulers, and advanced civilizations forming, known as
Mexico’s Classic Period from 300 to 900 A.D. During this era, the
Maya and Zapotec peoples constructed vast temples and
settlements, while enhancing their wealth through industry and
commerce. About 900 A.D., the Toltec Indians, a fierce warring
group, invaded the rich civilizations, conquering the Yucatan
Peninsula and constructing a considerable settlement.
The Toltec culture spread to the central and southern
regions of Mexico, with their principal god being the feather-serpent
Quetzalcoatl. Invading tribes though caused the Toltec’s influence
to wane, allowing the Aztec people to expand and develop their
powerful empire, rich in monuments, construction, industry,
medicine, and creative arts. Its center would become Mexico City,
having a population of 100,000 when the Spanish conquistador
Hernando Cortez invaded the region in 1517. Spanish relations with
the Aztecs declined quickly, ending in war that culminated in 1521,
with the Spanish being the victors and wielders of tyrannical
oppression over the native peoples.
New Spain
Mexico was now in European hands, with the Spanish
spreading their influence and bloodlines throughout the area. The
region became known as New Spain, headed by a “viceroy,” the
Spanish king’s chosen overlord. The Catholic Church had free rein
to convert the native people, while large ranchos, called haciendas,
w e r e o w n e d by wealthy Spaniards. A transported European
feudal system was installed, where the Mexican people became
forced labor, similar to European serfs, working the land and the
numerous crude mines. The Spaniards mixed freely with the native
peoples, producing offspring that would become known as
“mestizos,” a term for people of mixed European and Mexican Indian
ancestry.
For the next 250 years, the Spanish explored and claimed
lands to the north, in what would be known as the American
Southwest and California. A system of missions, presidios, and
hacienda (rancho) agriculture developed in the vast lands. California
was reached by the Spanish in 1769, and for the next few decades
would be the home of Spanish religious and secular enterprises,
utilizing California Indians and Mexicans for labor in its agriculture,
shop industries, and domestic labor. Missions and ranchos were
maintained by Spaniards and “creoles” (Mexican-born Spaniards),
who controlled the labor and enhanced California with life-sustaining
agriculture of vegetables, fruits, nuts, and cattle. European Spaniards
dominated the economic-political structure throughout New Spain,
where there were laws to exclude creoles and mestizos from the
important governmental positions.
Hacienda System
The hacienda (rancho) system of agriculture controlled
rural economics. The occupier of the main house, or hacienda,
governed his vast acreage from there. His residence was located on
a plaza, surrounded by a village, consisting of workshops,
warehouses, barns, cottages, a hacienda store, a jail, and a church.
The village was surrounded by a masonry wall and guarded by
militia for protection.
The haciendas were regulated by the Mexican
government, under a hierarchy of officials and a bureaucracy of
petty subordinates. The rancho workers received their pay in the
form of credit at the hacienda store. They were allowed to keep
small plots near their hovels, where they tilled gardens for food,
trading their produce and handmade goods among themselves.
Some raised farm animals for food, with haciendas charging the
peasants for water they used in and around their adobe cottages.
One sizeable hacienda in northern Mexico, owned by the Terrazas
family, consisted of 1.2 million acres, while another nearby contained
850,000 acres. These consisted of mostly poor agricultural land. At
one time, 99.8 percent of all Mexico’s rural land was owned by one
percent of the hacienda landowners.
Some of Mexico’s medieval system of land ownership and
peasant suppression began unraveling when Mexico became
independent from Spain in 1820. A liberal revolt followed
independence, in which
Mexican peasantry demanded
their freedom from the
oppressive wealthy, but the
Mexican military quickly
extinguished the rebellion,
causing a new independent
Mexican government to be
formed in 1821. Temporarily,
the new nation had the
support of both liberal and
conservative factions, but
cooperation between them
quickly waned. Ordinary
Mexicans, who were the General Antonio Santa Anna
Web illus.
liberals, desired a republic,
while the wealthier conservatives wanted continued ties with Spain.
Another revolt resulted in which the conservatives were defeated
and a federal constitution was drafted, with Mexico becoming a
republic in 1824. General AntonioSanta Anna was the driving force
behind the creation of the new republic. He was elected president,
but then changed his politics, becoming a dictator, eliminating the
constitution and establishing a centralist government under his
rule.
American Takeover
In 1835, Americans gathered at the Alamo in Mexico’s Texas
———————— 612 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
Spring 2014
and fought at the fortified church seeking independence. It was an
unsuccessful attempt, but the war continued into 1836 when Texans
captured General Santa Anna, forcing him to sign a treaty that
established Texas as an independent republic. Regardless, Mexico
still claimed Texas as part of its domain. Border disputes developed,
causing American troops to invade Mexico in 1846, with Mexico
City being captured in 1847. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended
the conflict, being
signed in 1848.
The
treaty
provided the U.S.
with
today’s
Southwest and
California. In 1853,
a southern section
of today’s Arizona
and New Mexico
was purchased
from Mexico for
$10 million to
provide
an
unobstructed
southern railroad
route. The U.S. now U.S. annexations from Mexico, 1845Web illus.
extended from the 1853
Atlantic to the Pacific.
With the newly attained territory the U.S. gained thousands
of native Mexicans, who were now residents in America’s Southwest
and California. Their impoverishment remained, and their servitude
to the wealthy and powerful continued. Their inequality persisted
as did their stagnated employment. The Mexican farm peasant
lingered just as he had under Mexican authority, but as Americans
farmed the land, especially in California, new opportunities arose,
where the Mexican farm peasant became part of the surging American
agriculture. He was a natural fit in American fields and orchards,
because of his agricultural knowledge, manual proficiency,
inexhaustible work ethic, and durability.
Quetzalcoati was a god of both the Aztec and Totec cultures.
He was considered to be the god of civilization and learning,
and also the discoverer of corn, patron of arts and crafts, and
the originator of the calendar and priestly ritual. It was said
that he was the creator of man as well. Frances Toor Illus.
Virgin of Guadalupe is the Roman Catholic patron saint of
Mexico. She was seen twice by Juan Diego, a poor peasant, in
December 1531 and then once by an Indian maiden in Mexico
City. To prove her identity, she caused a depiction of herself to
occur on Diego’s cloak.
Frances Toor Illus.
Mexican Migration
In 1910, Mexico was struck with another revolt against its
authoritarian government. War broke out between Mexican federal
troops and the rebels, in which President Woodrow Wilson sent
U.S. troop in 1914 to seize Veracruz. The purpose of the incursion
was to halt the shipment of arms to end the conflict. Pancho Villa
and Emiliano Zapata were leaders of the rebellion, who sought a
new constitution and governmental reform. The struggle ended
with a new form of Mexican government being created 1917.
Feudalism ended finally when land reform was instituted, in which
the government dissolved the large hacienda holdings, distributing
more than 130 million acres of land to Mexican peasants between
1915 and 1955. The land reform didn’t occur without the usual
armed confrontations, bickering, and havoc. Many of the owners
of the haciendas kept the best land, freeing up mostly useless
acreage to the land reform program. But now free from suppression,
many of the Mexican peasants had nowhere to go. For centuries
they had been locked into the hacienda economic system.
Thousands now needed to move on and find life elsewhere, which
set in motion their movement towards the northern border and the
U.S.
The flow of Mexican workers into the U.S. began along
the Rio Grande River and then at other points of easy access, all the
way to San Diego. The number entering California ebbed and flowed
depending upon the state’s agricultural growth, expansion of
farmlands, and national and international markets. Wages were better
in the U.S., but the Mexican farm worker would remain tied to his
occupation. He knew though that America promised more for him
and his family and moved towards that future.
Written by Robert LeRoy Santos
———————— 613 ————————
Mexicans in Stanislaus County
Part 2: Pre-Bracero Period, 1850-1941
M
exicans had been part of California’s agriculture long before
the Americans arrived in great numbers in the 1840s. They were
part of the Spanish mission and rancho systems that occupied the
coastal regions of the state as north as Sonoma. They had brought
their agricultural practices and crops from Mexico, adapting them
to a colder northern environment. Their agricultural successes could
be seen at the Franciscan missions, presidio settlements, and
ranchos, in their rich gardens and orchards. The Mexican
government had granted large tracts of land to deserving Mexicans
and a few Americans who abided by Mexican law. This gifted land
amounted to over eight million acres, belonging to nearly 800 ranchos
in California alone. When California became part of the U.S., the
status of the land grants was addressed by federal courts to
determine their legitimacy and ownership under U.S. law.
American California
Americans began buying large chunks of California land
in the 1850s from their gold profits, military veterans’ concessions,
and other accumulated wealth. Wheat fields filled the interior valleys
and truck farming occupied snug coastal valleys and rolling hills,
watered by rainfall, winter drain-offs or constructed irrigation
systems. Farming was an arduous task and not for everyone.
American farmers needed hired help at various times of the year to
work their significant acreages. They recruited workers who could
endure the manual labor required.
California entered the union as a free state in 1850, so
consequently slave labor of the American type was not possible.
