Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T00:30:58.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wobblies and Mexican Workers in Mining and Petroleum, 1905–1924

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2009

Norman Caulfield
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), or “Wobblies”, represented a transitional stage in Mexican labor movement history. The Wobblies enjoyed support from workers because their philosophy corresponded to the Mexican labor movement's deeply-rooted anarchosyndicalist traditions. While cooperating with Mexican radical labor organizations, the IWW advocated workers' control, better pay, conditions, and union recognition. In mining and petroleum, the IWW built upon the earlier organizational efforts of mutual and gremial organizations. And, although the Wobblies failed to establish a permanent foothold inside Mexico, their efforts resulted in the eventual organization of industry-wide unions.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , April 1995 , pp. 51 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1995

References

1 For the IWW's influence on the Magonistas see Raat, W. Dirk, Revoltosos: Mexico's Rebels in the United States, 1903–1923 (College Station, TX, 1981)Google Scholar; MacLachlan, Colin M., Anarchism and the Mexican Revolution: The Political Trials of Ricardo Flores Magdn in the United States (Berkeley, 1991)Google Scholar; and Albro, Ward S., Always a Rebel: Ricardo Flores Magdn and the Mexican Revolution (Fort Worth, 1992)Google Scholar.

2 Hart, John M., Anarchism and the Mexican Working Class, 1860–1931 (Austin, 1978)Google Scholar.

3 Foner, Philip S., The U.S. Labor Movement and Latin America: vol. 1 1846–1919 (South Hadley, Mass., 1988), p. 146Google Scholar.

4 For the early struggles of Mexican miners in the United States see Mellinger, Phil, ”‘The Men Have Become Organizers’: Labor Conflict and Unionization in the Mexican Mining Communities of Arizona, 1900–1915”, Western Historical Quarterly, 3 (1992), pp. 323–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Most historians of the Mexican Revolution call Cananea the beginning of the demise of the regime of Porfirio Dfaz (1876–1911). For this interpretation see Anderson, Rodney D., Outcasts In Ttieir Own Land: Mexican Industrial Workers, 1906–1911 (DeKalb, 1976)Google Scholar; Ruiz, Ramòn Eduardo, Vie Great Rebellion: Mexico, 1905–1924 (New York, 1980)Google Scholar; Hart, John Mason, Revolutionary Mexico: Vie Coming and the Process of the Mexican Revolution (Berkeley, 1987)Google Scholar.

6 For the IWW in Torreón, , see “trabajo y produccibn” in Luz (Mexico City), 29 04 1917Google Scholar.

7 Andrews, Gregg, Shoulder to Shoulder? The American Federation of Labor, The United States, and the Mexican Revolution 1910–1924 (Berkeley, 1991)Google Scholar. Andrews is emphatic in his analysis of the Mexican Revolutioin that radical groups like the IWW worried the Mexican and US governments because of the inroads the organization made among Mexican workers, especially miners in the border regions. In addition, Andrews claims that the IWW was part of the Mexican radical movement that opposed Samuel Gompers, AFL-style unionism, and the Mexican government's efforts to establish that brand of unionism south of the border.

8 John M. Hart, Anarchism, pp. 12–18. Hart explains that the syndicalism espoused by Mexican industrial workers was rooted in the nation's precapitalist agrarista movements which specifically demanded local autonomy from centralized government. He attributes the success of the agraristas to their ability to raise demands that were compatible with the values, traditions and aspirations of the sedentary-indigenous people, which incorporated egalitarianism, a distrust of government officials, absentee landlords and a suspicion of politics. Within this context, syndicalist groups like the IWW that rejected politics and centralized authority gained support among first-generation Mexican industrial workers as they attempted to confront the conditions of their new environment.

9 For mutualist and gremial organization in the mining industry see Bessercr, Federico, Novelo, Victoria and Sariego, Juan Luis, El sindicalismo minero en Mexico, 1900–1952 (Mexico, DF, 1983), pp. 23–25Google Scholar; for early mutualist and gremial organizations in the Tampico region see Adelson, S. Leif, “Historia social del los obreros industrials dc Tampico, 1906–1919” (doctoral thesis, El Colegio de México, 1982), pp. 167–227Google Scholar.

