1’he Night Errants of our Civi1izadon

The Plan of San Diego and the Lower Rio GrandeBorderlands

JEFFREY DAVID MITCHEH.

“1 am simply seeking the truth as to whether or not this attack [against theRangers] is made throtigh animous [sic], generated by reason of theprticipaUon of these men who are the niçhr eminrs ofot,reitillzadon andhate been throughout the en öre hisron’ ofTexas [emphasis added].”

—R.L Knight. attorney for the Texas Rangers, 1919

The Plan of San Diego, in its most siniple form, describes the name of a 1915 politicalmanifesto found on the border ofTexas and Mexico. The manifesto came otit of an era ofrevolutionary documents and shared the ideological sentiments with the biggest contlagration in theAmericas, the Mexican Revolution. Corning from a long line of other revolutionary plans, such asthe Emiliano Zapata’s Plan ofAyala, the Plan of San Diego threatened to usc force to reetitinequities and destroy injustice. The manifesto had one major difference, however. ‘l’he documentcalled for a revolution on American soil, an tiprising of non-white peoples on the United States-Mexico border. Moreover, the existence of a document that addressed American dominationsummarily provoked anxieties in sotith Texas. For in the document, the story of the Texas-f\iexicoborderlands lay exposed. The Plan of San Diego meant to attack the structure of conquest thatexisted since the Mexican-American \\Tar and replace that order with a more fair and equitablesociety.

As an event, the Plan of San Diego had some peculiar characteristics. To start with,there is the date of the planned tiprising, February 20. 1915. When the day came and went withotitviolence, anxious Texans must have looked outside their window’s and sighed w’ith relief. I low thecould have discerned the peace of that hour to the reality around them is unknown. The border withMexico still reeled from border raids; the Mexican Revolution was in its fifth year with no end insight. The tillisras. the ean-ancisras, and other regional factions, tised Texaasa base for stipplies.I lorse and cattle thefts continued; the smuggling of guns and ammunition went unabated. Yetborder contraband had existed since the end of the Mexican-American War. I low could Texans tellthe difference between border crimes and the Mexican Revolution—let alone if, and when, the Planof San Diego arrived?

\Vell, that w’ithout a doubt lay in the nattire of the attacks that w’ould follow’ in 1915. Fromearly July to late-October, border raids accelerated, and not just in number. The nature of the attackschanged. White ranchers were murdered. Stores robbed. Barns were burned. Train bridgesdestroyed. The I,ower Rio Grande Valley became a war zone, gripped by an insurgency. This mustbe it, the residents ofTexas said; this must be the Plan of San Diego. And they responded; led by anenlarged Texas Rangers force, the ethnic community ofsouth Texas felt the brunt of a state-directedpurge. Attacks targeted lejano families and Mexican immigrants, killing between oo and 5,ooopeople, and leaving many more homeless.

A reckoning arrived, however, in 1919. The call forjusticc took the form of specialhearings in the state capital, Austin. The Proceedings ofthe Joint committee ofthe Senare and thehouse in the Jntesögndon ofrhe Texas Stare Rangers Foive took the testimony of i’exans andTcjanos who w’iniessed the bloodshed dtiring and immediately after the Plan of San Diego. ‘IYeshowed a face of the uprising that’Fexas would have recognized, and even admitted. For the Plan ofSan Diego revealed the contestations for space that challenged state authority. White i’exans lookedupon the border region with a constrictive mindset that defined the region in terms of ethnicity. Thestate supported this ‘iew’ with a history of perpetual opPosition and conflict, defined by theobstruction of law’ and order. Fltudity over the border, both physically and socially, permittedconnections with Mexico. With the chaos of the Mexican Revolution appearing to have no end,

‘“Testimony ofVennira Sanchex,” The Proceedings ofthe Joint Committee ofthe Senate and theihotise in the Investigation ofthe Texas State Rangers foive, (Austin, TX, 1919), 367.

EX POST FACTO

126 Jeffrey David Mitchell

Texas believed that conditions in Mexico allowed insurgents to tise Mexico as a base, Texas did notconsider another possibility, however, one that lied in the Texas’ own connections to the region. Forthe very nature ofTexas’ interactions with the border region. along the lines ofeconomics andpolitics, allowed the Plan of San Diego to arise in south Texas. Even more important, state coercion,evidenced by the violent methods of the Texas Rangers, destabilized the region and gave the Plan ofSan Diego its true revolutionary potential.

Any explanation of the Plan of San Diego should begin with the Mexican Revolution.The ten-year war made the United States-Mexico bottler a particularly violent place. By placing thePlan of San 1)iego within the context of the revolution, the south Texas uprising represents onemore example ofconflict in the region. Some historians have continued the theme of conquest andintrigue of the era and situated the Plan of San Diego within that bloody milieu. Dotiglas Meed’sBloodyBotderdid not specifically focits on the Texas-Mexico border, but each of his storiesemphasized the contestations benveen armed combatants on the entire international border. Reed’spiece on the Plan of San Diego. “Race War in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.” portrayed the conflictbenveen “Tejanos” and white Texans asjttst one more battle in a war between two cultures. WhereMeed failed to analyze the border’s place in the international politics of the Mexican Revolution,other works have filled the void. Charles II. I larris III and Louis R. Sadler wrote extensively in the197os. 8os, and late-9os on the stthject of the Mexican Revolution. Specifically, they covered theregion of the United States-Mexico border. Through a series ofworks. finally published together in‘The Borderand the Ret viurion, they used an area (the border) and an event (the MexicanRevolution) to describe conflict between the United States and Mexico.3 I lards and Sadler positedthat “First Chiet Venustiano Carranza orchestrated the Plan of San Diego, in order to forcePresident Woodrow Wilson to recognize Carranzas regime.4

While I larris and Sadler adequately explained the Plan of San Diego’s connection to theMexican Revolution, they failed to explain why white Texans reacted so violently against the Tejanopoptilation of the Lower Rio Grandc Valley. ‘l’his failure ofexplanation implies that internationalrelations cannot cover all the necessary details. Granted, the polities of the Mexican Revolutionplayed a significant role in the violence on the Mexican side of the border. I lowever, since most ofthe bloodshed of the Plan of San Diego occtirred in Texas, the domestic situation in south Texasneeds sttffieient treatment.