Chinese immigrants for a time filled the occupations that white
Americans avoided, such as railroad construction, back-breaking
mining, and truck farming. After a time, Americans became concerned
over the growing Chinese population and their successes. Also,
they held a distaste for a culture that was very different from their
own. At first there were local ordinances against the Chinese and
then finally in 1882, a Chinese exclusion law was enacted in California
that stopped Chinese immigration and controlled their activities
within the state.
Changes in California Agriculture
In 1870, one-tenth of California farm laborers were Chinese,
rising to one-third by 1880, when there were 75,000 Chinese in
California. The Chinese were replaced by Japanese immigrants in
agriculture, after the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, and by 1905, the
Chinese population declined to 41,000. Other eastern ethnicities
that entered California’s farm labor force were Filipinos and
Hindustanis. Armenian, Italian, Portuguese, and Russian immigrants
were also farm workers, but members of these groups before long
became landowners, having worked and saved enough to purchase
farms. The Japanese moved up the farm ladder as well, becoming
supervisors and then owning their own farms.
Irrigation began in the Central Valley in the 1880s, causing
diversified farming that needed more intensive labor to work the
crops. A 1905 report of the U.S. Commission on Public Lands
commented disapprovingly on the developing farm labor system:
“There exists and is spreading in the West, a tenant or hired-labor
system whose further extension carries with it a most serious threat.
Politically, socially, and economically this system is indefensible.”
California’s railroad system had a significant effect on the
state’s agricultural practices and growth. Beginning in the 1870s,
railroad routes saturated the state, providing dependable
transportation for agricultural products to national and world
markets. It was this development that spurred California into
agricultural dominance within a few years. This, and the state’s
water, fertile soil, and weather gave California its agricultural success.
Another ingredient, which was just as important, was the hired
farm worker, who was Asian or Mexican. The farm workers would
appear at crucial times, working arduously for cheap wages without
complaint.
Mexico and California
There were 6,454 Mexicans in California in 1850, rising to
9,339 in 1900, which amounted to .5 percent of California’s
population. This was a surprising small percentage, but that
changed in the first decade of the 20th century, when the Mexican
population in California shot up dramatically to 48,391. It was
because there had been significant agricultural development in the
state that needed Mexican farm workers. Also in Imperial Valley,
hundreds of Mexicans were hired to construct irrigation systems,
which required clearing the land and constructing the waterways.
These irrigation systems were similar to those being constructed at
the time by the Cocopas Indians, across the border in Mexico.
Also, Mexico had significant railroad construction at the time that
provided a greatly improved method of transportation, allowing
Mexicans to be more mobile.
Migration from Mexico into the U.S. had not been
particularly easy before the railroad. One barrier was the desert
environment found in both northern Mexico and southwestern U.S.
There was little water, plant life, and animal life to sustain foot or
wagon travel. But this barrier was conquered when 15,000 miles of
railroads were constructed in Mexico between 1880 and 1910. It
was initially constructed for the removal of mined ore and expanded
gradually for economic growth. The railroad lines connected the
mines found in Chihuahua, Durango, Sonora, and Zacatecas and
had American train terminals at Douglas, Eagle Pass, El Paso, and
Nogales. Peasants were hired to work on the Mexican railroads,
which disrupted the long tradition of peasants working the land
and remaining locally. Also, Mexican peasants worked in American
smelters that refined the minerals. This mobility from the old
hacienda system encouraged new generations of Mexican workers
to travel and explore employment opportunities elsewhere.
California ranchers did not turn to Mexican labor in the
Central Valley extensively until 1910. Cotton was one of the first
crops to utilize large Mexican workforces, followed by cantaloupes,
———————— 614 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
grapes, lettuce, sugar beets, and tomatoes. At this time, white
American farm workers gravitated to urban industrial centers of the
state for better wages, leaving a void to be filled. Also, more
vacancies came about, when white farm workers were drafted during
World War I. This was a timely opportunity for Mexican workers,
who performed well in agriculture, but also were experienced miners,
machine operators, railroad workers, repairman, painters, plumbers,
and domestic employees. Mexicans filled these occupations, with
many becoming permanent U.S. residents.
Spring 2014
twentieth century caused a major exodus of peasants from rural
areas to cities to find work. Poor Mexicans traveled by railroad in
dilapidated cars to Mexico City or to the U.S. border to find work
that paid cash for unskilled labor. It was estimated that 50,000
Mexican workers entered the U.S., particularly in Texas, in the
decade of 1900-1910. During 1911-1920, 250,000 came to the U.S.;
1921-1930, 459,287; and 1931-1940, 22,319. It was thought that one
Influx of Mexican Farm Workers
By 1920, there were 20,000 Mexican farm laborers in Imperial
Valley, where there was a white American population of 34,000. The
Mexican farm laborers gathered around the towns of Brawley,
Imperial, El Centro, and Calipatria as centers of employment and
residency. They worked 8 to 10 months, with some migrating to the
citrus groves in southern California, while others continued
northward to work in the San Joaquin Valley, Oxnard area, Salinas
Valley, Sacramento Valley, and Napa Valley.
There were abuses by employers, which caused Mexicans
to complain to their government. A model contract was composed
by the government that specified the rights of Mexican workers.
The contract provided wage rates, work locations, work schedule,
and work and living conditions. It became a policy that Mexican
workers departing for the U.S. needed this contract signed by an
American employer and an immigration official. This system was
not entirely enforceable, because it had no legal recourse in
American law, but it served as the prototype for the Bracero Program
that was launched in 1942.
In the 1920s, Mexicans working in California agriculture
constituted the largest group of farm laborers in the state. The
Mexican population in California had increased from 121,000 in
1920 to 368,000 in 1930. The California farm labor workforce in 1930
consisted of 41,191 Mexicans, 16,100 Filipinos, 14,569 Japanese,
and 2,191 Chinese, according to a government census. But the
Dust Bowl migration to California in the 1930s destroyed the
minorities’ dominance of the farm labor workforce. American migrant
whites were hired over the minority farm workers, not because they
were more qualified, but because they were Americans and were
adamant about their rights.
This disruption in employment furthered the Mexican farm
workers’ poverty and caused them social havoc. Now they were
hired only in an emergency. Many were deported and told not to
return to U.S., if they didn’t have legal permission. It is interesting
though that in the public’s eye, the Mexican farm worker wasn’t
considered an “illegal alien,” one to be arrested and deported. No,
the Mexican farm worker was part of the California landscape,
necessary to the success of the state. Even the fledging U.S. Border
Patrol in its early years essentially left the Mexican alone,
concentrating on illegal immigration of Asians and undesirables.
The legality of the Mexican worker was not pursued unless there
was irregularity in their numbers attempting to cross into the U.S.
or unusual individual demeanor. It was simply an understood
condition that the Mexican immigrant worker was important to the
economies of both countries and hence allowed casual entry.
The Mexican revolution during the second decade of the
A 1935 Mexican farm workers’ camp in Imperial Valley
Oakland Museum photo
million Mexicans entered the U.S. between 1900-1940, settling
principally in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
Mexican border towns showed massive increases in
population. From 1940 to 1950, Tijuana’s population jumped from
16,846 to 59,117; Mexicali, from 18,775 to 63,830; Matamoros, from
15,699 to 43,830; and Ciudad Juarez, from 48,881 to 121,903. These
cities served as pools or staging sites for Mexican farm laborers
seeking employment in the U.S. These urban sites provided official
and unofficial services for recruitment of farm workers. It was at
these sites that their transportation was determined, entry into the
U.S. approved, and contracts or agreements made with U.S.
employers. These centers of worker recruitment were continuously
rejuvenated by the flow of more Mexican workers from the south.
The older Mexican workers in the U.S. moved away from the border
cities, heading towards better wages further north, and avoiding
the rigors of labor recruitment.
Agricultural Economics
With so many gathering at these hubs of population, there
was widespread illegal entry into the U.S., especially when the
border was relatively uncontested by American authorities. Just
like the immigration of Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos through
the decades, the migrating Mexican farm worker greatly enhanced
the ability of the California growers to expand their holdings and
increase their income. The massive infusion of Mexican labor into
California and the Southwest was one of the largest mass
movements of people, from one country to another, in the Western
Hemisphere.
A study completed in 1950 by the U.S. Bureau of
Agricultural Economics and the Institute of Industrial Relations at
the University of California, found that from 1925 to 1950, seven
million people of all ethnicities entered California and became
permanent residents. Even so, the study noted that just as many
———————— 615 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
moved back and forth across the California-Mexico border, going
to work and returning home. The increased immigration and
population movement played havoc on the state’s workforce supply.
U.S. Census data found that during 1919-1944, hiring on California’s
farms had increased 41.1 percent, while the state’s population
increased 150 percent. It was estimated in a California State Senate
committee report that in 1940 the state had an estimated 400,000
Spring 2014
The worker that cost the grower the least was the illegal
Mexican, because there was no work contract, which meant lower
wage and little expenditures. The illegal Mexican though was a
pariah to the contracted Mexican farm laborer and the American
domestic laborer, because of his lower wages and acceptance of
poor working conditions. As one can see, the farm worker system
was fiercely competitive, aggravating, and mostly at the whim of
the grower and labor contractor.