10 Ibid., p. 167.

11 ibid., p. 169.

12 ibid., p. 187.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., pp. 187–210.

15 Ibid.

16 For the IWW's role in organizing Chilean workers see DeShazo, Peter, Urban Workers and Labor Unions in Chile, 1902–1927 (Madison, 1983)Google Scholar. Information on the MTW's international meeting of union seamen can be found in Garcfa, Adolfo, “The Workers Look to Montevideo”, Industrial Pioneer (Chicago), 01 1925, p. 7Google Scholar.

17 The Casa's activities in Tampico are discussed in Adelson, S. Leif, “Cultural Roots of Mexican Oil Workers in Tampico, 1910–1925”, The Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin (1988), p. 34Google Scholar. The MTW and IWW's arrival in the area and its cooperation with the Casa arc highlighted in Solidarity (Cleveland), 3 February 1917; information on IWW and Casa activity in Tampico can also be found in National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC (hereafter cited as NARAW), State Department Records (hereafter cited as SD Records), Record Group 59 (hereafter cited as RG59), 812.504/134; confidential letter from Department of Treasury agent, Wilbur Carr, to the Secretary of State, 27 August 1917.

18 NARAW, S D Records, R G 59, 812.504/46; letter from American Consul, Claude I. Dawson to the Secretary of State, 6 April 1916.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 El Rebelde (Los Anceles), 3 February 1917; also see Solidarity (Cleveland), 10 February 1917.

22 NARAW, SD Records, R G 59, 812.504/81; telegram from Dawson to the Secretary of State, 23 April 1917.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., 812.504/82; 812.504/85; telegrams from Dawson to the Secretary of State, 24 and 26 April 1917.

23 Ibid., 812.504/86; telegram from American Ambassador to the Secretary of State and Consul Dawson, 27 April 1917.

26 Ibid., 812.504/87; telegram from Dawson to the Secretary o f State, 30 April 1917.

27 Ibid., 812.504/91; telegram from the U.S.S. Tacoma to the Secretary of Navy, 2 May 1917.

28 Ibid., 812.504/95; letter from Consul Dawson to the Secretary of State, 2 May 1917.

29 Ibid., 812.504/107A;, telegram from Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, to American Consul, Dawson. Information was received by Lansing from the Department of Navy, 18 June 1917; 812.504/114; telegram from Dawson to the Secretary of State, Lansing, 16 July 1917; for the strike's progression and activities also see El Rebelde (Los Angeles), 11 August 1917.

30 Ibid., 812.504/116; letter from Pierce Oil Corporation Vice-President, Eben Richards, Jo Assistant Secretary of State, Frank L. Polk, 24 July 1917. Reply was given to Pierce Oil from the State Department on 27 July 1917. For MTW Local #100's activities during jne 1917 strike, see El Rebelde (Los Angeles), 11 August 1917.

31 Ibid., 812.504/117; telegram from Dawson to the Secretary of State, 24 July 1917.

32 Ibid., 812.504/117; telegram to Mexican Petroleum Company, New York, NY, from George Paddleford, local manager in Tampico, 26 July 1917.

33 Ibid., 812.504/124; Special Situation Report from Captain Richardson, Commander of Mexican Patrol, to the Department of Navy, 25 July 1917.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid., 812.504/124; telegram sent to Naval Operations Office, Washington, DC, 30 July 1917 from the U.S.S. Annapolis. Also see 812.504/124; letter sent from Pierce Oil Corporation, Vice-President, Eben Richards to the Acting Secretary of State, Frank L. Polk, 2 August 1917. For the arrest of IWW members see El Rebelde (Los Angeles), 11 August 1917.

36 NARAW, SD Records, RG 59, 812.504/222; telegram from Consul Dawson at Tampico to the Secretary of State, 9 July 1920; for the IWW's role in the strike and their cooperation with El Grupo Hermanos Rojo, see Solidarity (Chicago), 10 January 1920.

