Unit one essays: Domestic and Foreign Dynamics

11MexicanAmericanSocietypt.2rev.ppt

Home >History homework help >Unit one essays: Domestic and Foreign Dynamics

Mexican American Society
1848-1890

Source: David J. Weber, Foreigners in Their Native Lands

Future Timing Note: This lecture took 3 hours, integrating a five minute discussion of The Ballad of Gregorio Cortez and a discussion of the Pablo Mares reading (15 minutes).

Problems for Mexican Americans after the war….

Should I Stay or Should I go?: The Mexican American Dilemma

Betrayal of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Citizenship Contested
Representation Denied
Land Claims were not protected
No Justice for Mexican Americans

Manifest Destiny

Fueled by a strong belief in “Manifest Destiny” U.S. political leaders promoted war against Mexico:
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self-government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth."

Military Conquest

Outcome:
Mexico lost half of its national territory
The United States increased by one-third
New states carved out of land gains: Arizona, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Utah, and portions of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Gave Mexican descendants one year to relocate south or seek dual-citizenship before claiming US citizenship
Provided all rights of legal US citizens to those who stayed
Ensured freedom of religion

Racism

Ascribed Judgments:
Stephen F. Austin commented on the war following independence as “a war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race.”

What judgments are made about the Mexican government? Of the Mexican population?
What positive attribute does Austin ascribe to Anglo society?

Between Two Worlds

The Treaty compensated Mexicans wishing to return to Mexico (repatriate):
Mexicans were to be provided with land grants in Northern Mexico
Mexicans from Alta California would be given property in Baja California.
Hispanos from New Mexico would receive grants in Chihuahua.
Tejanos received land in Coahuila or neighboring states.
The Mexican government even offered to pay half the passage cost and provide additional political rights not previously granted.

Limitations of this repatriation effort: not well-funded or organized. Information about how to file for new land grants not readily accessible.

Repatriation statistics are weak:

Gold discoveries would have inspired many to stay, but also drew a number of Mexican immigrants to the region, so repatriation figures are uncertain by probably low.
The war in Mexico against the invading French government would have been a deterrent to repatriation.

Between Two Worlds

Among the portion of the population choosing not to stay in the U.S, some 2,000 Mexicans migrated across the border into Mexico, only to conquered again, this time by a political agreement . In 1853, The Gadsden Purchase brought an additional 30,000 sq. miles into the U.S.

Between Two Worlds

According to the Treaty, those who chose to stay in the U.S. became citizens, with equal protection under the law and representation within the political process.
Dual Citizenship:
The treaty also allowed conquered Mexicans the right to retain their Mexican citizenship, though residing in the U.S. as United States citizens, if requested within one year of treaty.
However, dual citizenship was often treated by Anglos as a sign that Mexican Americans were not loyal, or had immigrated to US.

Article IX requiring the U.S. to recognize Mexican Americans as citizens was amended ex post facto by the Senate, now stating:

“[Mexicans not choosing to remain citizens of Mexico] shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States and be admitted, at the proper time (to be judged by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of the Constitution; and in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.”

Citizenship remained uncertain, with some regions of the southwest acknowledging rights, while others regions and institutions—the Supreme Court—refused rights or remained intentionally vague about the application of rights.

Supreme Court noted that the 14th Amendment did not clearly state that Mexican Americans were intended to have citizenship rights.

No Citizenship, No Property

The Texas Constitution of 1836 refused citizenship and property rights to any person in Texas who refused to participate in the revolution, or who aided the enemy.
This policy was used against all Mexicans, regardless of their political participation in the revolution.
Mexican Americans accounted for only 5% of the population in Texas by 1850, making it difficult to change the policy.

Didn’t the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Trump the Texas Constitution?

A Tejano woman (Saviego) appealed to the US Supreme Court for official recognition of her family’s land claim, which existed prior to Texas independence, even though her family had not lived in the region since the 1820s.
According to the 1855 Supreme Court ruling in McKinney vs. Saviego, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo did not apply to Texas.
As a result, the woman lost her land claim based upon the Texas Constitution provision, which was used to argue that her family was sympathetic to the Mexican government.