ihe effects of the Mexican Revolution resonated in new works about the Plan of SanDiego. But more importantly, they differed in their approach by emphasizing the connectionsbenveen Texas and Mexico, and how the nature of those connections caused the violence in sotithTexas. James A. Sandos turned over nventy years of research into his book, Rebellion in theBorderlands.5 Starting with the pivotal figure of Ricardo Flores MagOn, the seminal Mexicananarchist of the era, Sandos traced the influence of“floresmagónismo” to Te anos who not only livedin south Texas, but also participated in the Plan of San Diego. Sandos believed that the fear of

Douglas V. Meed, Bloody Borcleo Riots, Battles andAthenturesAlong rite Turbulent US.-1% lexicon Borderlands(Tucson, AZ: Westernlore Press, 1992).Charles I larris III and Louis R. Sadler The Borderand the Reivludon, ClandesdneAethides ofthe Mexican Ret oltidon: 191o-192o(Las Cruces, N1\i: New Mexico State University, 1988).I iarris and Sadler stipported their thesis with State Department papers and letters from U.S.Army officers, and largely established that, indeed, some of the Mexican “raiders” belonged toCarran7,a’s army. Charles II. I larris III and Louis Sadler, ‘The Plan of San Diego and the Mexican-United States War Crisis: A Reexamination,” The ilispanicArnedean historical Retieii Vol. 58,No.3. (Atig., 197$), 38 1-408.tJames A. Sandos, Rebellion in the Borderlands, Anarchism and the Plan ofSan Diego, 1904-1923.(Norman, OK: University ofOklahoma Press, 1992).

Ex POST FACTO

The Night Errants ofour civilization 127

revolutionary politics explained the violent repression ofTejanos by white Texans. lie recognizedthat the Plan of San I)iego opened up the possibilities thr investigation into the history of both andUnited States and Mexiec).’ In addition, the approach of studying violence as “culture contact andconflict along frontiers” potentially explained why Mexican raiders terrorized sotith Texas. Possibly,the ide-a of a shared history c-an answer something else, why white Texans massacred i’ejanos.

In this regard explanations for the Plan of San t)iego now focus on the subjecrofmtiltieulniralisrn, the portrayal of “race” in south Texas, and how’ white Texans have reacted to apopulation with -a dual identity. Revolution in ?èva -by Benjamin I IcbcrJohnson saw the silenceabotit the Plan of San Diego as just one part of the historical controversy that surrotindcd the event.7‘l’hc red question about the lack on knowledge of the subject is what the organized murder ofhundreds, if not thousands ofTejanos, revealed about America’s intellectual and social life. On thesurface, Johnson saw the story as one about race relations. But he also saw the event as one part ofthe intcmvined history ofMexico, Mexican-Americans, and the United States; or as he called theuprising, “a rtansnational event.’5

For -all of Johnson’s talk about n-ansnadonalism, however, he must reconcile his model ofinvestigation with the evidence that disruptions on the American side of the border created thebloody conclusion. lie partly takes the position of Sandos, tising the social, economic, and politic-alinstitutions of sotith Texas to describe the struLcwral changes that lejanos and Texans reactedagainst. I us own work, therefore. toc)k advantage of other works that explained south Texas at thetime of Plan of San Diego. One important monograph was Evan Andcrs’ Boss Rttle in Sotirh‘1 ‘exasY Using sociological studies that recognize the supportive functions of late-American “bossmle.”Anders’ tised the reality of sotith i’cxas’ multi-ethnic society to describe the change of politicalfortunes. What lie called a “mixed pattern of discord and accommodation... [that] created bothformidable communities and obstacles for stable politic-al organization,” broke down in the earlytwentieth century.° The changes that occurred in local politics failed to reinforce the old bondsbetween ethnic groups. Of consequence, Anders saw the repression of the Plan of San Diego as justone more battle in the realignment ofTexas politics. The state’s own actions w’ithin the region, inthis ease its own political connections, characterized the subsequent violence.

If the state destabilized conditions, either throtigh economic or political activities, thenthe measures ofviolent resistance and the cotmtermeastires of a coercive st-ate, requires evaluation. Awide range of subjects adds depth to the reasons why groups use violence to solve problems. Thestate’s own reasons for violence, in this ease the Texas Rangers, touch upon issties of cuktire, identityand ideology. So too do the reactions of the Plan of San Diego’s participants, 1\Icxicans and 1 ‘ejanos,f-all into these same subjects of study. While the murder ofTejanos and Mexicans hyTexas civiliansdescribed a pro-vigilante culture of racism, the role of the Texas Rangers conjoined the role of thestate and the pow-er of violence. In this regard. a careful selection of works provides a complimentthat crosses over into diflèrcnt subjects of study.

Since the late-196os, Richard l laxwell Brown’s body ofwork has examined the culture ofviolence in America. Because his subject matter has touched on the intersection between racism in

Sandos, Rebellion in the Borderlands, xvii.7 l3enjamin I Ictier Johnson, Revolution in Texas: IIo;vi Forgotten Rebellion and IrsBloodiSuppression ?ii,nedAlexic-ansinroAmeric-ans(New haven, CE: Vale University Press, 2003).8 Johnson, Re; -olution in ‘1 èvas, 4.Evan Anders, Boss J?tzk in Sotith Texas, The Progressive Er-a (Austin, TX: University ofTexasPress, 1979).Anders, Boss Role in South Texas, xiv.Richard 1iaxwell Brown, American Violence(Englew’ood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-I lall, 1970);Richard 1\laxwell Brown, Strain ofViolence: hisrode-al Studies ofAmeric-an Violence and

EX POST FACTO

128 Jeffrey David Mitchell

the American West and the heroic qtialities of conquest, he has much in common with RichardSlotkin’s seminal 1973 work, Regeneration through Vioience.’ Unlike Slotkin’s use of the literature of“A_rnerican Civilization,” however, Brown has dealt with issues ofvigilantism by civilians. Ills pointabout governments and their use ofbloodshed contained a significant point ofview, lie showed howthe state’s ambitions for law and order have led to large-scale escalations of violence. I us study ofcentral Texas and the role of the Texas Rangers within the region made the “frontier” an importanceidea in Texas’ history.