37 La Nueva Solidaridad (Chicago), 14 October 1919; also see the text of Borrdn's statement in US Congress and Senate, Investigation of Mexican Affairs, 1919–1920, pp. 2826–2828.

38 Castillo, Julio Valdivicso, Historia del movimicnto s'mdicato petrotero en Minatitldn, Veracruz (Mexico, DF, 1963), pp. 24–25Google Scholar; also see Colmenarcs, Francisco, Petrolero y India de closes en Mexico, 1864–1982 (Mexico, DF, 1982), pp. 43–44Google Scholar.

39 NARAW, SD Records, R G 59, 812.504/222; telegram from Consul Dawson at Tampico to the Secretary of State, 9 July 1920.

40 Solidaridad (Chicago), 18 June 1921.

41 Adelson, S. Leif, “Coyunturay conciencia: Factores convergcntes en la fundaridn d e los sindicatos petroleros de Tampico durante la dlcada d e 1920”, in El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de Mixicol Labor and Laborers through Mexican History (Tucson, Arizona, 1979), p. 640Google Scholar.

42 Taibo, Paco Ignado II, Los Boishevikis: historia narrativa de los orfgnes del comunismo en Mexico, 1919–1925 (Mexico, 1986), pp. 113–116Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., pp. 113–116, 137, 141.

44 Taibo, Paco Ignado II, “El breve matrimonio rojo: comunistas y anarchosyndicalistas en la CGT en 1921”, Historias: revista de la dirreddn de estudios historicos del Institute Hacional de Antropologfa e Historia (Mexico, DF, 1984), p. 50Google Scholar.

45 Adelson, “Coyuntura y condcnda”, p. 640.

46 Turner, Ethel Duffy, Ricardo Flores Atagdn y el Partido Liberal Mexicano (Morclia, 1960), p. 359Google Scholar.

47 NARAW, SD Records, RG 59, 812.504/151; letter from American Consul, Dawson, to the Secretary of State, 21 November 1917; also see 812.504/154; telegram from V.S.S. Annapolis to the Department of Navy, Washington, DC, 11 February 1918.

48 Romo, Ricardo, “Response to Mexican Immigration, 1910–1930”, Aztldn, 6, no. 2 (Summer 1975), pp. 186–187Google Scholar; Acufia, Rodolfo, Occupied America: A History of Chicanos (New York, 1988, 3rd ed.), p. 166Google Scholar.

49 “The Strike at Ajo”, Miners' Magazine (Denxver), January–February 1917; also see Foner, philip S., Labor and World War 1,1914–1918, in the History of the Labor Movement in the United States (New York, 1987), vol. 7, pp. 265–266Google Scholar.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid., p. 267.

53 Kcrr, Clark and Siegcl, Abraham, “The Interindustry Propensity to Strike: An International Comparison”, in Kornhauser, Arthur, Dubin, Robert and Rose, Arthur N., Industrial Conflict (New York, 1954), pp. 189–212Google Scholar.

54 Foner, Labor and World War I, p. 269.

55 Ibid.

56 As cited in ibid., p. 267.

57 Ibid., p. 273.

58 Ibid., p. 275.

59 NARAW, Military Intelligence Division (hereafter cited as MID), RG 165, 10110–12; letter from M.H. McLcarn, Manager of the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Morenci, Arizona, 17 May 1917, to Agent, R.L. Barnes, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. In the letter McLearn stated that he was working closely with Department of Justice Agent, Harris.

60 NARAW, MID, RG 165, 10110–85; page five (5) of a report prepared by Justice Department Agent, S. Guzmdn on “IWW activities in the Globe-Miami District”, 25 September 1917.

61 Ibid., excerpts of Rodriguez and Blanco's speeches are found in S. Guzmàn's report on “IWW activities in the Globe-Miami District”, under the subtitle, “Prominent Members and Officials of the IWW Movement”.

