1
A Legacy of Conflict
INTRODUCTION
In 1970 the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a landmark report that to date is the most far-reaching and comprehensive study of Chicanos and the legal and judicial system. It concluded:
Mexican-American citizens are subject to unduly harsh treatment by law enforcement officers . . . they are often arrested on insufficient grounds, receive physical and verbal abuse and penalties which are disproportionately severe. We have found them to be deprived of proper use of bail and adequate representation by counsel. They are substantially underrepresented on grand and petit juries and excluded from full participation in law enforcement agencies, especially in supervisory positions. (p. iii)
The commission set forth eighteen recommendations on the federal and state levels designed to rectify many of these problems and to assist Chicanos1 in obtaining equal opportunity before the law. It also pointed to the existence of a double standard of justice for Anglos and Chicanos.
Although public awareness of the problem has been increasing, little has been done to implement these recommendations (Castro 1974, p. 49). Nearly a decade after the Civil Rights Commission Report, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) complained of police violence and abuse against Chicanos, gathering information on over one hundred cases and focusing on fifty-six that were thoroughly documented. It noted that in the preceding two years alone, law enforcement officers had killed at least thirty-two Hispanics (MALDEF 1978a and b; National Hispanic Conference on Law Enforcement 1980, p. 62). MALDEF (1978a) concluded on the basis of its investigation that official violence against Chicanos has reached epidemic proportions in the Southwest and “that this violence was a severe, widespread and, for Mexican-Americans, highly emotional phenomenon.” Widespread patterns of police abuse and mistreatment of Chicanos have also been documented by Armando Morales (1972) in Ando Sangrando (I am Bleeding), a detailed study of the 1970–1971 East Los Angeles riots, and by the National Hispanic Conference on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (1980). In Gunpowder Justice (1979), Samora, Bernal, and Peña provide extensive documentation of abuses perpetrated by the Texas Rangers. Other works have focused on specific topics, such as Chicano “social bandits” (Castillo and Camarillo 1973; Vigil 1974), Chicano gangs (Moore 1978), and mexicano resistance to Anglo-American domination (Rosenbaum 1981).
These are welcome additions to a neglected area, but it is significant that a single comprehensive scholarly assessment of the Chicano and the legal and judicial system has yet to appear. The present work seeks to fill this void by placing this issue within a broad social-historical framework.
A number of excellent histories of Chicanos are available and, although Gringo Justice draws from these treatises, it is not intended to be a historical work. A basic premise of the present volume is that the contemporary situation cannot be divorced from its historical context. Much of the current criminological and sociological literature is, unfortunately, ahistorical. This work seeks to link contemporary social science theories with the historical reality of the Chicano population.
A related premise is that the experiences of Chicanos before the legal and judicial system are a direct result of their overall social, economic, and political status in society. Thus, the material covered here extends well beyond what is found in conventional criminological and sociological literature. The American invasion of Mexico and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which marked the end of hostilities between the two nations and provided extensive guarantees for displaced Mexican citizens, meant that from the onset Chicanos occupied a unique position relative to American society and its judicial system. Despite the many guarantees of the treaty, an alien culture, language, and legal and judicial system were subsequently imposed, and a variety of legal and extralegal mechanisms were used to depose them from their land and other possessions. The end result was the emergence of a double standard of justice: one system applied to the Anglo-American and another to the Chicano. It is this system of gringo justice that is the focus of this book.
This chapter is an introduction and historical overview of Chicanos and the legal and judicial system. After tracing the legacy of conflict and the significance of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the evolution of the image of Chicanos as bandidos, criminals, is considered. Subsequent chapters address more specific issues such as the displacement of Chicanos from the land, vigilantism and social banditry, immigration law and the Border Patrol, police harassment and abuse, Chicano youth gangs, and prevailing criminological and sociological theories. The concluding chapter presents a Chicano perspective on gringo justice.
LOS GUEROS MALVADOS
At the time of the Mexican-American War “Meskins” were viewed largely as a despicable, inferior, and subhuman race.2 This attitude provided a ready-made justification or rationale not only for the many atrocities perpetrated against them but also for the acquisition of a vast and rich area of land. The Mexican, after all, was racially, culturally, linguistically, and religiously inferior and lacked the technological sophistication to develop the area (see De León 1983, chapter 1).
Walter Prescott Webb, a staunch supporter of the Texas Rangers, for example, noted that “Without disparagement it may be said that there is a cruel streak in the Mexican nature . . . this cruelty . . . doubtless should be attributed partly to the Indian blood” (Webb 1965, p. 14). Stephen Austin, often termed sympathetic toward the Mexican in Texas, was certainly not free of bias, as revealed by the contents of a letter he wrote to the Honorable L. F. Linn:
A war of extermination is raging in Texas . . . a war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race against civilization and the Anglo-American race.