American Migrants
A 1924 labor camp at Corona, CA
Corona P.L. photo
Spanish-speaking people, and of that number 200,000 were living in
Los Angeles, 16,000 in Fresno, 16,000 in Ventura, 10,000 in Santa
Barbara, and 28,000 in Imperial.
The hiring of farm workers was done mostly for the harvest
season. For some crops the harvest season ran two weeks, such as
for apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, and raisin grapes, while for
other crops it was several months, such as for asparagus, carrots,
citrus, and cotton. Soil, irrigation, climate, and weather determined
the planting and harvest periods. It was critical that the labor supply
be ample and mobile at harvest time, otherwise growers would suffer
losses, which would affect the entire agricultural economic system.
Even routine needs were significant, such as supply of tires and
gasoline for vehicles, and work camp locations, and the health and
welfare of the farm worker.
There is much that drives an agricultural economic system,
but growers’ profits are central to the process. To make money,
growers need low expenditures, which mean cheap wages and little
expense on housing and work conditions. But there is the human
side of the equation that involves the workers. Workers want good
wages and proper working and living conditions. These are
considered rights under the American labor system, with guarantees
in American law. Therefore, to make the agricultural economic system
viable, compromising becomes important. Significant to the issue
is how important is the farm worker to the profit-making grower?
Also, how much profit will the grower sacrifice to satisfy the worker’s
needs, which could make him happier and possibly a more
productive worker?
As mentioned, the Dust Bowl migrants of the 1930s
changed the farm worker system, by taking jobs from Mexican and
Asian farm workers. The white American migrant laborers, some
1,250,000 of them according to a California government report, made
California their home, especially in the Central Valley. At first they
lived in camps, along waterways, and in the off-season in trailer
courts, cheap housing, and tent camps. They moved with the crops,
wanting to earn enough seasonally to survive the rest of the year.
They harvested cotton in southern San Joaquin Valley and fruits
and vegetables to the north. Stanislaus County was known for its
canneries, where skilled agricultural workers found employment.
The white American laborer was temperamental, knowing his rights,
unlike the Mexican and Asian workers. He had a great deal of
dissatisfaction, insecurity, and unsympathetic treatment. Growers
teamed up with law enforcement to keep the American dissidents
quiet, but the white American migrant proved to be unmanageable
at times. Their families worked in the fields and orchards, which
was new to the farm workforce. It was the Mexican custom for the
wife to work until she bore her first child. Now with the white
American migrant, growers had to contend with providing housing
for American families instead of Mexican male crews.
Hiring practices changed as well, with the white American
laborers contacting the farmers directly for jobs. Leonard V.
Thompson, a Lodi grape grower, noted, “The help pretty much
came to the ranchers. The same men would come back year after
year, and they would come back early and check and see if their job
was going to be open for them, and that was pretty much the way it
was done.” The farm workforce changed once again when white
American migrants took to defense plants during World War II.
This would call for the return of Mexican farm workers to California
fields and orchards under the Bracero Program.
Written by Robert LeRoy Santos
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly is published four times a
year, featuring freshly researched articles on Stanislaus
County history. Currently, there is no charge per subscription or individual issues, but readers must notify the editor
to be placed on the mailing list. Ideas for articles or historical
information concerning topics of county history may be sent
to the editor. This is a non-profit educational publication.
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly is edited, copyrighted, and
published by Robert LeRoy Santos, Alley-Cass Publications,
Tel: 209.634.8218. Email: [email protected]. Ellen Ruth
Wine Santos is assistant editor and proofreader.
———————— 616 ————————
Mexicans in Stanislaus County
Part 3: Bracero Period, 1942-65
M
ost Mexican-Americans can trace their heritage to the
Bracero Program that ran from 1942 to 1967. Many of the braceros
came from west and central Mexico, from the states of Guanajuato,
Jalisco, Michoacan, and Zacatecas. They were needed to plant,
cultivate, and harvest American crops in the nation’s escalating
agricultural system. They replaced white American migrant farm
workers during World War II, who went to work in the defense
plants or were drafted into the military.
There were concerns for the welfare of the Mexican farm
worker. The Catholic Church in Mexico was fearful that bracero
employment would damage the Mexican family structure. The church
was also worried about the influence American Protestants would
have on them. Also, there was apprehension about morals at the
labor camps, with the young men being tempted with drinking,
gambling, and prostitution. There too was concern the Bracero
Program would cause labor shortage in Mexico and would cast
Mexico in a negative light in that its laborers needed to go outside
the country to find work. And finally, this would mean that the
1930s Mexican agrarian reform programs hadn’t worked. But the
braceros saw the program differently. They saw it as an opportunity
to earn better wages, increasing their standard of living, and
provided them with a better sense of human dignity.
World War II Needs
America’s entry into World War II ended the economic
problems of the Great Depression. The country was placed on full
wartime mode, with white American migrants being employed at
defense plants or serving in the armed forces. Filipino farm workers
also found other jobs, while those of Japanese descent along the
Pacific Coast were relocated. There was an immense void to be
filled, now with a significant number of the farm workers workforce
out of agriculture. Once again Mexican farm laborers were needed,
and this time would be supplied by the Bracero Program.
California growers needed between 40,000 to 100,000 farm
workers to replace those that left. American labor unions wanted
the American domestic workers to be given farm work first. This
labor force consisted of white American migrants, MexicanAmericans, Asian-Americans, and those immigrant workers with
residency. The growers were opposed to hiring the American
domestic workers, because they cost more in terms of wages and
working and living conditions. They favored Mexican workers,
because they were hard workers, took less wage, and rarely
complained about conditions.
In the past, just opening the Mexican border to Mexican
farm workers meant a supply, legal or illegal, but the agriculture
industry had grown and the demand for farm workers had increased
dramatically. It was necessary now, through the Bracero Program,
to regulate the flow of Mexican farm workers to guarantee proper
supply and control the numbers for the stability of the industry.
Knowing of the deplorable treatment and work conditions of migrant
farm workers, the U.S. government in its cooperation with the
Mexican government needed to guarantee proper standards and
protections for the imported farm workers, in terms of working
conditions, transportation, housing, health, and wages. To assure
that these labor terms received adherence, they were written into
labor contracts between the growers and the farm workers. The
Bracero Program required the Mexican government to be responsible
for recruitment of its citizens and to place them in centers for U.S.
work contractors, representing growers, to select them for
employment. The only public funding in the U.S. would be initiation
of the program and its skeletal maintenance. This would not be a
subsidized project but a free enterprise system.
Initiating the Bracero Program
The Bracero Program was also known as the “Guest
Worker Program” and officially as the “Mexican Farm Labor
Program.” (In Spanish “bracero” means day laborer, one who works
with his arms, coming from the Spanish word for arm, “brazo.”) To
institute the Bracero Problem, the U.S. government began by
appointing a committee, consisting of representatives from several
federal agencies, which were Agriculture, Justice, Labor, and State
departments, and also the War Manpower Commission and the
Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs. The Farm
Security Administration headed the program, having the
responsibility of supplying sufficient farm workers from Mexico to
assist American growers to provide food for the duration of the
war.
U.S. government representatives met with Mexican
government officials in May 1942 at the Mexican Embassy in
Washington, D.C. to draft a treaty of agreement. There was
discussion of the major issues, with both sides wanting time to
study the program further. They met again on July 23, 1942 in
Washington, D.C., in which an agreement was signed. The document
was taken to Mexico City, where it received the Mexican
government’s official approval. The following are the principle
provisions of the Bracero Program:
“Mexican farm workers were only to fill a U.S. farm labor shortage
and not to displace U.S. domestic workers; the farm worker was not
responsible for transportation and living expenses while being
transported in Mexico and in the U.S.; a contract would be signed
by worker and employer; the worker could buy merchandise in
stores of their choice; housing and sanitary conditions must be
kept at an adequate level; there would be deductions in wages of 10
percent to be deposited in the worker’s bank account, available
when he returned to Mexico; work was guaranteed for three-quarters
of the duration of the contract; and wages were to be equal with
those in the area of employment, and not to be below 30 cents per
hour.”
The Farm Security Administration relinquished its
responsibility of the Bracero Program to the War Manpower
Commission in 1943, because U.S. growers had complained about
the agency. When the war ended, the commission was terminated,
———————— 617 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
with the program coming under the responsibility of the U.S. Labor
Department. The program in Mexico was administered by the Bureau
of Migrant Labor of the Foreign Affairs Department. The bureau
formulated policies, negotiated agreements, assigned quotas to
various Mexican states, and maintained selection centers.
American growers or their representatives were guests at
the selection centers to hire workers and sign contracts. At first
there was only one selection center, which was in Mexico City, but
it became an overwhelming task. Centers were then established in
provincial cities, and then in 1950, reduced to three, being located
at Hermosillo, Chihuahua, and Monterrey. American growers
preferred selection centers at the border to cut travel time when
making contracts, but competition there with illegal farm workers
caused Mexico to oppose it. More than 430,000 contracted farm
workers were selected at these centers, between 1942 and 1950.