62 Ibid., 10110–13, report from Guzmdn, S. on “IWW activities at Globe-Miami”, 14 03 1918Google Scholar.

63 Ibid., 10110–85, report from Guzmdn, S. on “IWW activities in the Globe-Miami District”, 25 11 1917Google Scholar.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid., 10110–12, report from agent, Ganzhorn, John W. on “IWW activities at Globe and Vicinity”, 24 02 1918Google Scholar.

66 Ibid., 10110–13, report from S. Guzmdn concerning the arrests of IWW agitators, Azuara, Martfnez and Negreira, 22 March 1918. For a sample of Martfnez's contributions to El Rebelde, see “Latigazos a los mdrtires de la A.S.F. of L. de Morenci, Arizona, Local &2”, in El Rebelde (Los Angeles), 26 December 1915.

67 Ibid., 10110–12, report from agent, S. Guzmdn on “IWW activities in Globe-Miami”, 6 March 1918.

68 Foner, Labor and World War 1, p. 279.

69 lbid. p. 280.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid.

72 NARAW, SD Records, RG 59, 812.504/152, letter to R.C. Tanis, Division of Mexican Affairs, US State Department, from William Yeandle, Jr of the United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Co., 5 December 1917.

73 NARAW, MI D Records, RG 165, 10058–0–9; letter from CD. Garrison, Army Intelligence Officer, Douglas, Arizona, to A. C of S. for M.I. 8th Corps Area, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas, 15 November 1920. For a chronology of the IWW's activities in Sonora, , Cananea, , Chihuahua, and Arizona, see El Rebelde (Los Angeles), 15 03 1915Google Scholar; letter from Martfnez, Tomás, “Compafieros de la Unián Obrera de Cananea, Alerta! in El Rebelde, 28 08 1915Google Scholar; also see Luz (Mexico City), 1 May 1919, letter from IWW members Benito Pavón, Edmundo Ibarra and Pablo Olio to editor, Jacinto Huitrdn.

74 NARAW, MI D Records, R G 165, 10058–0–9; letter from Garrison to M.I. 8th Corps Area, Fort Sam Houston.

73 Bessercr, Novelo and Sariego, El sindicalismo minero, pp. 23–24.

76 Ibid., pp. 24–25.

77 Ibid., pp. 25–26.

78 NARAW, SD Records, RG 59, 812.504/260; letter from American Consular Agent, J.M. Gibbs in Cananea to the Secretary of State and to the American Consul, Francis J. Dyer at Nogales, Sonora, 6 October 1920. Agent Gibbs states in the letter that he received the information from Cananea Company officials, George Young and T. Evans.

79 NARAW, MI D Records, R G 165, 10058–0–9; letter from C D. Garrison, Intelligence Officer, Douglas, Arizona, to Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas, 15 November 1920.

80 NARAW, SD Records, R G 59,812.504/520; letter from American vice-consul at Chihuahua, Thomas McEnelly to the Secretary of State, 8 November 1923. McEnelly worked closely with J. Norris Hobart, ASARCO' s welfare representative, wh o complained of constant IWW agitation at company facilities in Chihuahua. For the IWW's continuing efforts to organize Mexican miners see Solidarity (Chicago), 2 June 1923. For the formation of Miners and Smelter Workers' Industrial Union ä210, see Solidaridad (Chicago), 5 April 1924.

81 Solidarity (Chicago), 2 June 1923.

82 El Diario (Chihuahua, Mexico), 2 May 1923.

83 NARAW, SD Records, RG 59, 812.504/565; letter from American Consul, Thomas McEnelly to the Secretary of State, 24 May 1924. Also see Solidarity (Chicago), 21 May 1924 and Solidaridad (Chicago), 12 July 1924.

84 Ibid.

85 NARAW, SD Records, RG 59, 812.504–567; letter from American Consul McEnelly to the Secretary of State, 27 May 1924. Also see Solidaridad (Chicago), 31 May 1924.

86 Ibid, 26 July 1924.

87 Ibid., p. 27.