For fifteen years I have been laboring like a slave to Americanize Texas . . . to form a nucleous around which my native countrymen could collect and grow into a solid body that would forever be a barrier of safety to the southwestern frontier, and especially to the outlet of the western world . . . the mouth of the Mississippi . . . and which would be a beacon-light to the Mexicans in their search for liberty. . . . But the Anglo-American foundation, the nucleous of republicanism, is to be broken up, and its place supplied by a population of Indians, Mexicans, and renegados, all mixed together, and all the natural enemies of white men and civilization. . . . Oh! Spirit of our fathers, where are you? Just and omnipotent God, where is thy influence? Where is the fatherly care and protection of a wise and watchful government. (Austin 1926, vol. III, pp. 345–47)
One eyewitness, reporting on the discovery of gold in California in 1848, was similarly negative toward nonwhites, both men and women. He remarked that “the men are generally lazy, fond of riding, dancing, and gambling. . . . The women will gamble as well as the men. The men are mostly addicted to liquor. The women are, or may be generally considered, handsome, with dark, fascinating eyes and good features; the better kind very courteous, but, in general, indolent; they dress rich and costly, are addicted to fandangoing and gallantry, but not much coquetry” (McMurtrie 1943, p. 4). In 1864 George L. Robertson described “greasers” as the “lowest,” most “contemptible, despicable people on earth” (Robertson 1864).
The American takeover of the Southwest proved to be much more than a political and military victory; it was a racial and cultural triumph as well. In They Called Them Greasers, Arnoldo De León argues that although racism was not the cause of the Texas revolt, it was undoubtedly “very prominent as a promoting and underlying cause” (De León 1983, p. 12). Most whites had never encountered Mexicans before, but their Elizabethan and Puritan heritage predisposed them to view Mexicans as a contemptuous, inferior, and barbaric race. “Mexicanos were doubly suspect, as heirs to Catholicism and as descendants of Spaniards, Indians, and Africans” (ibid., p. 4). Antipathy toward Spain and the Roman Catholic Church was deep-seated. The Mexican aborigines, on the other hand, were conceived by the English as “degenerate creatures—unChristian, uncivilized, and racially impure” (ibid., p. 5). Despite all the talk of oppression, the Texas revolt appears, in the end, to have been motivated by racism and white supremacy. “For Anglo-Texans to have accepted anything other than ‘white supremacy and civilization’ was to submit to Mexican domination and to admit that Americans were willing to become like Mexicans” (ibid., p. 13). Anglos could co-exist with the criollo elite and were attracted to Mexican women, especially upper-class women who were considered “white,” but most Mexicans were either mestizos or descendants of Tlascalan Indians who played an important part in Spanish colonization of northern Mexico and were considered non-white (Tijerina 1977, pp. 10–12).
These negative racial attitudes were more formally articulated and legitimated through the concept of Manifest Destiny, which decreed that the superior Anglo-Saxon race was predestined by God to rule over the entire hemisphere. Violence and hatred directed at Mexicans could be justified because they were an indolent, heathen, barbaric, and violent people. The American takeover of the land was seen as “rescuing” it from its primitive status. “Order and discipline had to be rescued from the wilds in the name of civilization and Christianity. . . . To allow an inverse order and a concomitant surrender of themselves and their liberties to primitive things was to allow chaos to continue when God’s will was to impose Christian order” (De León 1983, pp. 1–2).
Even though Mexicans were technically Christians, they were Catholic and adhered to a brand of Catholicism considered “pagan” and therefore inferior (Grebler, Moore, and Guzman 1970, p. 450). E. C. Orozco argues, moreover:
When Anglo-Americans describe the manner by which religious liberty came to be achieved by Anglo-American “pioneers” in the Southwest and how religious privileges in the country came to be shared on an equal basis, their reference is to the spiritual exercise of republican protestantism. In other words, to the secular and natural religion of the United States and not to Christianity per se. (Orozco 1980, p. 46)
The doctrine of republican Protestantism also “mandated and compelled ‘melting down’ religious and ethnic differences for the presumed good of the whole” (ibid., p. 80). Thus, both the acquisition of more than half of Mexico (in exchange for $15 million) and the destruction of Mexican culture were decreed by divine imperative.
This legacy of conflict preceded the North American invasion of Mexico and continued long after it ended. Without doubt it was most strongly manifested in Texas. To the Anglo-Texan settlers “Mexicans were lazy, shiftless, jealous, cowardly, bigoted, superstitious, backward, and immoral. To the Mexicans, on the other hand, the Texans were ‘los diablos Tejanos’: arrogant, overbearing, aggressive, conniving, rude, unreliable, and dishonest” (McWilliams 1968, p. 99). The Anglos considered themselves superior to the Mexicans, but to the Mexicans they were seen as “full of brag, bluster, and spreading chauvinism” (ibid.).
These cultural and ideological differences were substantial and created tension and conflict between the two groups. The American settlers were white, Protestant, English-speaking, and strong supporters of self-government. The Mexicans, on the other hand, were Indian or Mestizo, Catholic, and committed to a highly centralized government (ibid., p. 100). In addition, most of the Anglo settlers were from the South and supported slavery, whereas Mexico had recently outlawed slavery.
