Cananea Strike of 1906: A National Reckoning

By Joe Healey      HIST 566   Dr. Brandon Morgan    Summer 2019

                                              Cananea circa 1906                                Wikimedia

Background to the Strike: Unrest at a Workaday Town

The Mexican Revolution was not a singular event organized in a quick fashion. The social, economic, and political unrest resulting from Porfirio Díaz's regime had been going on for decades. Díaz's policies favored elite land owners; they continued to claim public lands for themselves and court foreign investment. Foreign ownership of railroads, industry, and mining had grown exponentially during the Porfiriato. By 1911 a conservative estimation by Marion Letcher, chief U.S. consul to Mexico, declared that 78% of the mines and 72% of the smelters in Mexico were American-owned (qtd. in Wasserman 145).

In the early 1900s, working class Mexicans were beginning to coordinate efforts in order to improve how they were treated and to complain about poor working conditions and pay. There had been long-term inequities regarding the treatment of Mexican workers. Unions were illegal, but workers led by Esteban Baca Calderón, Manuel Diéguez, and Juan Jose Ríos, created the Unión Liberal Humanidad, a workers’ “group” at the U.S.-owned Cananea Consolidated Copper Company mines. Questions arose whether this group was receiving outside influence from anarchist group Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM) and the socialist unionizing force called the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

On June 1, 1906, Mexican workers at the Cananea mines, fed up with unfair treatment and bad working conditions went on strike. Of utmost concern, Mexican workers were being paid less than Americans at the mines and smelter. Calderón drafted the workers’ manifesto asking for, among other things, 5 pesos for an 8-hour workday and fair treatment for Mexican laborers. From the first moments, the strike took a dubious turn when mine owner, “Colonel” William C. Greene, rejected the workers’ demands. Two American foremen were killed which led to a bloody conflict some later dubbed the Cananea Mine Massacre. Approximately 26 Mexican workers were killed.

No single event sparked the Mexican Revolution in 1910, but some claim the Cananea strike was a precursor because it foreshadowed, in word and action, concepts that became central to the Revolution. Others say it was a local event that was yet another step toward uniting miners to other members of the lower classes.

How the strike was handled also had international ramifications, as the Cananea mine involved an American-owned business not forty miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Shaping Mexico: An Infinite Revolution

AN INFINITE REVOLUTION

When did the Mexican Revolution end? Some have it ending in 1920 (e.g Wasserman and Wikipedia 😃). Others (Castro and Gonzales) see it ending in the late 1930s or early 1940s, respectively. Still, there are some that say the revolution is still on going.

Based on what I've learned this semester, I feel that the Revolution--with a capital R--ended in the 1920s with Alvaro Obregón's presidency. While no president ever brought to fruition all the revolutionary goals, Obregón brought stability, attempted to redistribute lands, encouraged a nationalist

Obregón

mentality while still allowing regional autonomy on certain issues, and abided by the presidential term limits. He was sort of the last Revolutionary war hero--and though flawed--made gains for more than just the elite class of Mexicans. Yes, he did take actions that kept elite interests at the fore, but no president could appease all the factions. Obregón did not turn his back on the working class as others had previously.

LAND MATTERS

Obregón addressed land reform in earnest. Land reform was the backbone of the agrarian movement in the Revolution, the thing of Zapata and Villa (at times antagonists and allies of Obregón). It was the campaign promise for previous revolutionary leaders that they never delivered. Obregón created the ejido system which were state-owned lands but freely given to local farmers to use as their own. This helped local economies and people. Of course, this wasn't a perfect system. Obregón often seemed to target the use of ejidos to placate politically active and disruptive communities in places such as Morelos and Yucatan (Gonzales 190). Surely if Zapata, the "fiery apostle of agaraismo" (qtd. in Brunk 48) was still alive he would not be happy with the ejido system. His Plan de Ayala and slogan "Land and Liberty!" meant owning their own land, not expanding the federal government's role in their lives.

Still, Obregón's was the first concerted effort in the direction of following the Consititution of 1917, a big part of which contains verbiage on land reform. He redistributed land--more than 900,000 hectares during his term--at rates three times more than Carranza (Signet 511).

CARRYING THE TORCH

Calles

It was as Obregón's right hand man and Mexico's Secretary of the Interior that Plutarco Calles made connections to farmers and other lower class workers during his tenure. Calles would take Obregón's plan and dramatically expand it when he became president. And that is how the revolutionary ideals were carried forth.They may not have been achieved by one president, per se, but they were built upon by succeeding presidents. 

REVOLUTIONARY IDEALS AT THE HEART OF MEXICO

While land reform is less an issue in modern Mexico, political and social issues that existed in the early 1900s, still reverberate today. Acknowledgment of indigenous peoples' rights, inter-class relations, foreign influence in Mexico, local identity vs. nationalism, how leaders are elected and how long they remain in office, and workers' rights are timeless issues. Perhaps the Mexican Revolution will go on until these can be adequately addressed. Perhaps, new revolutions are occurring each day. 