Grant Disputes, Squatters, and
the High Price of Defense

California Land Act of 1851 was a state policy molded after the Protocol of Quéretaro; required proof of grant validity
Spanish and Mexican land grants did not clearly define the boundaries of the grants provided, in part because the grant was always temporary and subject to redistribution.
The U.S. usually only allotted Mexicans a portion of their land claim, often arguing that the grants allotted too vast a portion of land to Mexicans.
In many regions of California, so few people were allotted land by the Spanish and Mexican governments, that when they were the land allotted might be “between two ranges of mountains.”

Grant Disputes, Squatters, and
the High Price of Defense

Lincoln’s Homestead Act 1862 promised settlers 160 acres, in exchange for $10 registration fee and agreement to work the land for five years.
However, as early as 1841 Congress began upholding the Preemption Policy, giving squatters the right to take control of property appearing unsettled and pay the owner the base price of $1.25 per acre, without fear of eviction.
By mandating Mexican American society prove land claims, the U.S. gov’t sent the message that grants were fraudulent, thereby sanctioning squatter encroachment.

In Frank Triplett’s Conquering the Wilderness, a popular read in 1883, among of the illustrations two captions were entitled “Greasers” and “Murderous Mexicans.”

“This Territory is largely populated by ignorant and non-English speaking Mexicans and ‘greasers,’ and has been much harried by Indian wars.”

~ New York Times, June 4, 1880

Kupa, California 1895

As a result of these kinds of statements and policies, squatters moved in on Mexican Americans, settled (and protected their parcel with vigilante force) while the land- grant owner was forced to pay fees authorizing his right to the land.

Grant Disputes, Squatters, and
the High Price of Defense

The litigation process was drawn out and costly:
Lawyer fees, court fees, survey costs, all served to drain the resources and wherewithal of claimants.
Despite laws requiring translation of policies into Spanish in California and New Mexico, this was not the practice and many claimants were forced to pay translators in addition to lawyer fees.
Land claimants were also forced to pay travelling expenses, etc. to make their appeal.

While 75% of claims were finally recognized, Mexican American grant owners paid a heavy price.

604 of 813 land claims in California were recognized.

High Price of Defense

Stephen Powers and James Wells of Brownsville made a living defending Mexican land rights. Studies show the average case lasted seventeen years, resulting in high lawyer fees. Powers and Wells charged a hefty fee, which they allowed to be paid in land. Mexicans who were lucky enough to win their cases, still ended up losing the battle. Overtime, the lawyers accumulated 44,000 acres.

Grant Disputes, Squatters, and
the High Price of Defense

Winning land claim didn’t matter:
Preemption Policy still supported the squatter’s right to settle, in essence, forcing the land claimant to divide his property, and reduced his ability to sustain a bonanza farm or land for grazing.

The Ejido is not recognized by the government:
The Ejido was a communal property grant, given by the Mexican government to assist outlying communities with their subsistence crop needs.
These communal land grants were supposed to be recognized according to the Treaty G.H.
Loss of ejido property had the greatest effect on poor Hispanos and Indian neophytes.

Communal Land and Resources Denied

Displaced Indian neophytes outside San Diego

Taxation was unfair by Mexican standards:
Mexican taxation was assessed according to the product produced on the land, with ranch property taxed higher than tobacco fields and grape vineyards.
The U.S. assessed a flat property tax.

Taxes Promoted Dispossession of Land

Northern California (Anglo)	Southern California (Mexican Amer.)
Pop. 120,000	Pop. 6,000
Property taxes totaled: $21,000	Property taxes totaled: $42,000
Poll Taxes (to vote) totaled: $3,500	Poll Taxes (to vote) totaled: $4,000

75% of land claims favored the Mexican petitioners, but left them “land rich but money poor,” according to Gonzales, p. 87. Disenos, or property descriptions were offered by the Mexican grants, but not survey-style boundary markers.