Given these antagonisms and the contemptuous attitude toward the Mexican, it is not surprising that Anglo settlers typically disregarded Mexican laws. The first Anglo settlers consisted of filibustering expeditions that forcefully fought their way into Texas. Hayden Edwards, involved in a conflict over disputed territory, attempted to evict settlers rather than subject the dispute to adjudication by Mexican authorities (Acuña 1981, p. 4). When Mexico ordered him to leave the territory, he and two hundred of his supporters took the town of Nacogdoches on December 21, 1826, proclaiming it the Republic of Fredonia (ibid.). Although the rebellion was quickly quelled, it became a symbol of American disdain for Mexican law and authority.
Fearing possible annexation of its sparsely settled northern territories, Spain, and subsequently Mexico, encouraged colonization by liberalizing its colonization laws to include Anglo-American settlers (Tijerina 1977, p. 3). In 1821 Moses Austin obtained an empresario (colonist) land grant, permitting him to bring in three hundred Spanish families from Florida. Austin died before he could accomplish this mission but his son was awarded a comparable grant from the Mexican government in 1823 (Meier and Rivera 1972, p. 58). This signaled the beginning of an Anglo influx and eventually twenty such empresario grants were awarded. Under conditions of the grant all settlers were required to be of good moral character, to be Catholic or to convert to Catholicism, and to swear allegiance to Mexico. Austin, however, was one of the few empresarios who made an effort to honor the terms of the agreement. Most of the settlers did not recognize the authority of the Mexican government and ignored or disregarded Mexican customs and laws.
Texas functioned as a self-governed province until 1824 when the new Mexican constitution declared it a department within the newly created state of Coahuila y Tejas (Tijerina 1977, p. 3). In 1825, the state of Coahuila y Tejas passed its own colonization law, which served to implement Mexican federal law (ibid.). Anglo settlers who had legally colonized in Texas numbered around 1,800 in 1825; by 1830 there were 4,248 Anglo colonists in the area (ibid., p. 4). By 1830 Anglos outnumbered Mexicans in Texas by more than five to one. Many of them were not legal settlers but illegal aliens from the South who sought to develop cotton cultivation and to import slaves. Mexico, anticipating that the United States would move to annex Texas, began to take measures to stem the tide of illegal aliens. In 1829 slavery was abolished by executive decree. Following intense protest by Anglo-Texans, the decree was quickly suspended, but on April 6, 1830, Mexico passed a law that prohibited the importation of slaves and attempted to severely restrict Anglo settlement (ibid.). Another law set up customhouses and presidios along the border (Meier and Rivera 1972, p. 59). Mexican soldiers were also sent to Texas to enforce Mexican laws, including laws pertaining to immigration.
Disturbances occurred in 1832 and 1833, and by 1835 the Texas revolt was in full swing. The revolt placed tejanos in a precarious position and forced them to choose sides (Tijerina 1977, p. 318). José Erasmo Seguín was a leading tejano “statesman” and in 1824 served as the Texas representative in the national congress in Mexico City. His son, Juan N. Seguín, however, joined the Anglo insurgents but “soon found himself a foreigner in his native land” (ibid.). As he hid on his ranch, he saw it pillaged by Mexican troops and burned by Anglo forces on different days. “Fernando de León of Victoria, who had contributed generously to the Texas forces, was arrested by a Mexican general in 1836 and again by an Anglo commander in 1837—each time for conspiring with the enemy” (ibid.).
Despite victories at the Alamo and Goliad, Santa Anna was soundly defeated at San Jacinto on April 21, 1837. By signing the Treaty of Velasco, Santa Anna agreed to Texas independence in exchange for his freedom. The treaty, however, was not recognized by Mexico. Texas eventually obtained de facto independence; annexation to the United States did not come until 1845. The Texas revolt set the stage for an all-out war between the two nations. Mexico, fearing total annexation, broke off diplomatic relations with the United States.
Anglo contempt of the Mexican during the Mexican period grew into even more open hatred and hostility following Texas independence. Racial tension was exacerbated not only by economic and cultural conflicts but also by deeply ingrained racist attitudes. Many of the Anglo migrants to Texas were from the South and racist attitudes were transferred to the “swarthy” dark-skinned Mexican. A Chattanooga journalist in San Angelo noted that “Mexicans were a race of mongrels” and “dark to the point of blackness” (San Angelo Standard 1889, p. 1). De León writes:
From the Southern and frontier-oriented culture they had acquired a certain repulsion for dark-skinned people and a distaste for miscegenation. . . . By conditioning, they were predisposed to react intolerantly to people they found different from themselves but similar to those they considered as enemies and as inferiors. (De León 1983, p. 6)
Mexicans were viewed as primitive, inferior, and an impediment to progress. In a letter to his wife dated September 11, 1849, Thomas B. Eastland described the town of El Paso Del Norte:
A poor, miserable, dirty town, badly built, containing a population of some 5,000 Mexicans, and a few foreigners—the greater portion of the former are Peons or slaves, and as miserable a set of looking gre...