Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T23:38:35.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mennonite Colonization of Chihuahua: Reflections of Competing Visions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Martina E. Will
Martina E. Will*
Affiliation:
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The administration of President Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico is famous for the enormous distribution of lands that it undertook, the prize of the bloody and protracted revolution that had promised tierra to the nation’s peasants two decades earlier. Less well remembered are the actions the administration took against the peasantry, when federal troops stationed in southwestern Chihuahua killed several Mexicans while protecting a colony of Canadian-born Mennonite fanners. This quiet display of the central government’s authority was not the first of its kind in the area around the growing town of Cuauhtémoc. President Alvaro Obregón’s administration had also sent troops to Cuauhtémoc, and their mission then as under Cárdenas was the protection of the lives and properties of the small Mennonite enclave that resided in the area south of Chihuahua City. It was Obregón who invited the religious minority to settle in Mexico shortly after his election, and it was he who pledged federal government protection of the Mennonites’ interests. The incongruities evident in the case begin therefore not with the stationing of the troops in Cuauhtémoc, but much earlier, with the very concessions that Obregón gave the Mennonites in the years after the Mexican Revolution.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , January 1997 , pp. 353 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author wishes to thank the Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies at the University of California, San Diego and the University of California Consortium on Mexico and the United States for their generous support. Thanks also to Linda Hall, John Lear, Peter Smith, and Christine Hunefeldt for their insightful suggestions on earlier versions of this essay.

References

1 Cárdenas, Lazaro to Wall, John and Martens, A. A., June 19, 1936, Archivo Municipal de Cuauhtemoc (hereafter cited as AMC).Google Scholar

2 Although the anti-clericalism of the Revolution was a response to the Catholic Church rather than a generalized discontent with religion, the laws regulating and limiting the practitioners of Catholicism extended to other faiths as well.

3 While the south-central region of Mexico also experienced tremendous fighting during the Revolution, the objectives of the heterogeneous northern interests are most relevant to the post-revolutionary period in Chihuahua.

4 Schmiedehaus, Walter, Die Altkolonier-Mennoniten in Mexiko (Winnipeg: Canadian Mennonite Bible College Publications, 1982), p. 24.Google Scholar The interpreter had been sent to the Mennonites by Arturo Braniff, who was Obregón’s brother-in-law and probably a land agent; he acted as interlocutor for the president in subsequent cases of immigration and goods importation.

5 Translation from Sawatzky, Harry Leonard, They Sought a Country: Mennonite Colonization in Mexico (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p. 39.Google Scholar Document in AMC. There was, however never any contract of colonization between the government and the Mennonites, for in 1933 the Department of Migration of the Secretariat of Government inquired of the Secretariat of Agriculture’s Department of Colonization as to whether such a document existed, and found that it did not. Sotero-Galindo, Rodolfo, “Resultados de la colonizacion extrajera en Mexico: La colonizacion Menonita en Chihuahua” (Ph.D. diss., Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1956), p. 64.Google Scholar

6 Translation from Redekop, Dilemmas p. 252; document dated 30 October, 1921 in AMC. See also Obregón, to Lowen, Julius, Leoppky, Julian, et al., 3 October 1922, AMC.Google Scholar

7 Apparently the only official document in which the text of the Privilegium was published was a collection of laws edited by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1944. Aboites, Luis Aguilar, “Norte Precario: Polbamiento y Colonización en México, 1760–1940” (Ph.D. diss., El Colegio de México, 1993), p. 155.Google Scholar According to an untitled memorandum apparently commissioned by the Chihuahuan government, the Privilegium was not published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación “for reasons of public order … so as not to awake jealousy in the Mexican campesinos.” Untitled Memorandum, Lie. Enrique Gonzalez Flores, August 24, 1961, private collection of Ing. Jesús Heiras, Chihuahua, Chih.

8 Informes reviewed for the years 1921–1924 and 1927–1936. Already in 1925, the economic importance of the Mennonites in Chihuahua was recognized. El Correo de Chihuahua noted their farming success and President Calles made a visit to the colonies that November, in which he was impressed by the rapid transformation that the region had undergone. “Vendrán al edo. de Chihuahua, más Menonitas,” El Correo de Chihuahua (Chihuahua, Chih.) August 1, 1925, p. 1.