Source for California comparison: Acuna, p. 113

Voices of Reason:
Hutchings’ California Magazine, 1857

“When the American Government took California, it was in honor bound to leave the titles to property as secure as they were at the time of transfer, and express provision to this effect was made in the treaty. Let us imagine that California were to be again transferred to some other power, whose land system is far more complex and strict than our own, and that all our present titles should be declared incomplete and insecure….would we not exclaim against it as extremely unjust.”

Anglo Immigration Undermines Mexican American Citizenship Rights

One problem limiting Mexican Americans’ ability to contest these policy changes was the increase in Anglo immigration to the West, shifting minority/majority demographics.
The Anglo population quadrupled in many regions, thereby relegating Mexicans to a political minority.
Only in New Mexico did Mexican Americans continue to outnumber Anglos.
In regions where Mexicans were the majority, Anglos tended to assimilate and relations were cordial.

Example on next slide of cordial relations?

The Mexican American population in 1848 numbered approximately 75,000, representing just 1% of the minority pop. in the U.S.

Disfranchisement

Prior to the Civil War the United States enforced tough restrictions on suffrage.
Irish were not “white enough”
Mexicans, as conquered individuals who had been portrayed as an inferior race by US expansionists, also deemed unworthy of vote
15th Amendment (1870) prohibited govt. from denying any male the right to vote based upon “race, religion, ethnicity, or previous status”
Jim Crow laws developed to legally restrict “undesired” voters.

Methods of Disfranchisement

Jim Crow Laws
Literacy tests, criminal record, proof of residency for six months, poll taxes, etc.
Greaser Act: California policy targeted vagrants of Spanish or Indian decent, deemed them non-residents, and jailed them, creating criminal history and providing status-quo with a legitimate reason for disfranchising the individual.
In addition, vagrants could and were sold as slaves to work off fines.
Grandfather Clause allowed illiterate whites the right to vote because their grandfather was alive prior to January 1, 1867

Jim Crow laws violated the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which stated:

no individual would be denied the right to vote, hold office, or sit on juries because of “inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages.”

People v. Elyea
The Case of Manuel Dominguez

Despite the California policy ensuring Native Americans would not be immediately barred from voting based upon traditional US understanding of tribal organizations, one of the original signers of the state constitution, Manuel Dominguez, was denied the right to testify in court against Anglos due to his “Indian blood;” this just three years after having participated in establishing the new government.

Mintz: People v. de la Guerra p.105

Methods of Disfranchisement

Specifically impacted Mexican Americans who sought to retain Mexican ties. Since many traveled to visit family in Mexico, they were unaware or unprepared to pay the tax at the beginning of the year, only learning closer to the election that they would be unable to vote.

Poll taxes
Tax collected at the beginning of the year, which must be paid prior to vote.
Designed to eliminate impoverished people.

“Better Luck Next Time… he, he, he”

Methods of Disfranchisement

“All White Primaries”
The primary election is the real political determinant; those chosen at the primaries will have the opportunity to change the system. If there is not a Mexican American representative chosen, change is unlikely.
In Texas, all-white primaries continued until the 1950s.
Mexican Americans who retained the ability to vote did so because:
They were protected by Anglo elites
They did not challenge the system openly

Mexican Americans who Voted were not Represented

Political Machines
Politicians with control and influence learned to make promises of resources, which would only be provided around election time, and even then were limited to one or two of the requests.
San Antonio controlled by Bryan Callaghan
Mexicans who voted to keep Callaghan and his family in political office received minor community benefits around election time. (patronage system)
Brownsville was controlled by Jim Wells
Wells became so determined to hold on to his power that he began assisting in immigration operations from northern Mexico, promising citizenship in return for a vote.

Callaghan vs. Boss Tweed

Like Boss Tweed, leader of the Tammany Hall political machine in New York City, Bryan Callaghan was accused of manipulating the votes, favoritism, and awarding certain sectors of the population city services in exchange for votes. Both men were esteemed by the minority population they preyed upon. Unlike Tweed, Callaghan did not personally profit, nor obtain great wealth from his manipulation of the voters.