Ay, Carranza! Mexican Revolutionaries Lack Unity

Strange Bedfellows: Constitutionalists

Carranza

As if fractures between the old guard and up-and-coming revolutionaries weren't enough, Mexico experienced schisms between its revolutionaries. To displace President Victoriano Huerta, Constitutionalists, such as Venustiano Carranza, Alvara Obregón, Pancho Villa, and Emiliano Zapata united. They made strange bedfellows. These Consitutionalists favored closer adherence to the Constitution of 1857 and spirited a rebirth of nationalism, yet their alliance was not to live long.

Alvara Obregon

Villa was extremely successful (and ruthless) in winning battles against Huerta in the north. Zapata did well to control Morelos and even surrounding areas.

Carranza, the opportunist and shrewd political, and his famous right-hand general, Obregón, defeated Huerta's federal troops elsewhere. 

Carranza hailed from the elite-class and did not share the vision that involved Villa's campesino demands or Zapata's agrarian reforms. This, despite Carranza's own manifesto, "The Agrarian Law of 1915" which ended up being a mere ploy to form the alliance with Villa and Zapata (Wasserman 109). Carranza also began to fear Villa's rise to military power. 

"As Villa grew stronger militarily, his relations with Carranza deteriorated" (Gonzales 129).

The Split and Civil War

Villa and Zapata split from the Consitutionalists forming a group of Conventionalists based on their pact to carry-out the liberal policies of workers' rights and land redistribution.  

Two different personalities, two different revolutionaries

The Consitutionalists ultimately defeated the Conventionalists because:

• Villa and Zapata never had a strong unified front. During the Convention at Aguascalientes they showed that they were more focused on regional issues, not a national vision.
• Villistas and Zapatistas had different styles. Villistas often looted, raped, and pillaged. Zapatistas, on the other hand, were said to be "uncomfortable" with occupying lands outside of Morelos (Gonzales 146).
• Conventionalists lacked the political background and acumen necessary to influence policy. 
• Carranza, ever the politician, grew his Consitutionalist base by working closely with disenfranchised workers and union members in District Federal and invoking anti-US sentiment and strong nationalism (Gonzales 144-147)
• On the battlefield, eventually the tactics of Obregón (trench warfare) outwitted Zapata and his old style calvary charges. 
• U.S. President Woodrow Wilson finally acknowledged and then supported Carranza (even allowing military supplies to be shipped through the U.S. to Carranza's troops) which was the tipping point for Villa (Gonzales 153).

Trench Warfare in Mex. Revolution

Troops at Celaya

The Constitution of 1917: A Fantastic Document, In Theory

Carranza assumed the Presidency after the civil war. He drafted a new constitution. The liberal-leaning jacobinos inserted more social rights, property and land rights, and anti-clerical measures (Gonzales 163). Surprisingly, in short order, the Constitution of 1917 emerged from somewhat divided politics.

Factionalism divided the coalition during and after the constitutional negotiations. Some of the constitutional laws were disregarded. Obviously, Carranza had Zapata assasinated--which went against Article 22 which declared that "capital punishment for political offenses is prohibited." Obregón, later, had Villa assasinated. Neither actually stood trial for any offense. They were just considered threats and therefore were terminated without much of a thought toward the consitutionality of it.

Article 27 declared that all land and subsoil rights were "vested originally in the Nation." This upset foreign oil and mining companies, so that was delicately ignored by Carranza to assuage foreigners. Article 32 also spelled-out how Mexicans should receive "priority over foreigners" but workers still faced unfair pay and treatment in many cases. 

Land distribution really did not happen though the Constitution waxed poetic on how land would be distributed or protected. It nullified the land grabs of the Porfiriato, yet even years later under Obregón (who did establish ejidos in select rural areas), the government still abided hacendados. Most land was owned by a small number of wealthy elites. Rural people, farmers, and other workers still clammored for more protections and rights.

While a lot changed since the Porfiriato, which must have seemed like a lifetime ago, some old habits were hard to break. In 7-10 years, Mexico had undergone a revolution, a coup, assasinations of presidents, and a civil war, and created a document that spoke to the many issues the original revolutionaries were seeking. The problem then became how much Mexico was willing to live up to its new ideologies and laws.

The Mexican Revolution(s): Different Goals, Different Outcomes, Many Mexicos

The Mexican Revolution (1910-1940) was a complex series of revolutions, political coups, social movements, counterrevolutions, and reactionary civil insurgencies. The Mexican Revolution did not mirror the mostly clean-cut victory of their neighbor to the north in 1776. The Revolution in Mexico was unique in that it involved multiple classes with different causes.This was evidenced early on during the revolutionary leadership of  Francisco I. Madero and his tumultous presidency.