Continuation of the Program
On April 26, 1943, amendments to the Bracero Program
Agreement were added, instituted by the Mexican government,
concerning wages, housing, food, and medical services. These
provisions were to be consistent with those provided to American
domestic laborers in the area where braceros were employed. The
initial bracero agreement of 1942 and the amendments of 1943 were
informal, which did not require U.S. congressional approval. The
agreement was an administrative concern of the executive branch,
but congressional U.S. Public Law 45, approved on April 29, 1943,
provided financing for the construction and implementation of the
basic bracero agreement and its amendments. In February 1944,
U.S. Public Law 229 continued to supply funds for the administration
of the program, which was extended by U.S. Public Law 529 in
December 1945.
In 1944, Mexican President Avila Camacho commented that
he was fully satisfied with the Bracero Program in that it had assured
the protection of Mexican employees’ rights through employment
contracts. Mexican Foreign Secretary, Ezequiel Padilla, remarked:
“It provided an opportunity to earn higher wages, a noble adventure
for our youth, and above all, proof of our cooperation in the victory
of our cause of defeating the Axis Bloc”
After World War II, many of the earlier American domestic
farm laborers returned to the fields, but far less in number than
before the war. Most of the Japanese did not return to the West
Coast after being released from evacuation. Because it seemed as
though, growers would have enough farm workers, the U.S.
Department of State notified the Mexican government on November
15, 1946 that the U.S. wanted to end the Bracero Program within 90
days. But U.S. growers objected vociferously, because farm labor
needs were still acute. They were able to convince the government,
and consequently, the program was extended through 1949, by
U.S. PL 40 and then again through 1950, by U.S. PL 893. The below
table provides the number of braceros supplied yearly to the U.S.,
according to U.S. government records, a total of 4.5 million braceros
for 1942-1967:
Spring 2014
No. Braceros Per Year to U.S. and the U.S. Law
Year
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
*No. of Braceros
U.S. Law
4,203
Wartime agreement
53,098
“
62,170
“
49,494
“
32,043
PL 45
19,632
PL 45, PL 40
35,345
PL 893
107,000
“
67,500 Administrative agreements
192,000
AA/PL 78
197,100
PL 78
201,380
“
309,033
“
398,650
“
445,197
“
436,049
“
432,491
“
444,408
“
319,412
“
296,464
“
198,322
“
189,528
“
179.298
“ (Program ends)
20,286
By individual contracts
8,647
“
7,703
“
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture
*These figures represent only the Bracero Program and excludes
Mexican-Americans and legal or illegal aliens.
The braceros first arrived in California in September 1942,
working in the sugar beet fields near Sacramento and Stockton. By
the end of November 1942, there were 4,190 braceros working in
central California. In 1943, 28,000 braceros were employed in
California, which was more than half of the total sent to the U.S.
that year. The next table provides the number of braceros working
in California from 1944 through 1950, as recorded in a state
legislative document:
Minimum and Maximum Braceros
at Work in California, 1944-50
Year Min. Amt. and Date
Max. Amt. and Date
1944
12,000 (January 15) 36,600 (August 19)
1945
18,900 (February 17) 32,400 (August 18)
1946
13,800 (December 14) 20,700 (August 17)
1947
12,800 (April 19)
18,100 (November 15)
1948
6,300 (May 15)
10,300 (October 16)
1949
3,100 (September 15) 7.500 (December 17)
1950
5,700 (June 17)
10,100 (December 16)
Source: California State Legislature
———————— 618 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
Spring 2014
The law prohibited the hiring of illegal aliens, and the U.S.
Attitudes and Problems
In the early years, braceros worked closer to the U.S.- Employment Service had delegated authority for the recruitment of
Mexican border, because of transportation costs and other logistical workers. Also it placed the burden on the U.S. Agriculture Secretary
problems caused by wartime conditions. Growers at first considered to determine the number of braceros needed in the U.S.
PL 78 was extended in 1953, 1955, 1959, and 1963, with
braceros emergency workers, with one grower remarking: “Mexican
workers constitute a flexible group which can be readily moved principal amendments being added in 1952, 1954, 1955, and 1959.
from operation to operation and from place to place where local Attached to PL 78 was a “standard work contract,” because the
help falls short to the numbers needed to save the crops. These Mexican government complained that growers issued contracts
workers should be in a sense ‘shock troops’ used only in real that were freely violated. Social Security contributions were
emergency as insurance against loss of valuable production.” The eliminated in the law, because Mexican braceros would not receive
Agricultural Labor Bureau concurred with this observation and benefits. Concerning health and accident insurance, the law left the
responsibility up to employers to
added that “we can send them
carry insurance or not, since
home when we get through with
health and work-related accidents
them.”
were in their domain. In an
Bickering
and
agreement in 1955, the bracero
complaining about the program
selection centers in Mexico were
continued during the post-war
now relocated at least 100 miles
period, 1946-54, concerning
from the border. It was always the
several issues: California growers
firm policy of the Mexican
objected to paying $25 bonds for
government that illegal aliens
each worker as required by the U.S.
could not be hired by Americans,
Department of Justice; they also
because they didn’t have contracts
objected to $15 contract fee per
to protect them from labor abuses
man; they complained that the
in the U.S.
Photographs being taken of braceros at a Mexican seminimum requirement of a fourlection center
Galarza photo
month contract was too long for
short-term harvesting; and the amount withheld from the worker
until the job was finished was too small. The braceros objected to
Recruitment Process
being replaced by American domestic workers when they appeared
The recruitment process in Mexico, beginning in 1952 was
at the job site, and they wanted better wages and better working under the Bureau of Migratory Farm Labor Affairs as part of the
conditions. The growers, the labor contractors, and the local labor Department of Foreign Relations. According to a U.S. congressional
bureaus were in constant feud over issues. There was continuous report, the bureau determined how many braceros could come from
animosity between growers and labor organizations.
each Mexican state. Then the states assigned bracero quotas to
Braceros, along with Japanese farm workers, 300 to 600 in local districts and municipalities. Interested unemployed Mexican
number, went on strike several times during 1943-46 in Idaho, workers signed up for a bracero work permit at a Mexican selection
Oregon, and Washington, primarily over wages and the confinement center and then was evaluated for their suitability. A written
of workers to certain local areas. The complaints were not redressed, evaluation was done, such as “Salvador Garcia is a Mexican citizen
even though the Mexican consulate in the region was involved in 25 years of age, single, of unblemished conduct, is not a small
tempering the anger of the workers and negotiating a fair settlement farmer nor is he otherwise employed, is an experienced farm laborer
over wages, quality of food, and conditions.
and is in good standing with the law.” Once approved then the
worker was a candidate to become a bracero. His file was then
turned over to a representative of U.S Labor Department at the
Renewal of the Bracero Program
When the Bracero Program Agreement came up for renewal selection center, where it was evaluated and if approved place in a
in 1951, the Mexican government asked for a formal agreement, hiring pool. Next, an interviewer, acting on the behalf of a U.S.
with the program coming under the full supervision of a U.S. grower examined the worker’s file and then “glanced at his feet,
governmental agency. U.S. PL 78 was signed into law on July 12, hands, clothing, general bearing, asked a few questions, and decided
on the worker’s selection or rejection,” according to a congressional
1951. It authorized the U.S. Agriculture Secretary:
document.
The selection of workers was daily and guided by the
“To recruit Mexican workers, establish and operate reception
centers, provide transportation, finance subsistence and medical number of braceros needed by U.S. growers. The chosen braceros
care in transit, assist workers and employers in negotiating were then transported to the U.S. reception centers located at Eagle
contracts, and guarantee the performance by employers of such Pass, El Paso, Hidalgo, Nogales and El Centro. U.S. Immigration
contracts. Contracting was to be permitted only when domestic Service approved each bracero and then finger printed him in
workers were not available, that their wages and working conditions conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol. U.S. Public Health Service
would not be adversely affected by alien contract workers, and that officials examined each bracero, especially for TB, venereal disease,
employers had made reasonable efforts to attract domestic laborers.” and lice infestation. There were 1.7 million braceros inspected by
———————— 619 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
the Health Service, between 1952 and 1957, of that number 38,500
were rejected. Next labor contractors representing growers chose
the braceros personally, being assisted by U.S. Department of Labor
officials. If hired, individual contracts were issued and signed. The
hired bracero was given an ID card that was stamped with his
employer’s name and the location where he was to work. Then the
Spring 2014
satisfactory worker. Of course, the mica holders still had to be hired
at the selection centers.
Braceros in the U.S.
Braceros worked in 20 states, primarily in Arizona,
Arkansas, California, New Mexico, and Texas. For the decade of
Map of Mexico showing: (1) Mexican states from which most braceros came: Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, and
Zacatecas; (2) Cities where Mexican braceros selection centers were located: Hermosillo, Chihuahua, and Monterrey;
and (3) Cities where U.S. braceros reception centers were located: Eagle Pass, El Paso, Hidalgo, Nogales and El Centro.