For the purposes of studying the Plan of San Diego as a violent event on Texas’ southern“frontier,” I larris and Sadler’s The Texas Rangeis and the ]liexican Reiviudon, gives agency to themain actors of state violence.3 Overall, this institutional identity of the Rangers as “frontier fighters”helps explain another side of the catisation behind the Plan of San Diego. With the addition ofcultural geography, the delineations between center and periphery enhances Texas’ representation ofthe border as a “quasi-frontier.” Where D.W. Meinig’s Imperial ?èvaspointed out the state’sambitions over its widespread peripheries, David Arreola’s Tejano South Texas recognized the levelof distinctiveness in the border region that has opposed the state.4 The distinctiveness that theTejano community feels tow’ards the state ofTexas has as much to do with dual identity as it doeswith geography. Thus, Amérieo Paredes, one of the greatest ofTejano writers, provided animportant view to explain the victims ofstate siolence.’ The Plan of San Diego. and the actions ofborder inhabitants, falls within Paredes own use of cultural geography, one that emphasizes anidentity that Paredes’ calls “Greater Mexico.”

MI of the above subject matter are present in the n3ain source of this discussion, TheProceedings ofthe Joint Committee ofthe Senate and the house in the Investigation ofthe TexasState Rangeis foive. “l’his is what makes the investigation so important, and not least for theacrimonious debate about the role of the Texas Rangers in the violent suppression of the Plan of SanDiego. Many of the white i’eans interviewed did not expressly call the Plan of San Diego by nan3e.Instead, witnesses expressed their anxieties about the border region, and in doing so. revealed theirprejtidices with the region’s inhabitants. Importantly, many of their complaints fall under a generalheading of “lawlessness.” They ranged from counterfeiting to espionage to military desertion topolitical corruption. Because of that, the border region figured as a locale for lawless conditions inthe minds ofTexans. and in doing so, two themes ustially came up, the “quality” of the region’sinhabitants and the nature of the border region.’6

Any disetission of the state’s battle with lawlessness in the region referred to the role ofthe Texas Rangers. This discussion had two chief characters during the investigation. One involved

Vigilantism (New York: Oxford University Press, I975) Richard Maxwell Brown, No Dtirv toRetreat: Violence and Values in Amencan Iiistoiyand Society(New York and Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. 1991).Richard Slotkin, Regeneration thmugh Violence: TheMythologvoftheAmen can Fmnriei i6oo-i$6o (Middlctown, CT: Wesicyan University Press, 1973).Charles I tarris III and Louis R. Sadler. The Texas Rangeis and the Meak”aii Retvitition(Albttquerque. NM: University of New Mexico Press. 2004).D.W. Meinig. Imperial ‘Texas. An Interpretative Essa in Cultural Geography (Austin. TX:

University ofTexas Press, t9fi9); Arreola, David 1). T jano South Texas, A ?tlevican AmericanCultural Pmtince( ustinjX: University ofTexas Press, aooa).‘5Américo Paredes, folklore and Gulture on the Texas-il Ie.’dcan Border(Austin, TX: CMASBooks and University of i’exas at Austin. 1993).‘6As the border acted like a “window” that Texans looked anxiously through, seeing an internationalcommunity that it “othered,” the border also functioned like a “mirror” and revealed an aberrantversion ofTexas that none recognized nor claimed.

EX POST fAcTo

The Night Errants of our Civilization” 129

the author of the bill that aimed to reform the role of the Texas Rangers, the Tcjano stateassemblyman J.T. Canales. Born in Brownsville, Texas, and member of the “blue’ faction ofTexasDemocrats, Canales represented the importance of the Tcjano vote in Texas politics, a connectionbetween the state and border region not so easily broken.7 Canales charged that governor WilliamI lobby had used the Rangers to affect the outcome of a state primary in sotith Texas. II is charge hadvalidity due to the prior history of the Rangers. Their connections to the governor had entangledthem in political connections before.’5 Canales’ heritage as a Tejano explained his larger chargeagainst the Rangers, responsible for the murders of’l’cjanos and Mexicans dtiring the Plan of SanDiego. AsaTcjano he knew that the state stipported the violent racism of its lawmen.’9 In thisregard. the issue ofstate power overrode all other matters. By attacking the Rangers. Canalesattacked the state, especially the state’s methods in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

Canalcs did not stand unopposed. When he charged the Rangers with murder, R.L.Knight. a lawyer from Dallas. defended them. Knight hailed from north-central Texas, a region thathad endured its own trials and tribulations with lawlessness.” I Ic toed the investigation to postulatephilosophies that justified the methods of the Rangers, which Caoales decried as “speeches abotitimperial knights.”’ Because the Rangers represented the coercive power of the state, Knight’sdefense of the Rangers showed his own inclinations. Charges against the Rangers were also chargesagainst the state. Moreover, this was not too different from Canalcs. But Knight represented ahistory where the Rangers’ wars against Native Americans had given central Texas its pro-violentsentiment.” By defending the Rangers he defended this tradition, one forged by the myth of frontierconditions and the lionization of heroes who stood their ground.’ ilie history of i’exas, foughtagainst non-white peoplcs,justificd the use of state-condoned violence.’4 in this way, Texas had asuper-exaggerated version ofAmerican history that praised, in not so specific language, race war.’5

Knight’s speeches in the investigation touched upon every subject of lawlessness on theborder. I Ic first explained that every problem had required the presence of the Rangers. When hepointed out that many were upset about the presence of Rangers in the ‘allcy, he said that theRangers were there to stop desertion, which by the way many residents in the region had helpedcross the border. ,6 When south Texas residents claimed the Rangers terrorized voters. Knightexplained that these charges came from the same people who were involved in electoral fraud; again,the very reason why the Rangers were in south Texas, in the first place.’7 Nioreover. he believed thatall charges against the Rangers had to do with ‘animous [sic] and the situation down there.”5 Thegoverning spirit of the population bore ill will for the state ofTexas and stood “against law and orderas represented by the Ranger Force.”9 ilie explanation for the malevolent disposition of thepopulation, even Texas’ strtiggle w’ith the region, had a historical context, lie recited Texas’ twilight

Johnson, Revolution in Texas, 43, 4, 45.‘ I iarris ill and Sadler, ‘I’he ‘Texas Rangers and the Mevican Revolution, 503.Paredes, Folklore and Culture, a8, 225.“ Brown, Strain olViolenee, a..““Testimony of R.t3. Creager,’ The Proceedings oldie Joint Committee oldie Senate and thehouse in rhe Ini’csriçadon ofthe ‘Texas Stare Rangers Force, (Austin, ‘I’X, 1919), 388.Brown, Strain ofViolence, 246.