9 Although he upheld the privileges, Cárdenas declared them unconstitutional. Sawatzky, , They Sought, p. 153.Google Scholar

10 Author’s emphasis.

11 Exchange between Obregón, Alvaro and Hollomon, James, May 22–27, 1922, la Nación, Archivo General de, (hereafter cited as AGN), Mexico City, Ramo Obregon-Calles, leg. 823-M-3.Google Scholar

12 Subsecretary Dozal to Secretary of Foreign Relations, June 24, 1920, Archivo Historico de la Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexico City, leg. 11-18-126. Dozal was Subsecretary of Agriculture from 1920–1921, and would be in charge of the Secretariat of Agriculture from 1921–1922.

13 Dozal cites Articles 3 and 24 of the constitution as the basis for these stipulations.

14 This would particularly be the case under the Calles administration, when the rights of religious institutions in general were curtailed and regulated.

15 La Patria, 29 March 1922:2, quoted in Aboites, “norte” 171. Even such opposition must have been minimal, this being the only such reference to a perceved commercial threat which I have found.

16 Roel to Obregón, Untitled Memorandum, 6 July 1923, AGN-OC 823-M-3.

17 Schmiedehaus, Altkolonier, p. 93.

18 The agreement was signed by all concerned parties: agraristas, the Zuloaga estate, the President of the Administrative Committee of San Antionio de los Arenales, and two Mennonite representatives.

19 R. Talavera to Obregón 27 April 1924, AGN-OC 823-M-3.

20 Untitled Memorandum, 6 July 1923, AGN-OC 823-M-3.

21 Porras to Obregón, 27 June 1923, AGN-OC 823-M-3.

22 This personalistic approach may also explain the dearth of contact with local and state authorities. In most cases, their involvement was at the behest of the federal executive, after receipt of a petition or complaint from the Mennonties.

23 There are very few documents available at the local/municipal levels due to the fact that San Antonio/ Cuauhtémoc really became a town (it was classified a “hacienda” as late as 1910), with the arrival of the Mennonites.

24 Excèlsior 3 April 1922, quoted in Aboites, “Norte,” p. 171.

25 This concern manifested itself in 1920 through Enríquez’s granting approval to the sale of the Terrazas latifundio to the U.S. business man, Arthur J. McQuatters. McQuatters proposed to sell parcels of the land in an installment plan to anyone interested, with preference given to Mexican nationals. Although this plan promoted the ideal fo the small indepenedent farmer, both Obregón and Enríquez reluctantly withdrew their support of the project in 1922 after the press seized upon the issue. See Will, Martina E., “The Old Colony Mennonite Colonization of Chihuahua and the Obregón Administration’s Vision for the Nation” (M.A. thesis, University of California at San Diego, 1993) pp. 83–91.Google Scholar

26 Excelsior, (Mexico City), April 6, 1921, in U.S. Department of State, Records of the Department of State Relating to Political Relations Between Mexico and Other States, 1910–1929 (hereafter cited as RDS).

27 Agrarian reform was both an objective in and of itself and a method for appeasing the rural population: “By identification with peasant leadership, pacification, and beneficial agrarian programs, and by generally offering at least a hope for the future, Obregón gained the political support of Mexico’s peasantry and became their champion.” Hansis, Randall G., “Obregón, the Mexican Revolution and the Politics of Consolidation, 1920–1924,” (M.A.thesis, University of New Mexico, 1971), p. 317.Google Scholar

28 Excelsior (Mexico City), April 6, 1921, in RDS.

29 It was 1923 before the U.S. granted recognition to Obregón’s government.

30 Katz, Friedrich, The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States, and the Mexican Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981) p. 564.Google Scholar

31 Katz, , Secret, p. 565.Google ScholarPubMed

32 See Katz, , Secret, for a discussion of nationals’ and foreigners’ views of Carranza.Google ScholarPubMed

33 Almada, Francisco R., Resumen de historia del estado de Chihuahua (Mexico, D.F.: Libros Mexicanos, 1955), p. 422 Google Scholar. See also Hall, Linda and Coerver, Don, Texas and the Mexican Revolution: A Study In State and National Border Policy, 1910–1920 (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

34 Lister, Florence C. and Lister, Robert H., Chihuahua: Storehouse of Storms (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1966), p. 247.Google Scholar

35 Katz, Secret, quotes one Professor Starr, of the University of Chicago: “War with Mexico was planned and fixed up at the peace conference in Paris. Of this I am positive.” Although the Secretary of State denied such allegations, the possibility existed and was undoubtedly known to Mexican officials.