Adapated Web map
contracted braceros were loaded into buses or trains and transported
to places of work, with travel costs paid by the contractor. The
braceros were now the responsibility of the employers. When the
braceros finished their contracted labor, they were transported to
the U.S. reception centers, signed out, and transported to the
Mexican selection centers. If their work was satisfactory, the
braceros were issued ID cards, called “micas,” that were signed by
the U.S. Immigration Service. Micas were the braceros ticket back
into the U.S. for work, because it indicated that the bracero was a
1951-60, 3.3 million braceros were employed in the U.S., working in
275 different agricultural crops. In 1957, California had a bracero
force of 100,000, which was a supplemental workforce, while New
Mexico employed braceros to perform 80 percent of its farm labor.
The task to oversee the program in the U.S. was an enormous
challenge for the U.S. Department of Labor. It had the responsibility
for the “determination of the number of braceros needed; the
establishment of housing standards; advising employers as to their
responsibilities; investigating grievances and resolving complaints;
collecting fees; administering wage surveys; assisting growers to
———————— 620 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
keep the program in good repute with the public; returning braceros
to the border; collecting unpaid wages; and negotiating
amendments to the agreement and the contracts.”
In California, the Farm Placement Service of the California
Department of Labor was given formal responsibility to act as the
U.S. Department of Labor in the state. The cost to the U.S. taxpayer
for the government’s management of the bracero program varied
according to the agreements and public laws. For example, from
1942 to 1945, the total cost was $55 million, while from 1952 to 1959
it was $17 million.
California Agribusiness
California had become an empire of agribusiness as can
be seen from U.S. Agriculture Department Census. In 1935, there
were 150,360 farms in California, decreasing to 123,075 in 1954;
however, the total acreage increased from 30,437,995 in 1935 to
37,794,780 in 1954. Also the average size of the farms increased
from 202.4 acres in 1935 to 307.1 acres in 1954. In 1954, 88 percent of
the California farms had 260 acres and more, while they harvested
72 percent of the crops.
As an area, the San Joaquin Valley in 1954 had 31.29 percent
of California’s farms; southern California, 30.87 percent; Sacramento
Valley, 12.35 percent; and central coast, 4.77 percent. In 1958,
Stanislaus County had 207,435 acres in field crops, 73,564 acres in
fruits and nuts; and 20,790 acres in vegetables and melons, for a
total acreage of 311,789. San Joaquin County had a total of 492,584
acres, and Merced 294,652. Fresno County had the most farm acreage
in California with 881,505, followed by Kern County with 637,384
and Tulare with 574,299.
In 1961, Kenneth R. Farrell, Agricultural Economist at the
University of California remarked that:
“Many farmers on the small farms have sought other professions
or part time employment. Still others have attempted to increase the
size of their holdings by renting or buying additional land, thus
availing themselves an opportunity to gain in efficiency. As a partial
indication, transfer of farm titles in California have taken place at
approximately twice the national average rate for at least the past
six years.”
Crop diversity in California was larger than any other state.
In 1954, the U.S. Agriculture Department Census reported that
California listed 139 different types of crops grown commercially,
while Texas had 119; Oregon, 100; Florida, 94; Washington, 92; and
Iowa, 69. In 1954, California produced more than 90 percent of the
nation’s total of each of fourteen important farm products: almonds,
apricots, artichokes, dates, figs, garlic, grapes, lemons, nectarines,
olives, Persian melons, plums, prunes, and walnuts. It produced
between 50 to 90 percent of the nation’s farm products of: asparagus,
avocados, broccoli, cantaloupes, cauliflower, celery, honeydew
melons, lettuce, peaches, pears, and tomatoes.
Fred Heringer of the California Farm Bureau Federation
noted that “California producers are finding it profitable to diversify,
and it has been advantageous to expand production in lines where
operations can be mechanized.” Dr. George L. Mehren, Director of
Spring 2014
the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of
California, commented in a 1960 interview on the technological
changes in California agriculture that would affect manual labor:
“We have in California a larger fruit and vegetable economy than
we used to have. And it is here that the technological breakthroughs
that permit the substitution of capital for labor. There has been
great success in research in the development of equipment and
power equipment . . . we are trying to get a breakthrough on
mechanical harvesting on tree fruits, tree nuts and do as much as
we can on bulk handling.”
Braceros Work and Earnings
Juan L. Gonzales, Jr. in his publication Mexican and
Mexican American Farm Workers categorized the types of Mexican
farm workers in California and their abilities: “Illegal Mexican
National Farm Workers (border jumpers, adventurers, innovators,
and social climbers); Legal Mexican National Farm Workers
(commuters, opportunists, and loyalists); Mexican-American Farm
Workers (American born and naturalized American citizens).” Their
occupational levels were skilled farm worker, semi-skilled farm worker,
and amateur farm worker. At the top was the managerial operator of
the farm, followed by foreman supervisor, crew chief, skilled
equipment operator, skilled mechanic, semi-skilled crop handler,
and amateur manual laborer.
Braceros were used in all types of California agriculture.
In 1956 at peak employment, these were the number of workers
contracted by type of crop: Tomatoes 44,837; Cotton 9,000; Grapes
6,270; Lemons 6,050; Asparagus 6,037; Lettuce 5,975; Oranges 5,299;
Peaches 4,957; Sugar Beets 4,209; Strawberries 4,098; Pears 3,848;
Prunes 2,548; Snap Beans 2,351; Melons 2,255; Celery 2,245; Olives
1,771; Almonds 1,749; Carrots 1,714; Brussel Sprouts 1,225; and
Cherries 1,068.
Other crops braceros harvested were: Alfalfa Hay, Apples,
Apricots, Artichokes, Avocados, Broccoli, Beans, Cabbage,
Canteloups, Cauliflower, Chives, Collards, Corn, Cucumbers, Dates,
Eggplant, Endive, Escarole, Figs, Garlic, Grapefruit, Hops, Mint,
Mushrooms, Mustard, Nectarines, Onions, Oranges, Parsley,
Peppers, Plums, Potatoes, Radishes, Rhubarb, Spinach, Squash,
Walnuts, and Watermelons.
The work the braceros did was planting, hoeing,
cultivating, irrigating, thinning, fertilizing, applying insecticides,
covering plants, pulling weeds, and harvesting. Besides working
in fields and orchards, some braceros were employed in dairying,
delivery service, operating and maintaining equipment, lumbering,
and raising livestock. They cleaned ditches, burned brush, set out
smudge pots, did pest control, and moved irrigation pipes and
sprinklers. Those who became very responsible and demonstrated
advanced skills became operators of major equipment, worked with
specialized tools, and supervised work crews.
Below are statistics taken from Annual Reports of the Farm
Placement Service of the California Employment Department,
concerning the type of farm employees and the number employed:
———————— 621 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
California Farm Employees, 1949 and 1959
Farm Owners Local
Non-Local Bracero Total
and Family
Seas.
Seas.*
Seas.
Workers
1949
Sept.
160,000
140,000
82,900
3,100 386,000
Oct.
157,000
150,000 109,000
4,000 420,000
1959
Sept.
Oct.
156,000
154,200
131,500
127,300
50,000
40,200
84,000
61,300
421,500
383,000
Source: California Employment Dept.
*Migrant workers, including illegal aliens
Braceros Earnings
In October 1949, braceros consisted of 1.05 percent of
total California farm workforce, increasing to 19.9 percent by
September 1959. A sample taken in 1956 concerning bracero general
earnings found that the average net wage was a low of $9.43 per
week and a high $51.55. For a two week period, a sample found that
braceros harvesting almonds, grapes, melons, and tomatoes had
net earnings of a low of $72.12 and a high of $95,97. It was found
that for braceros grape picking in Stanislaus County, peach picking
in Yolo County, and lettuce harvesting in Salinas, had net earnings
of $130 to $140 for two weeks. The Mexican Department of Labor
estimated that in 1946 that 35 to 45 percent of the wages braceros
earned in California was sent to their homes in Mexico. In 1959,
Mexican financial authorities calculated that the figure was 50
percent or nearly $42 million a year.