Promoting Divisiveness Using Caste

Interethnic rivalry strengthened Anglo status-quo
Immigrants from Mexico were referred to as “Cholos,” a derogatory term used by elite Californios to distinguish new comers from original residents.
Moreover, Mexican elites claimed to be of European stock (from Spain) to distinguish themselves from the mestizo majority, and intermarried with Anglo migrants from the East, demonstrating that class & caste are more powerful than nationalism.
Anglos were able to keep Mexican political and cultural interests from prevailing by fueling this division.
This factionalism demonstrates one of the long-term problems among Mexican Americans in their struggle to unite for political representation.

People v. de la Guerra

De la Guerra ran for the district judge seat, but his opponents accused him of being ineligible for the position because he was “not a citizen.”
In People v. de al Guerra, the courts ruled in de la Guerra’s favor, recognizing him a citizen.
Essentially, he “passed.” His three daughters were all married to Anglo men, who would have been negatively effected had Pablo not been deemed “a citizen.”

Pablo de la Guerra was a second generation Spaniard with a sizable land grant in California. Like Manuel Dominguez, he was also a signer of the California Constitution.

Marrying Up: Method for Survival

Mariano Vallejo, “Spanish Don”
Vallejo was the largest landowner in California and had strong Anglo alliances during the Mexican American War.
All of his children, granddaughters, and three of his sisters married Anglos.

Some scholars accuse him of being a vendido, or sell out, while others note his need to place family before community.

“Whitening” line ensured better treatment for each generation.
Anglo connections served to ensure legitimacy among the evolving status quo; family retains political power.

Gonzales, 101 lists specific stats about Mesilla Valley and intermarriage.

Anglos are preying upon wealthy Spanish women as a method of easy mobility and political support.
Catholic associates and laborers on the property would throw their votes behind the Anglo, who could become a political boss in the long run.
However, Mexican women lost their appeal as more Anglo women entered the scene.

New Boundaries were carved out to better control political space

New Mexico: Too Mexican?

The demographics in New Mexico continued to favor Mexicans, creating some concern for national politics.
As a territory, the region was reduced in size to ensure Mexican American voters had limited impact on national issues.
Part of the region was taken to create the territories of Colorado and Arizona.
Early state constitution drafts also ensured bilingual rights and education, and prohibited segregation.
Between 1850-1912, New Mexico was repeatedly denied statehood due to large Hispanic population figures.

Harper’s Weekly on New Mexico

“Of the present population,...nine-tenths are Mexicans, Indians, “greasers,” and other non-English speaking people…..The proposition of the admission of New Mexico as a State is, that such a population, in such a civilization, of industries, and intelligence, and with such forbidding prospects of speedy improvement or increase—a community almost without the characteristic and indispensible qualities of an American state—shall have a representation in the national Senate as large as New York, and in the House shall be equal to Delaware. It is virtually an ignorant foreign community under the influence of the Roman Church, and neither for the advantage of the Union nor for its own benefit can such an addition to the family of the American States be urged.”

Anglo development in New Mexico was specifically attentive to mercantile and transportation development. The majority of New Mexicans, or Hispanos, were pastoral, meaning their economy was largely based on raising sheep for meat and wool. This way of life was viewed by Anglos as “backward.”

Santa Fe Ring

New Mexico remained a territory until 1912, making it easier to control local politics.
The territorial governor is chosen by the president of the US, and all other offices in New Mexico are chosen by the governor. (no democracy)
Thomas Catron—gov., lawyer, U.S. Attn. Gen.
Stephen Elkins—gov., lawyer, Pres. of Bank
Le Baron Bradford Prince—gov., lawyer, chief justice of New Mexico.

Men stayed in power, rotating governor seat by lobbying GOP and using Hispano elites

Research for future material using Lamar’s The Far Southwest (already started reading some)

The United States established new state boundaries, often positioning land grants in more than one state, which would then require appeal in both states.
Politicos in New Mexico monopolized the state’s resources (surveyor, judges, etc.) to ensure their claims were won.
Under the Santa Fe political ring, 80% of Mexican American land claims were denied.