"Only in Mexico did small land owners, landless peasants, factory workers, miners, members of the middle class (government bureaucrats, small-business owners, small-scale merchants), and dissident elites form a multi-class alliance that overthrew an exitising regime dominated by a small ruling class" (Wasserman 2). 

Sometimes the disparate social groups, that Ristow calls "a patchwork revolutionary coalition"(1) united for one purpose: overthrowing whoever was in charge, and soon after splintered into rival factions. All the while the nation hung in the precarious balance.

The Unlikely Voice of the Masses

Madero

Francisco Madero, from one of the most prominent and wealthy families in northern Mexico, rose to top to lead the disgruntled masses against Porfirio Diaz's regime. His family's industries were taking a financial hit because of Diaz's preferetial treatment to foreign companies (Gonzales 49). Madero was embraced by the middle class and common people because he linked his cause to theirs--one of discontentment with the Porfiriato. This was significant because this odd partnership of lower classes and middle/upper classes provided legitimacy to revolt. Lower classes felt that they finally had the ability to make their mark, something that was not possible without a cross-class coalition.

But once he had toppled the regime, his ideology of fair treatment of indigeneous people, securing workers' rights, and attempting to redistribute land to its rightful owners, was dismissed in favor of political scheming to bolser his middle class supporters and his own soci-economic class, the elites. Once he won the election (from place holder Francisco Leon de la Barra), he barely made any changes to Diaz's regime.

Revolutionary Democracy on Shaky Ground

"The radicals had won the battles, but the moderates took the spoils" (qtd. in Ristow 134).

In the North---Pascual Orozco, the former Madero general, was left out of President Madero's inner circle (Wasserman 11). This political affront caused an early rift in Madero's presidency. Add to the political fray, continued social unrest and the new Madero government was already on shaky ground. Agrarian workers and miners were still unhappy. Indians, treated horribly by Diaz and key contributors in the Revolutionary armed conflicts, found little improvement under Madero.

Indian Revolutionaries

In the South--In Morelos, Emiliano Zapata, a fierce fighter in the Revolution, gathered supporters in order to push Madero to act on the promises Madero made in his Plan of San Luis Potosi regarding the restoration of lands that the Diaz regime had taken from small landholders and the general public.To Zapata, this was not happen- 

Zapata

ing fast enough. Madero had little interest in the lower class issues that he professed during the Revolution and preferred that the courts take care of land disputes.This was a drawn-out process that Zapatistas had no patience for. Zapata demanded that the "promises of the Revolution be fulfilled" (qtd. in Gonzales 84). The people of Mexico had different expectations than Madero.




Further South-- Che Gomez in Juchitan, embodied Mexico during the early stages of Revolutionary democracy. There was a split between the Madero moderates and the radical popular revolutionaries (Ristow 119). The Revolution was barely finished--in fact, there were still skirmishes after Diaz had been disposed. Unrest in the countryside was a serious problem for Madero. Class divisions (barrio alta and barrio abajo) were deeply rooted since colonial times and further entrenched during the Porfiriato. There also was a schism of race that Madero had to deal with. In Juchitan, indigenous people wanted local representation and rights--they wanted to be governed by popular will. They were led by Jose Che Gomez. In Mexico City, people and the press called them "unconscious multitudes" (Ristow 23). Because they were a marginalized group, Chegomistas stood up to the federal troops of President Elect  De La Barra and President Madero in the

ways they knew how: basic insurgency that disrupted the 

Political infighting between Madero and Vasquez Gomez brothers, Fransicso and Emilio, gave room for the Chegomistas to stand their ground. In fact, Vazquez Gomez may have supplied the Chegomistas with arms (Ristow 121). Even though theirs was a local fight for "a sovereign pueblo," Chegomistas were a threat to national cohesion in Madero's eyes. Madero used federal troops to quell uprising and in doing so, defined the limits of the revolutionary democracy. To what length would popular will be tolerated? Could the Mexican people coalesce or would they keep their allegiances to "personalist leaders" (Ristow 229). In just the first days of his presidency, Madero was forced to lay bare his ideology. It was this: local rule could be a danger to national peace and prosperity.



The Beginning was the End
The first days of Madero's presidency were significant, because Mexico could have fallen into another civil war, the nation was being re-defined from within, and Madero's response revealed his true obligations could not abide the popular will. The issues in the North and South also demonstrated the ethnic and class divisions and the myriad of socio-economic and political goals that one revolution may not have been able to accomplish. In a way, more revolutions were playing out because of that. There was not one revolution but many, all trying to fulfill disparate goals. Madero's inability and unwillingness to address these would spell the end for him.