The U.S. Department of Employment statistics below
provide the total earnings by braceros in California for 1951-59:
Total Ernings by Braceros in California, 1951-59
Year
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
Earnings
$28 million
37
41
45
65
85
88
80
83
Source: U.S. Dept. of Employment
The California Agricultural Extension Service and State
Employment Department reported the below figures in regard to
the average number of braceros in the state per year, during 194460. The minimum and maximum numbers are given to show the
variation of need for bracero employment:
Spring 2014
Average No. Braceros in California Per Year, 1944-60
Year
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
Ave. Braceros per Year
26,600 (Min.12,000 to Max.36,600)
25,800 (Min. 18,000 to Max. 32,400)
17,700 (Min. 13,800 to Max. 20,700)
14,700 (Min. 12,800 to Max. 18,100)
7,800 (Min. 6,300 to Max. 10,300)
4,900 (Min. 3,100 to Max. 7,500)
7,500 (Min. 5,700 to Max. 10,100)
18,600 (Min. 10,800 to Max. 36,200)
23,008 (Min. 12,400 to Max. 39,500)
25,483 (Min. 17,300 to Max. 40,000)
29,133 (Min. 14,300 to Max. 51,000)
40,108 (Min. 21,800 to Max. 74,300)
50,191 (Min. 26,000 to Max. 92,000)
51,858 (Min. 27,200 to Max. 84,600)
47,800 (Min. 27,200 to Max. 84,800)
48,100 (Min. 31,800 to Max. 83,400)
45,100 (Min. 28,800 to Max. 58,200)
Source: California Agricultural Extension Service
The below table presents the total number of braceros in
the state, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Valley, 1956-60:
Total Number of Braceros Employed, 1956-60
Year
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
State
187,861
192,438
184,226
182,646
156,075
SJ Valley
46,222
45,014
42,273
40,247
30,428
Sac Valley
26,563
26,374
25,569
27,367
21,711
Source: California Agricultural Extension Service
The following table comes from a 1961 State Senate
committee report that provides the peak harvest period for
Stanislaus County and the number of farm workers needed:
Stanislaus Co.’s Crop Harvest Dates/No. Laborers
Crop
Prune grapes harvest:
Strawberries harvest:
Alfalfa hay harvest:
Apricots harvest:
Melons harvest:
Almonds harvest:
Wine grapes harvest:
Peaches harvest:
Tomatoes harvest:
Walnuts harvest:
Day/ Month
1/2 to 2/18
5-2 to 5/21
5/9 to 10/1
7/4 to 7/16
8/8 to 9/27
9/5 to 10/15
9/5 to 10/22
9/19 to 10/22
9/19 to 10/22
10/3 to 10/22
Source: California State Legislature
———————— 622 ————————
No. Laborers
800 laborers
900 laborers
750 laborers
3,100 laborers
700 laborers
1,500 laborers
2,500 laborers
3,000 laborers
3,000 laborers
1,000 laborers
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
To assure that workers were available for these harvests, Stanislaus
County formed a Farm Placement Advisory Committee, consisting
of members who monitored the workforce needs for each crop. The
table below lists members who had served on the committee at one
time and the crops for which they were responsible:
Stanislaus Co.’s Farm Placement Advisory Committee
Member
Leonard Petersen
John T. Halford
Joe Hart
Ray Klopping
Residence
Hughson
Hughson
Modesto
Patterson
V.R. Parrish
Modesto
A.J. Sturtevant
Glenn W. Hamilton
Modesto
Westley
Crop
Peaches
Fruit
Dairy
Apricots/
Peaches
Peaches/
Dairy
Fruit
Chairman
Source: California Employment Dept.
Braceros’ Complaints
Though quiet and hardworking, Braceros did register
complaints about issues of “underemployment, unsatisfactory
earnings, deductions from wages, poor food, excessive charges,
improper records, substandard housing, unnecessary exposure to
hazards, and occasional physical mistreatment,” according to a
State Senate committee document. The most common complaint
though was insufficient work or “underemployment.” The Mexican
government complained about the problem in 1956 after bracero
crews began protesting the lack of work by dropping their tools.
The problem stemmed from growers wanting sufficient amount of
laborers to harvest their crops, especially at its peak; therefore,
they requested an overload of workers to assure enough was on
hand. Stanislaus County was guilty of this practice at times by
forming large bracero crews but working them two or three hours
per day. Their wages didn’t cover normally living costs at times,
estimated to be $12.25 a week, with the bracero wanting at least $65
a week in earnings to make his employment worth his effort. The
bracero contracts had guarantees they would have sufficient work.
For 1959, the bracero workforce of 182,000 earned an average of
$456 each total for work provided in their contracts.
A State Senate committee document reported that 80
percent of the complaints filed by braceros centered on wages. In
1956, there were 517 such complaints and after investigation found
that 281 were indeed violations; in 1957, 613 complaints, with 297
violations; in 1958, 561 complaints, with 345 violations; in 1959, 630
complaints, with 425 violations, and n 1960, 443 complaints, with
187 violations.
It was assumed that the bracero’s wages were to be used
in Mexico by the worker and his family. To assure this, the Bracero
Program from 1942 to 1948 required that ten percent of a bracero’s
wages be automatically withdrawn and placed into savings
accounts that would be accessed by the worker’s family. The
problem was Mexican banks didn’t operate in the U.S.;
consequently, the braceros never received their ten percent. In the
Spring 2014
1990s, the matter was contested in U.S. federal court, resulting in
an award of $3,500 to each bracero who worked during those seven
years.
Many times the braceros purchased merchandise at
inflated prices from mobile stores operated by growers or labor
contractors. According to the proprietors of the stores, these were
available for the worker’s convenience, because he might have to
travel a distance to purchase personal notions. Quite often braceros
were charged $25 for a ride into a local town. The mobile stores
carried food stuffs, beverages, hygiene supplies, and postal stamps.
Bracero’s meals provided by the employers most times
were lacking. Usually catering services were hired to supply the
food, with corners being cut to save money. There might be moldy
leftovers, insufficient amount of food, inferior cuts or types of meat,
the serving of American food instead of Mexican food, and even
food poisoning. For the contracted meals, braceros generally paid
$1.75 daily for three meals.
The braceros were required to pay for medicines,
physicians, and hospital care for illnesses and injuries that were
non-work related. If there was a bracero death, $350 to $500
deductible was required for burial services. Clinics were provided
at the larger camps of several hundred workers, but in the small and
scattered camps, employer representatives normally transported
the worker to a doctor in the nearest town. An ill worker, who missed
work, lost the day’s wages. The medical services were woefully
lacking, and in fact, the entire medical system for the braceros was
problem-filled.
Large growers hired accountants and bookkeepers to
manage braceros’ wages. For smaller operations, wages were paid
in cash, without a receipt, or by check, with the check stubs or
receipts not filled out. Without such pay records, the bracero had
difficulty proving his case if he complained about shortness of
pay. Arguments were continuous over the number of containers
braceros filled during harvest and how full they were. Employers
liked the gang work system, where everyone received the same pay
for the job.
The overall quality of bracero housing was lacking and
simply appalling. From 1942 to 1951 much of it was improvised,
mostly purchased surplus military units. Bracero contracts had a
standard statement on housing: “not inferior to those of the average
type which are generally furnished to domestic agricultural workers
in such areas.” In 1950, there were 5,000 farm labor camps in
California, which was an impossible number to be inspected by
state authorities. When action was taken on poor housing, the
standard procedure was for the state to allow an employer two
years to improve housing before the government would take legal
action. Barns, stables, warehouses, and garages were converted
into housing, where beds were on the floors or raised platforms. In
1956, there was a movement to improve housing by centralizing
several camps into one large center. By 1960, most of the larger
growers had adequate housing.
There were transportation accidents, with some being quite
tragic. This caused great anxiety among the braceros, especially
when riding in vehicles of bad repair and crowded over capacity.
Trucks normally didn’t contain seating or any type of passenger
safety restraints, causing the riders to be thrown out of the vehicles.
———————— 623 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
Spring 2014
In October 1957, a produce truck in Stanislaus County overturned peak harvest needs of California’s agriculture. Because of this,
with 35 farm workers aboard, sending 32 to the hospital. The truck farmers have been compelled to make use of such domestic labor as
lacked seating and an overhead cover. The State Division of is available – resident, inter- and intra-state migratory, and casual.
Industrial Safety had strict requirements for transporting passengers, This includes the affording of employment to persons in our society
but the agency had an inadequate number of officers to enforce who, for one unfortunate reason or another, are unemployable
elsewhere. It is because farmers do
them. Normally, there would be a public
offer job opportunity to such of these
outcry when catastrophic accidents
people who are willing, and to the
occurred, with politicians and
extent of their abilities, that much of
governmental officials promising to
what is essentially a problem of
investigate and improve passenger
society as a whole has been placed
safety.
on the farmers’ doorstep.”
Workplace accidents were
also a problem. In 1957, there were 16,595
Harold Angier of the
injuries in California, with 79 deaths.
California
Grape and Tree Fruit
Operating machinery was the cause of
League
commented
further about the
most serious accidents. There were
problems
with
American
farm
problems of physical abuse of braceros
workers:
in the workplace, which in some cases
caused working crews to walk off the
“A preponderance of the evidence
job in protest. Serious cases were
introduced at the hearings has dealt
reported to local law enforcement.
with the field of social problems which
Poisoning by pesticides was another
are the responsibility of all the
problem that at first was not an issue,
Braceros’ housing in a Stanislaus Co. barn
people. Any attempt to solve these
but as time passed, the problem became
California Division of Housing photo
problems by imposing such sociomore serious as more pesticides were
economic
legislation
as
minimum
wages for work that will not
used, especially parathion. Standard bracero contracts disallowed
necessarily
be
performed,
and
enforced
collective bargaining with
workers from applying pesticides. In 1959, the State Division of
well-financed,
power-hungry
union
bosses
representing an almost
Industrial Safety investigated 143 cases of organic phosphate
non-existent
membership
will
not
solve
these
problems. To burden
(parathion) poisoning.