Santa Fe Ring

Cycle of displacement under territorial government:
Governor appoints lackeys, who control the creation and enforcement of policies. In the case of the “ring” leaders, surveyors spent most of their time surveying the politicians’ land grants.
{IF grant survives and is approved} Laws are created to weaken the influence of undesirables (expensive water works program, fancy development), increasing property taxes so the poor have to sell.
{If you can pay for these improvements} Mexican American farmers needing capital to expand their production might, find exploitative interest rates among bankers and merchants, also seeking to bring about land forfeiture. However, bankers often denied credit to ensure eventual failure.
See Milagro Beanfield War

Clip of film: Seeks work—denied; looks at development that doesn’t benefit him; looks at property—kicks water and has an idea; becomes a social bandit.

Santa Fe Ring

Catron and friends managed to amass millions of acres, most notable were:
Tierra Amarilla Grant, bordering New Mexico and Colorado; 600,000 acres
Maxwell Land Grant, which included part of the communal property owned by Taos residents. When gold was discovered on the property, Anglo residents began to lay claim to parcels.
Formed the Squatters Club, an organization to protect the rights of squatters (individuals occupying the land)

Gorras Blancas / “White Caps”

In reaction to the state’s neglect of ordinary Mexican land claims, politicized vaqueros formed their own organization and targeted “land-grabbers.”
Known for cutting fences, destroying rail lines, severing telegraph connections, and burning elite ranches.
While political leaders condemned this group as an ignorant vigilante horde, some journalists were quick to sympathize with New Mexicans:

“While fence-cutting is wrong, in the eyes of the law a heinous crime, still the crime of grabbing land, fencing up pasturage, water, wood and road-ways from the people to whom the privilege of access belongs, is still a greater crime.”

~Las Vegas Optic, 1890

Richard King, an associate of Charles Stillman (Brownsville founding father, rancher, and legal swindler) amassed a vast property in south Texas. Before he died he compiled more than 600,000 acres, and surpassed 1 Million acres under his widows authority. (She was of Spanish ancestry)
A profiteer on the level of Cornelius Vanderbilt, King used political connections and legal chicanery to obtain Mexican property.

King Ranch Corporation

Research Thomas B. Catron and the Santa Fe Ring, Foreigners, p. 157.

The Cerda Affair

The Cerda family lived near Brownsville, on property neighboring the King Ranch.
Research demonstrates that the men of the Cerda family (father and three sons) were hunted down and killed for “cattle rustling” by Texas Rangers.
King took control of the property.

Rangers “discover” four Mexican “bandits”

Anglos Assumed Control of the Land

Mexican Americans who continued to appeal for legal land grant recognition were threatened, intimidated, and even killed to ensure Anglo rights to the property or resources.

Anglos burnt crops and razed orchards, stole or destroyed livestock, and tormented vaqueros to drive Mexicans off the land.
One Anglo noted that if the land owner wouldn’t sell the property, “than his widow would.”

Anglos Assumed Control of the Economic Structure

The Cart War of 1857

Mexican tradesmen and muleteers were targeted by Anglos seeking to control commerce in Texas.

Anglos murdered leading businessmen.
They stole their oxen and destroyed freight carts and products.
Despite official Mexican pleas for support, local and federal Anglo officials disregarded the injustice.

Develop later: Range Wars, Lincoln County wars, Cortina War, Salt War

Anglos Assumed Control of the Economic Structure

Salt War (1860s)
Feud over control of salt bed outside of El Paso :
Mexicans on both side of the Rio Grande treated the resource as communal property
However, as Anglos realized the salt’s location and sought to control the commodity, one Anglo political boss claimed salt land and monopolized salt sale and distribution, thus causing an insurrection.
A Mexican farmer killed one of the Anglo bosses, deemed just by the protesters.
The Texas Rangers retaliated against the community, killing more than ten people in the process.

Justice In Texas: Texas Rangers

The Texas Rangers were known for “shooting first” and “asking questions later.” Mexican Americans were frequently killed in “the course of being captured.” Rarely were these cases investigated.