36 Katz, Secret, pp. 529–530.

37 “El Gral. Obregón y los agitadores extranjeros,” El Universal (Mexico City), September 15, 1920, p. 3. Interestingly, the words “morality” and “culture” were to be utilized frequently in descriptions of the Mennonites, by government and non-government observers alike.

38 “Un significativo mensaje del Sr. Gral. Obregón al Chicago Commercial Herald,” El Universal (Mexico City), September 27, 1920, p. 1.

39 Aboites, Luis Aguilar, “De Almeida a Quevedo: Lucha Política en Chihuahua, 1927–1932,” in Actas del Segundo Congreso Historia Regional Comparada (Cd. Juárez: Universidad Autónoma de Cd. Juárez, 1990), p. 146.Google Scholar

40 “La adquisición de bienes raíces por extranjeros,” El Universal (Mexico City), March 28, 1922, p. 1.

41 “Por qué y cómo México puede llegar a ser uno de los primeros países del mundo,” El Universal (Mexico City), March 16, 1922, p. 3; also “Se juzga la Colonización extranjera en Chihuahua de grande utilidad,” El Correo de Chihuahua (Chihuahua, Chih.) September 13, 1921, p. 1.

42 See Ing. Dozal’s, Fortunato article “Apuntes relativos a Colonización,” El Universal (Mexico City), May 22, 1922, p. 3 Google Scholar, which outlines government policy on colonization.

43 Statement of Obregón, April 2, 1921, RDS. Among those facilities granted to immigrants was free passage on the national railways from the border to their destination, and a 50 percent reduction on freight tariffs. “La Colonización de regiones agrícolas por extranjeros,” El Universal (Mexico City), March 16, 1922, p. 1.

44 El Demócrata (Mexico City), April 6, 1921, in RDS.

45 “Los obstáculos para la Colonización,” El Universal (Mexico City), March 30, 1922, p. 3.

46 “Executive Order to Prohibit the Immigration of Foreign Laborers to Mexico,” El Universal (Mexico City), March 3, 1921, in RDS. A 1920 editorial had expressed fear over Mexico’s becoming a “dumping-ground” for the masses of unemployed in the U.S., and warned against allowing indigents to enter the country. “Evitemos que nuestro país sea un vertedero,” El Universal (Mexico City), December 27, 1920, p. 3.

47 Cardoso, Lawrence Anthony, “Mexican Emigration to the United States, 1900 to 1930: An Analysis of Socio-Economic Causes” (M.A. thesis, University of Connecticut, 1974), p. 28.Google Scholar

48 Hall, Linda B. and Coerver, Don M., Revolution on the Border: The U.S. and Mexico, 1910–1920 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1988), chapter 8.Google Scholar

49 Cardoso, “Mexican Emigration,” p. 65. “La población de México,” El Universal (Mexico City), March 2, 1922 estimated that 1,000,000 people had emigrated since 1910.

50 Lister and Lister, Chihuahua, p. 265. The decrease in population appears slight, however, this is deceiving, for by using the rate of population increase from 1900 to 1910 (23.5 percent), one can project that the 1920 population would have stood at 500,175 given this same rate for the 1910 to 1920 period.

51 “No deben emigrar trabajadores Mexicanos,” El Universal (Mexico City), December 26, 1920, p. 1; Cámara de Diputados: 429.

52 Machado, Manuel, The North Mexican Cattle Industry 1910–1975: Ideology, Conflict, and Change (College Station: Texas A & M Press, 1981), p. 125.Google Scholar There is a good deal of discrepancy in cattle population estimates, which Mark Wasserman addresses in “Strategies For the Survial of the Porfirian Elite in Revolutionary Mexico: Chihuahua During the 1920s,” Hispanic American Historical Review 67:1 (February 1987), 94. See also Wasserman, Mark, Persistent Oligarchs: Elites and Politics in Chihuahua, Mexico, 1910–1940 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

53 “No se suspenderá el tráfico en la división de Chihuahua,” El Universal (Mexico City), March 1, 1921, p. 13.