‘3 I3rown, NO 1)119’ to Retreat, 19, 26.‘4l3rown, No Duti’ro Retreat, i6z.Slotkin, Regeneration through Violence, 1973.‘6”lestimony ofVentura Sanchez,’ Proceedings, 367-377.‘7’Testimony ofVentura Sanchez,’ Proceedings, 367-377.° Fcstiniony ofVentura Sanchez,’ Proceedings, 367.‘9’Testirnony ofVennira Sanchez,’ Proceedings, 367.

Ex POST FACTO

130 Jeffrey David Mitchell

struggle with the lawless element,” one that originated in “the south,” and struck “north,”perpetuating “outrages” that “characterized the entire development ofour eivilization.”3 All in all, thecharges against the Rangers could be looked at in another way, and those who jtidged the methodsof the Rangers ignored Texas’ eternal battle to control its southern territory, inhabited by a resistantsociety with greater ties to ‘J’cxas’ chief adversary, Mexico.

Knight’s all-encompassing epic ofTexas fight against the agents of”animous” aroseduring the debate over John Edds, a Texas Ranger charged with intimidating people of Mexicanancestry. ‘This part of the investigation saw many of Knight’s ideas about the Lower Rio GrandeValley coalesce around the ethnicity of the region’s inhabitants, and more importantly, how ethnicityexplained the challenges of the state ofTexas. At the risk of sounding obvious, this line of thinkinghas traditionally underpinned the history between the state and its southern border, Contactbenveen white ‘Texans and peoples ofMexican ancestry have always obeyed stark lines ofdifferentiation. It only made sense that Knight used ethnicity to form one of the biggest categoriesthat typified this clash ofopposites.3 Even before the Reptiblic ofTexas, the state had looked at theirhistorical conflict with the region in purely ethnic terms. Moreover, this residtial philosophy did twothings, it demarcated the region’s inhabitants as distinct and reduced the region to a quasi-frontier.3Conflict followed the traditional pattern in American history: whites versus non-whites, Indians orMexicans.5

Ethnic tension underpinned the behavior of Edds for one, he clarified the ancestry of hismother as “Spanish, not Mexican” when Canales asked liini? I Ic had borrowed the identity of thedominant hierarchical group in order to belong to the state ofTexas. I us self-consciotis attitudepossibly explained his threats against the life ofVentura Sanchez, a constable from San Diego(Texas), a conflict that nearly resulted in a gun battle between Edds and Sanchez. Only themediations of Sanchez’s fellow officers, Amiro Munoz and Juan Cantos, averted bloodshed,35Another look at Edds’ self-conscious choice of identity came dtiring the testimony of Jesus Villareal. aconstable fron’3 Cepita who claimed that Edds had choked him with the end of his revolver?6 Unlikethe defense that had rushed to Sanchez’s aid, Villareal endured this humiliation by himself. Edds’defense for his actions—he never gave one for threatening Sanchez—rested with his assignment onthe border. Edds described a series of missions looking for deserters heading over the Rio GrandeRiver. I lerein, he arrested Jesus Villareal for transporting deserters into Mexico. Edds claimed thatVillareal had admitted to accepting money to help Mexicans escape registering for the military.37

Knight never used Edds’ testimony about Villareal to point out how the region’s ethnicitycompromised the state’s ability to control its southern border. Knight did take this line in hisquestioning of Sanchez, however. \Then Knight questioned Sanchez’s election as constable. Knightjustified his doubts by saying the “lawless elements in some of those counties may be the Majoiity.”38Knight explained his reasoning by saying, “I want to show his sympathy and his angle to thesituation,”39 When Knight asked Sanchez if any of his relatives had crossed the border, Knight didmore than bring the discussion back to the subject of military desertion and the ease ofescaping over

30”Testimony of RB. Creager.” Prnceedings. 398.‘ Paredes, folklore and Culture, xiii, xiv.‘ D.W. Meinig. Imperial Texas, 99.D.W. Meinig, Impedal Texas, 86.9estimony of John Edds.” Pmceedings. 499-530.

59’estimony ofVennira Sanchez,” Proceedings, 361-362.6’”Testimony of Jesus Villarcal,” Proceedings, 487.379’estimony of John Edds.” Proceedings. 499-530.39 “Testimony ofVenttira Sanchez,” Proceedings, 368.39”’Testimony ofVentura Sanchez,” Proceedings, 36$.

EX POST fAcTo

The Night Errants ofour Civilization 131

the border. Knight questioned Sanchez’s loyalty to Texas, and for iio other reason than the Mexicanancestry of the San Diego constable. ‘I Ic may be an American citizen, I hope he is and a good one,btit the l,lood is there.”4°

Edds’ testimony revealed the problems that state law enforcement officers faced in southTexas and the Lower Rio Grande Valley. An atmosphere of suspicion hung over attempts toprosecute lawbreakers. Edds complained that suspects escaped into Mexico before filing a ease,mostly because stispects knew beforehand. As Edds further explained, in two days they know itacross on the other side of the river.,, it is impossible to keep anything secret there with that crookedbunch4 Edds had company in his frtistrarions, When evidence alleged that valley courts gavesuspects suspended sentences, rounds ofdisproval shook the investigation. A one “Mr. Lackey”remained nameless in the proceedings except for this statement, ‘looks like we need sonic newjuriesdown there.’1’ I lis statement described the general sense of fmstradcm for the conditions thatallowed the lawless element” to escape justice. Possibly, anyone of Mexican descent had been able toescape justice becatise local conditions in thejtidieial system contained loopholes. Clearly. thispointed to problems on Texas’ side of the border. Texas believed that the region’s proximity toMexico explained the problems. On one hand they would be right.