California agriculture with problems that are rightfully the
responsibility of everyone in the State will destroy the family farm
Commentary on the Braceros
The 1951 Bracero Program was renewed every two years system, which is the traditional basis of California agriculture, and
until 1963, when it was extended one more year to 1964. After that will have an adverse effect on the whole economy of the State.”
independent contracts continued the substance of the program
David R. James, member of the Students’ Committee for
until 1967, when the program ended entirely. The following excerpts
Agricultural
Labor at the University of California, stated the
come from hearings held by the State Senate Committee on Labor
following:
and Welfare in 1960. They offer first hand the thoughts of people
on both sides of the farm worker issue. The first one consist of
“We were deeply disturbed by what we saw. Before the experience
comments made by a former American farm worker Paul Bennett:
of the field trips, very few of us were aware that American society
“Nationals [braceros] have absolutely killed this valley. The foreman was tolerating the inhumane, uncivilized, and degrading conditions
hires seven Nationals before one American. They give him food which exist in agriculture. A relatively advanced society, and one
and cook it for him. They give him a place to stay with hot and cold which prides itself with a concern for the individual and human
running water. They have to. It’s the law. And the National does the values, cannot tolerate for any of its members, however humble,
work without a squawk. The American-Spanish and other Americans the sort of living standards we observed. On moral grounds alone,
know wages. Americans know the tougher the job the better the our society cannot support the contradictions between our material
wage should be. That’s hard work picking melons. But we’d do it wealth and these disadvantaged people, between our agricultural
for a good wage. Now the American would rather be sitting down surpluses and these agricultural workers’ living level, between our
advanced medical knowledge and the disease and extreme
than work at melons at such a low wage.”
unsanitary conditions which are a part of every day’s existence for
Robert E. Hanley of the California Farm Bureau testified these members of society, between our ideals of freedom and liberty
and the sociological, psychological, and economic servitude of our
about the poor quality of the American farm worker:
agricultural labor force.”
“I know of no industry or segment of our society faced with a more
Mrs. Frances Hernandez, a farm laborer and housewife,
complex problem than our farmers. The basic problem is that there
expressed:
is an insufficient amount of capable domestic labor to meet the
———————— 624 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
“Farm workers, for the most part, want to take root in one place and
educate their children. We do not want to be judged by those who
don’t or can’t think of the future. We have anxieties and problems;
we want a decent life for ourselves and our children.”
Thomas M. Brigham, a member of the Fresno County Rural
Health and Education Committee and
Associate Professor of Sociology at
Fresno State College, commented:
“It should be clearly evident at this time
that farm labor in Fresno County
comprises an underprivileged,
underpaid, improperly fed, ill-housed,
poorly clothed, inadequately socially
protected (including such basic
protection as fire, police, health and
medical care, social insurances, etc.),
poorly educated (in terms of general
education and in terms of their rights and
responsibilities in the community), but
still a significantly large segment of the
total community. As long as this group
is kept in this status it seems inevitable
they as well as the whole community will
suffer.”
Mrs. Edna A. Erickson, another
member of the Fresno County Rural
Health and Education Committee,
reported:
Spring 2014
“Farm laborers do not enjoy equality under the law; they are, in
effect, an untouchable caste; they labor under a set of standards
which are different from and inferior to those under which other
industrial workers labor; they are among the disinherited of our
society – stripped of the heritage of material blessings and larger
values, which our society confers generally upon its communicants.
By larger values, we mean such things as
the assumption that a man shall enjoy
effective control over his own destiny,
and the assumption that a man is fully
worthy of esteem and honor, unless his
individual actions conclusively
demonstrate otherwise. Farm laborers
have been robbed of dignity and respect,
not because of anything they have or
have not done, but because their
employment in an occupation which
society at large has exempted from the
standards which confer dignity and
respect.”
Ralph B. Bunje of the California
Canning Peach Association testified that:
“I should like to point out that the real
issues here come not from the bracero
program, not from the unionization of farm
workers, not from the right of farm workers
to organize, but whether or not California
farmers can continue in the business of
farming fruits and vegetables that are in
competition with other parts of the US.”
“The social planners would find, if they
would care to look, that each cultural
group has its own felt needs and core
Someone at the hearing made
San Joaquin Valley map showing the major
values, that they have dignity innate in
this
comment
but it was not disclosed
crops where the braceros worked
themselves and that they do not
who:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture illus.
appreciate being called underprivileged,
poorly educated, improperly fed, poorly clothed, ill-housed, living “We must have somebody in this country to do our work. Somebody,
under unsanitary conditions, and all of the other unkind and somewhere, has to do hard physical labor, because it is here to be
thoughtless words that are being used to describe them.”
done. If the American people refuse to do it, then what are we to
Fred Heringer from the California Farm Bureau Federation do? Why, we must bring somebody else in from the outside who
and a farmer stated:
will do it. Under our present system of education, we must either
bring somebody in here to do our hard work or we must go elsewhere
“Society via state and federal agencies has served notice on for our foodstuffs and clothing.”
agriculture there must be some decided improvement in:
1. Transportation
Organizations Involved
2. Farm Safety
Concerned about the status of the American farm worker
3. Field sanitation in food harvest
were federal, state, and local organizations, committees, and groups
4. Housing for farm workers
of all types, such as the U.S. Department of Labor, President’s
5. Working conditions and wages and hours for women and minors Committee on Migratory Labor, U.S. Senate Subcommittee of
6. Use of domestic labor before use of imported labor
Migratory Labor, U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public
7. Minimum earnings per hour of employment”
Welfare. There were diverse groups, such as National Catholic Rural
Norman Smith of the Agricultural Workers’ Organizing
Committee (AWOC), AFL-CIO, provided this statement:
Life Conference, American Farm Bureau Federation, National
Consumers League, National Council of Churches of America, and
the National Grange. For California there were two state government
inter-departmental task forces, one on field harvest sanitation and
———————— 625 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
the other on health services for seasonal agricultural workers. There
was the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Children and Youth
and its Subcommittee on the Migrant Child, as well as a
subcommittee of the Governor’s Council on Agricultural Labor
Affairs that met monthly.
Spring 2014
Organizing Committee (AWOC) of the AFL-CIO. Cesar Chavez was
given support by AWOC to organize in Oxnard to protest the
Bracero Program, because it took jobs from American domestic
farm labor. In January 1961, AWOC led a strike of lettuce workers in
Imperial Valley, protesting the use of braceros, because the program
reduced the wages and labor standards for all farm workers. The
termination of the Bracero Program gave rise to the strongly unified
United Farm Workers (UFW), headed by Chavez and Dolores
Huerta, that supported only American farm workers, being opposed
Experimental grape harvester developed by the University of California at Davis
UCD photo
Organizer of the United Farm Workers (UFW)
Cesar Chavez attending a strike rally (Huelga). He
founded the National Farm Workers Association in
1962, changing the name to United Farm Workers
Organizing Committee in 1966, which became the
UFW in 1973.
Web photo
American labor unions organized American farm workers
on standard labor issues of working conditions, housing, wages,
and health care. The unions were: the National Farm Laborers Union
(UFLU) that later became the National Agricultural Workers Union
(NAWU), headed by Ernesto Galarza and the Agricultural Workers
to the use of any alien laborers. For a decade or so, there were major
clashes in the state between growers and unionized farm workers.
Major concessions were won for the farm workers and significant
state laws implemented to guarantee their rights, aligning the once
maltreated farm worker with the level of the American worker. The
farm worker won the battle, but lost the war, because the grower
turned to mechanizing farm work, that required only a fraction of
farm labor.
Written by Robert LeRoy Santos
The Nomad Harvesters
By Marie De L. Welch
The nomads had been the followers of flocks and herds
Or the wilder men, the hunters, the raiders
The harvesters had been the men of homes
But ours is a land of nomad harvesters
They till no ground, take no rest, are homed nowhere
Travel with warmth, rest in the warmth never
Pick lettuce in the green season in the flats by the sea
Lean, follow the ripening, homeless, send the harvest home
Pick cherries in the amber valleys in tenderest summer
Rest nowhere, share in no harvest
Pick grapes in the red vineyards in the low blue hills
Camp in the ditches at the edge of beauty
They are a great band, they move in thousands
Move and pause and move on
They turn to the ripening, follow the peaks of seasons
Gather the fruit and leave it and move on
Ours is a land of nomad harvesters
Men of no root, no ground, no house, no rest
They follow the ripening, gather the ripeness
Rest never, ripen never
Move and pause and move on
From: Factories in the Field, by Carey McWilliams (1939)
———————— 626 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly
——————————————
(Con’t from back page) between the now legal farm worker and his
employee. The Drying Out program was instituted by an agreement
between the U.S. and Mexico, which in part read: “Mexican
agricultural workers who are illegally in the U.S., may be employed
only under a contract approved pursuant to this agreement, and
their immigration status will be adjusted accordingly. Such illegal
workers when they are located in the U.S. shall be given preference
for employment under outstanding U.S. Employment Service
certification.”
The Drying Out arrangement continued the remnants of
Bracero Program until the Bracero Program was reinstituted in 1951.