54 El Paso Chamber of Commerce to Alvaro Obregón, El Paso, October 25, 1921, AGN, Ramo Obregon-Calles, leg. 823-M-3.

55 Epp, Frank, Mennonites in Canada, 1920–1940: A People’s Struggle for Survival (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1982), p. 113.Google Scholar Sotero-Galindo, , “Resultados de la Colonizacion,” p. 73.Google Scholar

56 Sawatzky, , They Sought, p. 125.Google Scholar His source is interviews with Jacob Wiebe and Walter Schmiedehaus, both of whom were engaged in banking during this period in San Antonio de los Arenales.

57 Untitled document from June 1933, AMC. In 1921, the population was 291 persons.

58 By June, 1933 about 14,000 Mexicans and 9,000 Mennonites lived in the municipality. Undated document, AMC.

59 Wasserman, Mark, “Chihuahua: Politics in an Era of Transition,” in Provinces of the Revolution: Essays on Regional Mexican History, 1910–1929, Thomas Benjamin and Mark Wasserman, eds. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1990), p. 220.Google Scholar

60 “Apuntes relativos a Colonizacion,” El Universal (Mexico City), May 23, 1922, p. 3.

61 Letter from José Saenz Juárez to President, Sección Municipal de San Antonio de los Arenales, March 31, 1927, AMC.

62 “By establishing in this [post-revolutionary] era the same system, we have committed the injustice of judging our campesinos to be in the state of savagery in which the aborigines were found four centuries ago.” Enríquez, Ignacio C., Democrácia Económica (México, D.F.: Porrua, 1944), p. 117 Google Scholar; Aboites, “Norte” p. 165.

63 Batalla, Narciso Bassols, ed., El pensamiento politico de Alvaro Obregon, (Mexico, D.F.: Impresiones Modernas, 1963), p. 133.Google Scholar

64 Hansis, , “Obregon,” p. 306.Google Scholar

65 Hall, Linda B., Alvaro Obregon: Power and Revolution in Mexico, 1911–1920 (College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 1981), p. 202 Google Scholar; “En la agricultura está el porvenir de México, insiste el Gobierno General,” El Correo del Norte (Chihuahua, Chih.), December 23, 1921, p. 1.

66 Batalla, , Pensamiento, p. 139.Google Scholar Obregón was quoted in Excélsior (Mexico City) on March 6, 1921.

67 Batalla, , Pensamiento, p. 133.Google Scholar Obregón listed these agricultural stations along with other accomplishments in the field of agriculture in his address to Congress. Cámara de Diputados 450.

68 “Distribución de agrónomos en el territorio de la República,” El Universal (Mexico City), May 20, 1922, p. 3.

69 Batalla, , Pensamiento, p. 132.Google Scholar

70 Batalla, , Pensamiento, p. 136.Google Scholar

71 Sawatzky, , They Sought, p. 39.Google Scholar

72 Fretz, Joseph Winfield, Mennonite Colonization in Mexico (Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee, 1945) p. 20.Google Scholar

73 Berninger, Dieter George, “Mexican Attitudes Towards Immigration, 1821–1857” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1972), p. 147.Google Scholar

74 Aboites, “Norte,” p. 144.

75 Lister and Lister, Chihuahua, p. 277; Almada, Resumen, p. 430.

76 Sawatzky, , They Sought, p. 129.Google Scholar

77 Almada, , Resumen, p. 430.Google Scholar

78 According to a 1945 work, the Mennonites were viewed in such a favorable light that the governors of different Mexican states were “outdoing” each other in trying to attract Mennonites to settle in their respective states. Fretz, , Mennonite Colonization, p. 33.Google Scholar

79 Hall, , Power, p. 27.Google ScholarPubMed Hall’s source: Department of Labor to Secretariat of Industry and Commerce, March 28, 1921. AGN-Department of Labor, vol. 334, exp. 23.

80 “Ya no habrá más contratos de Colonización nominales,” El Universal (Mexico City), May 19, 1922, p. 1.

81 “Apuntes relativos a Colonización,” El Universal (Mexico City), May 23, 1922, p. 3.

82 “No será tolerada la inmigración de Negros al país,” El Universal (Mexico City), May 20, 1922, p. 1. During the Calles presidency, this policy persisted, and there was, for example, a campaign undertaken in which women especially were encouraged to form clubs to oppose the immigration of Chinese, allegedly out of the fear of the spread of tracoma and other diseases. “Se intensifica la campaña antichina,” El Correo de Chihuahua (Chihuahua, Chih.), August 9, 1925, p. 1.

83 “244 Menonitas más cruzaron la frontera,” El Universal (Mexico City), March 17, 1922, p. 8.