Dayton Moses. an attorney for the Texas Cattle Raisers Association, represented anorganization formed to defeat the historical threat of raids and cattle theft on the border. When thePlan of San Diego intensified the threat of stolen property, his organization’s traditional fight againstlawlessness became invaluable to the state. I Ic shared die dominant mindset of the state, whereethnicity conceived of the people who lived ‘on this side of the river... [as a] different race from ourown.”43 In the articulation of his philosophy, lie mentioned another condition that supportedlawlessness, and in doing so, show’ed the complexity ofconnections both within, and beyond, Texas’southern periphery.

The dangers ofbanditry from the unhappy country on the other side is otirmenace and frightening...it is unfortunately true that tile sympathy that existsbecause they are of the same race, there a great many Mexicans on this side ofthe river who perhaps do not themselves violate the law yet they harbor, or it isgenerally supposed, at that they harbor men who are believed to be violators ofthe law.u

Earlier in his testimony, Moses had said that the physical landscape of south Texassupported border raiders. I us testimony showed a different picture, however. The population ofsouth Texas protected acts of law’lessness. Partly, Moses was right, the landscape did play a role. Butnot in the w’ay lie thought. ‘ilie answer lied with the nature of the Rio Grande. This is partlyexplained by understanding how’ the river made a poor boundary; it not only changed course, theriver did do not adequately prevent people from crossing.4 Because the river ran low in the summer,people on both sides of the border cotild cross at will.’ Thus, the Treaty ofGuadalupe-I lildalgo

40 ‘Testimony ofVenttira Sanchez,” Proceedings, 368.4 ‘Testimony of.Iohn Edds,” Proceedings, 530.4’ Testimony ofW.T. Vann,” Proceedings, 612.43’Testimony of Dayton Moses,’ Proceedings, Ho.“Testimony of I)ayton Moses,” Proceedings, 110.Oscar J. Martinez, Troublesome Border(Ttieson, AZ: The University ofArizona Press,1988), 3!;

Claire F. Fox, The Fence and the River: Culture and Polities ar rhe US.’Mexico Border(Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press, 1999), 70.Paredes, Folklore and Culture, z6.

EX POST FACTO

132 Jeffrey David Mitchell

that made the Rio Grande the border between Texas and Mexico in 1848 never destroyed the societythat inhabited the valley.

With origins that began in 1749, the society on the Texas-Mexico border had flourisheddespite wartime conqtlest and a controversial redrawing of international borders that divided acommunity with fierce traits of independence.47 The early nventieth century saw no interruption inthat historical pattern.8 South Texas continued to have an affinity with people on the other side ofthe border, one marked by an identity that united both sides.49 At the same time, Tejano south Texashad another history, one that reflected the region’s connections to Texas. I laying bitterly resistedTexas encroachments since l836, Tejano south Texas had endured throtigh an alliance ofTejanoranching families and white Texan politicians.90 Intermarriage created a world marked by patterns ofkinship and patronage. where many white Texans learned Spanish and where Tejano families stillowned large tracts of land.5

Maybe the state had wished that the Lower Rio Grande Valley behaved like anunpopulated frontier, where the only difficulties to stopping lawlessness were dry plains filled withchaparral, just as Moses claimed. What Texas encountered was anything btit a barren region,however. This was no hinterland absent of social structures. Tejano south Texas and its socialfttlcmm, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, had a hybrid vitality that was clearly different from AmericanTexas. ‘l’hus, not only did physical bartiets fail to impede the back-and-forth movement, the societywithin the region provided the biggest problem in the states effort to stup lawlessness. Those ofMexican heritage tvho inhabited both sides of the border also protected one another; and they had astrong enough society to be able to do so. During the Plan of San Diego, the existence of stich aregion would become a big problem.

Even after the destructiveness of the Plan of San Diego. the evidence from local lawenforcement officers located evidence that this world still existed. The evidence took the form ofsafety networks within the region and pinpointed the nature of the problems that local lawenforcement faced. W.T Vann. a sheriff from Cameron County. explained the challenges of stoppinglawlessness. For one, when his deputies arrested bandits, they fotind ways to escape. Not illegally.one needs to say, for many paid their jail bonds, or at the very least someone paid their bonds forthem. I lowever, when many made bond they escaped over the river and did not return to court.Even the stispeets that show’ed up at cottrt found a way to escape. As Vann explained, “they arestrong on proving alibis too.’° And the ones who did escape to Mexico. never stayed away for long.Many who wanted to travel back to Texas, Vann explained, had “wealthy friends on this side.”°

° Paredes, Folklore and Culture, xii; Arreola, Tejuno South Tcaas, 31; Ramon Saldivar, TheI3orderlands ofGtdwre:Arnërieo Paredes and the Ttansnadonal Irnagina13 (Urham, NJ: DukeUniversity Press, 2006), 26.48 Paredes, Folklore and Culture, 30.° Paredes, folklore and Culture, 47.50Anders, l3oss Rule in South Texas, cdi-xiv.Oscar Martinez writes that Tejanos resisted the advances ofTexans by operating outside of the

law, and did so, by using both sides of the border for safety. Oscar J. Martinez, Trotiblesonoe J3ordei95-96; Johnson, Revolution in Teaas. 13; James \Vells, the political party boss of Texas Democrats,serves as a great example of intermarriage in Tejano sotith Texas. James Sandos writes, “Well’sdeepening interest in the valley prompted him to learn Spanish and, after taking religiotts instruction,to convert to Catholicism. \Vells, a man who spoke Spanish, attended Mass, and who luiew theAmerican law, became much admired by people of both cultures,” Sandos, Rebellion in theI3orderlands, 76.90”Testimony ofW.T. Vann,’ Pivceedings, 597.93”Yesdmony ofW.T. Vann,” Proceedings. 598.