To provide an indication of the size of the Drying Out process,
55,000 illegal workers in Texas, changed their status to legal through
the program. In 1950, 19,813 legal Mexican farm workers entered the
U.S. under contract, while 96,239 illegals were dried out that year.
The term Drying Out stemmed from the deprecatory “wetback”
label for illegal Mexican workers. In other words, “they were hung
out to dry” to change their status to legal.
During its four years, the Drying Out program operated
without major difficulties. It was then incorporated in the new
Bracero Program law, U.S. PL 78 of 1951, with the statement that
“U.S. Secretary of Labor is authorized to recruit such workers who
have resided in the U.S. for the preceding five years, or who are
temporarily in the U.S. under legal entry.” The Drying Out plan
made sense, because illegal farm workers would continue to cross
into the U.S. anyway, so the government decided to make them
legal and avoid the trouble and money to arrest and deport them. In
a sense, it provided a migrating pool of workers, traveling on their
own, who could fill the immediate needs of growers.
Even with the Bracero Program and the Drying Out process,
growers still continued to hire illegal Mexican farm workers, mixing
them into their work crews. An article in PL 78 (Bracero Program)
stated that if employers continued to hire illegals, their permits to
hire braceros would be revoked, but rarely was any action taken. It
took too much time and money to collect evidence and try them in
court. Below are illegal Mexican arrest statistics taken by the U.S.
Border Patrol for 1940-54. These figures include Border Patrol arrests
deep into the U.S., as well as quick arrests at the border:
U.S. Border Patrol Arrests for Illegal Mexicans
Year
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
No. Arrests
8,051
6,082
5,100
8,860
29,176
69,111
101,478
199,282
203,945
293,000
480,000
509,040
528,815
885,587
1,108,900
Spring 2014
Emergency Need
In January 1954, there was a food shortage in the northern
Mexican states, while Imperial Valley was in need of several thousand
farm workers. Mexican farm laborers began gathering along the
California-Mexican border, wanting work to purchase food. At first
3,500 appeared, then 14,000, and finally 30,000 Mexicans collected
at staging areas across from Calexico, San Ysidro, and San Diego.
To resolve the starvation and the need for farm workers, a quick
agreement was reached between the U.S. and Mexico to allow what
was called “undisciplined hiring.” Under this policy, Mexican farm
workers were hired quickly at the border by U.S. employers.
Investigation Commentary
In March 1951, Gladwin Hill published an insightful article
on the illegal farm worker in the New York Times. He had spent
several weeks touring the Southwest and California, investigating
the illegal farm worker. When reading his article, one senses that
Hill had captured and understood the characteristics of the illegal
workforce. He wrote, in somewhat lengthy sentences:
“From a sociological standpoint, the wetback traffic has obliterated
the border completely, transforming 3 million Spanish-American
citizens of the Southwest – many of whose families have been in
the area for centuries – into a cultural peninsula of Mexico, retarding
their assimilation, in the opinion of experts, by a generation or
more, and perpetuating and aggravating some of the worst
conditions of health, education and social, economic and political
un-integration that can be found in the country. Finally the wetback
traffic has engendered, in somewhat the way prohibition did, an
atmosphere of amorality and warped thinking which demonstrably
extends from the farmer exploiters of wetback labor through their
communities and local and state officials, to the highest levels of
the Federal Government. Once across the line, the wetback passes
himself off as one of the 3 million citizen Mexican-Americans.
Although this may sound sensational, the remarkable thing is that
there is no secrecy about the situation. Despite an elaborate
legendry that has grown up to screen it, and occasional efforts to
dissimulate the facts, most of the details are matters of formal public
record or common knowledge in the region.”
Because trafficking of illegal Mexican workers is still with
us, we know that from the beginning of the problem, now over 150
years old, it is impossible to eradicate but has been controlled
when desired.
Written by Robert LeRoy Santos
Sources: Anglo Over Bracero, Kirstein; Bracero Policy Experiment, Garcia y Griego; California’s Farm Labor Problems,
California State Senate; Factory in the Fields, McWilliams; Hired
Hands in California’s Fields, Fuller; Mexican and Mexican
American Farm Workers, Gonzales; Merchants of Labor,
Galarza; and Recruit and Replacement of Farm Laborers, California State Senate. Front cover, l to r: train carload of braceros
coming from Mexico; Yokuts in San Joaquin Valley; braceros
boarding to leave; and Chinese men in California. Web photos.
———————— 627 ————————
———————— Stanislaus Historical Quarterly ————————
Mexicans in Stanislaus County
T
Part 4: Illegal Mexican Farm Workers
he other articles on Mexican farm workers contain some
information on the illegal Mexican farm worker. This article is to
supplement those and to discuss the issue directly.
Illegal Mexican farm workers (“illegal aliens”) were used
routinely in California work crews, being mixed with braceros and
American farm workers. Quite frequently, these illegal workers
labored for lesser wages than the braceros and other farm workers,
but the grower never knew when an illegal worker would quit the
job and move to better wages. There was wage competition among
the growers or labor contractors to the
point where one grower or contractor
would purposely offer higher wages to
the illegals to ensure a workforce at
harvest time. This was called
“pirating.” Braceros were not expected
to leave the job until it was finished,
because they were under legal contract
and protected by the Bracero Program.
where they gathered, such as at Alviso, Brawley, Delano, Live Oak,
Los Angeles, Oxnard, and Tracy.
Harboring and Concealing
The 1917 Immigration Act provided a border inspection
force of 260 that had the responsibility of policing a 2,000-mile
border. In 1924, the U.S. Border Patrol was formed to replace it, but
their numbers weren’t much larger. Congressmen from the border
states clearly left the Border Patrol poorly financed, not wanting
their interference into the illegal farm
worker traffic that supplied the growers.
In 1952, there was an attempt by
congress to stop illegal trafficking with
the Walter-McCarran Immigration Act.
The act’s statement read: “Harboring
and concealment are punishable
offences if committed only willfully and
knowingly.” This didn’t discourage
American growers, because only
Arrests and Deportation
officials of the U.S. Immigration Service
A major part of California’s
could make the arrests under the Act’s
farm labor force from 1942 to 1960
provision. No other law enforcement
consisted of illegal Mexicans, who had
service could arrest anyone for
crossed the border, known colloquially
“harboring and concealing” illegal
as “wetbacks.” There was no method
foreign workers, and the Immigration
of counting their vast numbers, but
Service lacked such a police force.
Tomato picking crews, such as this local one, had
U.S. Border Patrol’s statistics provide
Even so, growers purposely
a mixture of braceros and illegal Mexican farm
an indication of the size. In 1954, the
remained unaware of the legal status of
workers.
Galarza photo
U.S. Border Patrol launched a campaign
its farm employees to avoid any kind of
to travel through California, rounding up the illegal Mexicans in the arrest. A simple rule was to say, ‘We don’t know who is legal and
state and deport them. That year they arrested 84,000, who then who isn’t.” One of California’s largest growers was Bakersfield’s
were deported. In 1957, the campaign continued with 14,690 being Robert DiGiorgio, who testified before a congressional hearing in
arrested and deported; in 1958, 14,387; in 1959, 13,202; and in 1960, 1951, commenting that “We have no way of knowing a man is not a
11,026.
Mexican citizen. We only accept a man’s word for it.” The joke was
The effect was felt immediately by California growers, that when a grower asks a farm worker about his immigration status,
because they lost large numbers. David E. Cole of Nutting and a simple “Me no sabe” (I don’t understand) response from him
Hogue, a company of growers, packers and shippers, commented meant he was eligible for hire. It was not beneath some growers to
in 1960 that “We were amazed to find that our [tomato] picking call the Border Patrol to pick up illegal workers on his property
crews shrank to insignificant numbers, indicating that our crews before they were paid for their work.
were made up of, to a large extent, so-called ‘wetbacks.’” It was no
surprise to government officials that tomato growers depended
Drying Out
heavily on illegal Mexican labor.
A program was instituted in 1947, called “Drying Out,”
The U.S. Border Patrol officials termed illegal Mexican entry
into the U.S. as “perhaps the greatest peacetime invasion
complacently suffered by a country under open, flagrant,
contemptuous violation of its laws.” The Spanish-speaking farm
labor contractors were deeply involved in supplying the illegals.
They would meet the illegal Mexicans at planned locations and
then transport them to work. Also, techniques were used to hide
the illegal laborers until they could be mixed into crews. The illegal
system flourished after World War II, with labor contractors
becoming very adept at recruiting illegal workers. The U.S. Border
Patrol though continued to round them up, combing California hubs
which was a reaction to the U.S. Agriculture Department’s desire to
terminate the wartime Bracero Program. Growers wanted the Bracero
Program to continue, because they needed the cheap, hardy Mexican
laborers on their farms. The “Drying Out” program allowed illegal
Mexican farm workers to change their status to legal. This program
involved mostly those illegal workers who were called “specials”
by growers. “Specials” performed their work competently, returned
routinely to the same farms, and were especially wanted by the
growers. To change the worker’s status to legal, the grower or his
representative took the “specials” to the immigration office and
vouched for them. Then an employment contract was completed
(Continuted on page 627)