Ex POST FACTO

The Night Errants of our Civilization J33

The problems of prosecuting bandits described a whole slew of problems. The ability ofsuspects to pay their bail shows how they were not destitute by any means. At the very least, theirability to post bail means that someone paid for them so they cotild cvadcjail. ‘IThis. pltis providingalibis in court, implies that members of the community looked otit for friends or family. Theseabilities provide the evidence for a viable commtlnity, one that had sophisticated social connectionsbased on legal or financial abilities. Yet these functions also came from the region’s proximity toMexico. The testimonies of law enforcement revealed a community that had the advantage of goingoutside national boundaries. In combination to the advantages that existed in the border region.fluidity of movement over the border helped the lawless element escape. Apparently. Texas hadconfirmed the state’s biggest supposition, the Plan of San I)icgo’s biggest asset was, indeed, Mexico.

Even though Texas had evidence that social connections in the valley supported lawlessacts. Texans still believed that the ability to cross into Mexico explained the nature of bordertroubles. Even more important the state believed conditions in Ntexicf) allowed border raiders tocross the river. The revolution had destroyed the Diaz regime and the quarter century of borderstability.54 iThe accompanying disturbances, the clash of Mexican factions and flow’ of \ texicanrefugees. had gone unimpeded into south Texas. i1crcfore, chaotic forces in Mexico had alsoaroused lawless elements to take control. To barricade the valley from its connections to Mexico.citizen militias joined an undermanned Rangers force sent south to suppress border violence.’6 Butin their attempts to sever connections, civilian leaders of the Lower Rio Grande Valley recognizedthe dynamies of the region’s society; and notjust in Mexico but also in Texas. Colonel I I.J. Slocum,the commander of the Brow’nsvillc Patrol District, said what many in Texas already knew, the lowflow’ of the river allowed Mexicans to cross into Texas.57 But in his efforts to patrol the Rio Grande.he noticed that a societal pattern existed on both sides of the border. Tejanos in the valley had joinedwith Mexicans across the border. As Slocum pointed out, raids across the river ‘[were] done by allclasses of people and ‘not confined to one side of the river.’ Apparently, something had upsetFejanos enough tojoin the violence.

A new rationalization replaced the former explanation that had once blamed conditions inMexico. Valley community leaders talked about elements in Texas that complicated the borderregion’s pacification. l3.l. Johnson. as head of the San Benito Land and Irrigation Company.represented the new landowners that wanted to transform the valley into profitable farms. Johnson.like his peers, needed stability in order to realize his financial dreams, lie knew’ that border raidsduring the Plan ofSan Diego had severely weakened the valleys appeal.59 Looking for reasons, heblamed I\iexicans across the border. I us further statements, however, show that connections toMexico only partly explained the problem. When lie said texicans from ‘across the titer.., arehobnobbing with the Mexicans on this side of the river,’ he recognized that south Texas had becomea haven for latvlessness. Bizarrely, he defended Mexican authorities. saying they possessed thewillpower to deal with ‘back and forth bad men.’6’ Rtit the reason behind his next statement revealedhis own thoughts about the problem. ‘[F]hcy [Mexican leaders] say that their bandits can come to

Anders, Boss Rule in Sotitli Texas, 9.55Arreola, Te/ano South Texas, 46.;6 J larris HI and Sadler, The Border and the Revolution, 65-71.97”Festimony ofColonel I lerhert J. Slocum,’ Proceedings, 189.;8 ‘Testimony of Colonel I ierbcrt J. Slocum,” Proceedings, 189.° Edwin J. Foscue, Agrietilwral I listory of the Isaver Rio Grandc Valley Region,’ AgrietzlwialiIisroj Vol.8, No.3. (Jtil., ‘934), 124.137.° ‘Testimony of 13.1’. Johnson,” Proceedings, 77.9estimony of 13.1’. Johnson,’ Proceedings, 88.

Ex POST FACTO

Jeffrey David Mitchell

ocir side and be harbored.” lie had come to believe that conditions within Texas made borderraiding possible.

iThe violence of the Plan of San Diego typifies American regions that experience a rapidperiod ofchange. where old traditions are disturbed and new institutions are transpIanted.6 Thenaivety of men like B.F. Johnsoii is rather strange, given that he represented the changes in southi’exas that created lawless conditions. Following the First ‘World Var, the arrival ofw’hiteAmericans transformed Tejano sotith Texas.6 First, social conditions within the valley, explained bychanges in economics and politics, disturbed the former order. Irrigated farms raised the value ofproperty taxes and created circumstances that evicted Tejanos from their family rancheros. Alongwith new immigrants from wartime Mexico, landless Tejanos struggled as a labor underclass,sttbjected to the tyranny ofwhite Texan landowners.’ Secondly, the arrival ofwhite property holdersinto the region upset the delicate balance between white Texans and Tejanos. When they confronteda society that fttnctioned on intermarriage and political patronage, the new settlers questioned thepolitical system in the valley.67 Influenced by the “reform” Governor, \Villiam hobby, the new settlerschallenged James Wells, the political boss of the region, and targeted his largest constituency ofvoters, the Tcjanos of the Lower Rio Grande Valley. A new political alignment would soon leavethe Tejanos without political powerf

While the state ofTexas struggled to break the connections between the Lower RioGrande Valley and Mexico, the connections betsveen white ‘Texans and the region’s inhabitantsproved the hardest to break. The actions ofcitizens exposed their complicity in lawlessness, makingtheir contribution to the region a powerful force of destabilization. The reason laid in white Texans’distrust for the valley’s justice system, which they blamed for the rise of border raids during the Planof San Diego.7” Combined with the destruction of the old system of political negotiation between‘I’cxans and ‘I’ejanos, the new arrivals in the ares followed an accelerative pattern ofviolence,’ Thenew’ arrivals merely continued the trend ofwhite supremacy over ‘fcjanos and Mexicans.7° Toenforce their dominion, a virulent form of racist vigilantism replaced legal due process andparticipatory democracy.

B. F. Johnson. no friend ofdisorder, lamented that the violence of the Plan of San Diegomade it hard to sell land. I Ic blamed everyone on the border, Mexicans in Mexico, and even Texansin Texas. I Ic believed that lynchings happened easily in an environment charged by cattle thievingand raiding.7° I us statement shows that he grasped part of the problem, but he failed to see that

‘Testimony of BE. Johnson,” Pmceedings, 8$.°‘ l3rown, American t7iolence, 3.64 Meinig. Imperial ‘lewis, $3.°° Johnson, Reivkidon in Texas, 34.66Arreola, Tefano Sourh Texas, Johnson, Reivludon in Texas, 164.Johnson, Reiviurion in Texas, 109.Ajiders, Boss Rule in South ?Cvas, 142-144, 150, itio,

°‘ Anders, l3oss Rule in South Texas, 23$. 250, 253. Richard Maxwell Brown studied the role ofviolence in American politics, which he called the Western Civil War of Incorporation0 see, Brown,No Dufl’ to Retreat. 42-43. I us study of central Texas during, and after, Reconstruction examinedhow violence betsveen political factions coincided with the participation of non-whites0 see, Brown,Strain ofViolence, 258. While central Texas falls within the territory of his “civil war.” the possibilitythat the Plan of San Diego had some of the qualities of political violence requires a careful mention.7° Brown, American Violence, i68.7° I3rown. American Violence, 22.7° Meinig, Imperial ‘l’exas, ioo.7°’Tmy of BE. Johnson, Proceedings, 77.

EX POST FACTO

The Night Erran ts ofour Civilization J35

connection between the two. if lie had, he would have understood another aspect ofTexas’connections to the border region. Since 1836, w’hite Texans had played a significant role in theeconomy of hvestock theft, buying and trading with border raiders; and the Plan of San Diego sawno change in behavior.74 Again, this made white Texans active participants in the valley’s lawlessness.0.13. Morrison, a resident of San Benito admitted that, yes, dtiring the Plan of San I)iego, the valleyendured a “terror stricken” state. Indeed, the depredations ofMexicans had required the presence ofthe Texas Rangers. lie added a significant qualifier, however, to explain the region’s violence anddescribed the “unscrupulous white folks” who cooperated with cattle thieves.75 In doing so, lie hitupon the complexity of social connections in the valley. The actions ofw’hite Texans not only’entangled the state in activities of lawlessness, vigilantism and property theft produced reciprocaleffects that destabilized the region and made the Plan of San Diego possiblc.6 Even localenforcement was complicit. W.T. Vann, a sheriff from the border county of Cameron, told theInvestigation about his struggles to bring law and order to the valley. But his admission, “[d]uringthe bandit trouble we set a very had precedent by indicting nobody,” made the efforts of whiteTexans a compliable force in their own right.79

i’he Texas Rangers entered this cauldron, rife w’ith violence, and provided the necessaryingredients for further disorder. Due to state’s distrtist of the region’s inhabitants, Texas tised theRangers to supercede local institutions. The methods of the state to establish control over southTexas manifested itself most powerfully through policies ofoutright coercion. State coercion, thus,took advantage of the Rangers’ paramilitary structure and the overriding mentality of a frontierdefens’foree that, in 1915, still acted like one. The border region became the “wild” frontier and theinhabitants stood in as “savages.” Conquest over the “frontier” was part of an American culture thatsupported violence because the act supported the conquest story of the nation.79

in the process, the state ofTexas became the most powerful agent ofviolence, a fact notinconsistent with the historical role of government, especially in the effort to defeat lawlessncss.‘l’his point of view lends another perspective to the actions of the Rangers, however, and whether ornot their violent methods elided the Plan of San Diego. I lerein, the cost ofpacifying the regionduring the Plan of San Diego had its negatives. The use of state-sanctioned violence upended thevery institutions that the state wanted to protect. ‘Die worst connection that the region had was notwith 1’icxieo, but with Texas. Rh. Creager, a Brownsville lawyer who saw the Rangers murder aMexican, believed the raids had stopped when Texas cooperated with Mexican officials.8 l3ut whenTexas tinilaterally enforced their dominion over the border, the problem only escalated, lie told theinvestigation about the Texas Rangers’ “I3laek Lists.” Once a Tejano or Mexican heard that aRanger had their name on a t3lack List.” they escaped into Mexico.5’ ills opinion represented more

78 I larris Hi and Sadler, The Texas Rangeis and the jllexican Revolution, 195.75’”Testimony of 0. B. Morrison,” Proceedings, 12.9’estimony of J.C. George,” Proceedings, 293..

77’”Tcstimony ofW.T. Vann,” Proceedings, 614.I iarris III and Sadler, The ‘Tëvas Rangeis and the I%Iexican Revolution.Mcinig, Imperial 7 ‘e.wls, 89; Brown, No Dory ro Rcrrear, i6-i8, On p. 158 Brow’n quotes

Frederick Jackson Turner and the traits of individtialism that ‘Ecirner said the frontier bestowed toAmericans, a combination that tised violence to solve problems, what i’urner calls, “a coarseness andstrength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness,” 157, from F.J. Ttimer, 7’he FronnerinAmerican Ilisron’, (New York: I henry I bIt, 1921), 37.‘ l3row’n, American Violence, i68; , No Dtiry to Retrcaz 46.“Dying Declaration ofToribio Rodrigtiez,” Proceedings, 396-397.‘9csdmony of R.h3. Creager,” Proceedings, 375. Another example of the Rangers going too farbelonged the testimony ofJ.C. George, ‘“Testimony ofJ.C. George,” Proceedings, 289.

Ex PosT FACTO

136 Jeffrey David Mitchell

than the lamentations for the lapse of legal proeeedings in the region, lie believed that the state ofTexas had created the conditions for the Plan of San Diego.

The conduct of the majority of the Rangers and of a great number ofour localpeace officers...w’as such as to add fuel to that flame, to make worse thatbandit condition...to attain the dimensions that it did...Our local officers havefollowed the wrong pollee of tning to terrorize the Mexicans...on our side ofthe dvct...as a result the Mexicans on the ? lcxican side became veryindignant.8

\‘hite ‘J’exans had scorned the valles social networks that provided a safe haven forbandies to escape. lilis explains why the Rangers terrorized and murdered, hoping to dislocate thosesotirces of safety and sever the connections that facilitated the region’s peripheral agendas. 1-lowever.the state’s wanton use ofviolence enlarged tile valley’s social networks and strengthened connectionswith Mexico. Vann’s testimony nlentioned the region’s social situation and its connections to otherside of the border, where refuges in Mexico contained a good nunther of“wealthy people.”8 liefurther described that “[tihey were born and raised in otir part of the cotintrv and know every fathorse and cow there, and they will continue to give us trouble.’8 Their ability to survive, despite tileloss of lands in south Texas. restiited from their connections with Mexico. Despite Texas’ role in tilelife of the border region, the society that inhabited the region went beyond Texas. And this ability tomove beyond one nation and inhabit another became tile Plan of San Diego’s greatest source ofstrength.

II. J. Kirk, a Brownsville coroner who saw his fair share ofexecuted Tcjanos andMexicans during tile Plan of San Diego, recognized that, despite tile best efforts of Rangers to pacifythe region, the targets of racist attacks survived. The reason laid in the region’s proximity to Mexico.Despite the hardship. which must have been considerable, “riley had little places in the country, andseemed to be doing weil.’ Texas found its efforts to pacify south Texas stymied by thisdevelopment. The existence of tilis scenario, however, existed well before the Plan of San Diego.Texas nlerely played tile part by upsetting the inhabitants of the region. and then, by fluslling theminto the countrtside. allowed them to utilize tile sanle social conditions that Texas previouslyadmonished. 11105. Mexico offered a refuge. and niore inlportantiv. a staging area to regroup. Thisimplies that tile i’cano colll,llunin’ refused to relinquish tileir position in Texas. Illis could ilaveinvolved attempts to return to Texas and avoid tile wrnloil in tile valley. I lowever, anotilerpossibility exists, one tilat corroborates evidence that refugee Te janos joined Mexican raiders, andwith new allies fronl a similar ct,inirc, struck back at tileir attackers in south Texas.8 Open supportfrom the \ lexicon president Carranza and tile presence of can-ancisrac in raiding parties helped tilePlan of Sail Diego go beyond origins in ‘1’exas. Ihe revolutionary promise of land reform in the

83 Fcstimony of RB. Creager.” Proceedings, 375, 392.8”iestimonv ofWT. Vann,” Proceedings. 597.“1 estimony ofW.T. Vann,” Proceedings, rita.85”iesnmony of II. J. Kirk,” Proceedings, 6,32.871 larris Ill and Sadler, ‘“Hlc Plan of San Diego and the Mexican-United States War Crisis,” 381-408.Douglas W. Richmond, “Carranza: 1ile At,tlloritarian Populist as Nationalist President,” ill

Jicsais on tire Mexican Reiviudon: Revn’sionisr Views ofthe Leaders. Ms. George Woifskiii andDouglas W. Ricilmond. (Austin, TX: University of’l’exas Press, i, 69-70.

EX POST FACTO

1’he Night Errants of our Civilization”

cross-border Mexican state ofTarnaulipas. also added a significant influence to the lives ofTcjanos.59Given the situation that came later, where Rangers evicted ‘Fejano families, intimidated Tejanovoters, and controlled Tcjano labor, vhvnora tevolurion in TeTois? 9°

This brotight Fexas back to the problems that had originally challenged the state. SouthTexas stood out as a distinct region, judged in harsh terms of ethnicity and culture, and with ahistory of resistance against the state. Efforts to pacify the region were met with elements ofresistance that, again, Texas believed had to do with the inhabitants of the region. In addition, theregion’s proximity to nearby Mexico served to strengthen the region’s stubbornness. The ability toescape over the border gave border raiders and bandits a safe haven, one more clifliculty that the stateendtired. Conditions in Mexico explained why lawless elements thrived on that side oldie border.

to understand was how its own connections to its side of the border destabilizedthe region. Ecorn)mie and political changes had dispossessed and alienated the Tcjano population;social factors such as cattle theft and vigilantism further aggravated social connections. ‘l’he finaleffint to bring the region into line, the Texas Rangers enmasse, started reprisals that only createdmore disturbances, thus accelerating attacks against the state fotight under a banner of sedition.

W’hile most of the testimony of the Investigation explained Texas’ anxieties about theborder region, J.i’. Canales’ purpose failed. Reform never significantly totiched the Rangers, nor didcharges ofmurder bring any state lawmen tojusdce.9 In a larger manner, the state escaped anyincrimination about its racist legacy. ‘flic historical moment partly explains the silence. The year 1919would see hundreds of race riots and political battles break otit in the United States. Fresh fromfighting in Europe. Americans had no interest in the evidence ofcthnie cleansing in sotith Texas.Even if dcv had, the historical silence is explained the nature of the investigation. The absence ofsubstantial ntimbcrs ofTejanos made the story one-sided. I lowever, this is not the ca for onereason. ‘The Plan of San Diego, as a political manifesto and a violent event, represented the voice ofthose oppressed by disenfranchisement and violence. By destroying private property during the so-called Y3andit Wars,” these men expressed their dissatisfaction. Despite the efforts by the Rangers,the Plan of San Diego existed because of social conditions within Texas. Ironically, ‘Fexas fearsabout its sotithern border gave the document life and showed how Texas and Mexico have shapedthe region.

9 I leather Fowlcr Samalini, Tamaulipas: Land Reform of the State.” in Proiinces ofrheRevolurion:Essa is on RegionaMkviean Iflsron; 191o-1929,eds. Thomas l3enjamin and MarkWascrman, (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1990), i84-2I7; Johnson,Revolution in 7’evas, 68.9° “Festimony of R.13. Creager,” Proceedings. 409; Testimony ofVirginia Yeager.” Proceedings,336; Testimon ofJ.C. George,” Prneeeding, 293; “'1 canmony of I I.J. Kirk,” Proceedings, 632.‘I larris III and Sadler. The 1’cvas Rangers and rIie1kvk”an Reivh,don, 504; Johnson, Rei’oh,donin Jevas, 173.

Ex POST FACTO