Committees of Vigilance

Lynching & terror campaigns were condoned:
Vigilante justice did not acknowledge killing of Native Americans as a crime; it seems Mexican Americans were easily written off too.
Public whippings and branding were also common.

Fair Trials: Not for Mexicans
When, in 1876, a Mexican murdered an Anglo rancher, his friends sought justice by murdering local Mexicans.
Nearly forty were killed in this incident.

No Double Gender Standard Here…

Mexican Americans were denied proper justice: The Case Against Juanita, 1851
She was accused of stabbing to death an Anglo man who broke into her home in the middle of the night, where children were present.
Rather than acknowledge her right to self-defense, she was found guilty of murder.
Her jurors: the Anglo miner’s friends.
Her sentence: lynching
She was the first and only woman in California to ever be executed.

Surrender of Land, Economic Oppression

Many Mexican American families were reduced to the debt-peonage labor system.
Debt-peonage is the equivalent of institutionalized sharecropping or slavery. Labor is provided (service in fields or by care of livestock) in exchange for shelter and share of crop.
The landowner may also own a store where laborers can access tools, additional food items, or clothing on credit. As long as a debt remains on the books, the laborer is tied to the landowner.

Border Culture

Source: Américo Paredes
Argument: As two cultures confronted each other along the border, violence prevailed, group identity was challenged and reshaped, and a new border folklore emerged among Mexicans seeking to retain a space for their unique experience.

Vaquero Image & “Cowboy” Culture

Bottom: Luis Jimenez’ “Vaquero” in Moody Park, Houston

Right: Pres. Teddy Roosevelt

Paredes argues

Anglos viewed the

vaquero as super-masculine, taming the wild and controlling nature. Anglos assumed this identity, modifying it with the Stetson hat and six-shooter.

Border Culture

Paredes also makes clear that the border was part of the U.S. imagination, but not a barrier preventing intermingling or cultural interaction.
Families existed on either side of the border. Relatives travelled over the border to visit and exchange resources.
Explains that “folk attitudes” favoring the bandit and smuggler developed in reaction to the rigid hostility associated with border regulations and “los rinches.”

Border Culture: Folk Hero

The Bandido is a popular outlaw character in western culture, i.e. Zorro.
The character reinforces popular stereotypes without investigating root causes of protests.
“Social Bandit” is a lawbreaker who has popular support, usually because his crime is viewed by society as a reaction to structural oppression.
Joaquin Murieta
Ranch was raided by Anglo vigilantes, crops were destroyed, wife was raped.
He began retaliating by robbing stagecoaches and banks

His name and character became synonymous with “Robin Hood”

Border Culture: Folk Hero

Legendary bandits become part of the popular culture:
The corrido, story set to music, immortalized banditry

At the same time, Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show tended to reinforce stereotypes of the Indian and Mexican American population.

Border Culture: Folk Hero

Many historical figures have been immortalized by border corridos, but Paredes does argue there are limitations.
Drug traffickers have not captured popular favor
Also notes that corridos have been written favoring Mexican Americans and Anglos alike.
“A Zaragosa” honors the efforts of U.S. born Ignacio Zaragosa in the battle against the French in Mexico (Cinco de Mayo).
“A Grant” honors President/General Grant for victorious work against the Confederacy.

Helen Hunt Jackson, Ramona

H.H. Jackson was a popular writer, who questioned the ethics of U.S. policy in relationship to people of the west.
A Century of Dishonor —Native American treatment
Ramona –denounced forced Americanization of Mexican Americans and Native Americans
She tried to soften the west, and humanize the “foreign.”
Her portrayal of the region was so sweet and rich that it actually fueled Anglo settlement and resulted in the development of the “Spanish fantasy heritage.”
Settlers want the “rancho” life, without the “brown” people.

Source: David J. Weber, Foreigners in Their Native Lands

Future Timing Note: This lecture took 3 hours, integrating a five minute discussion of The Ballad of Gregorio Cortez and a discussion of the Pablo Mares reading (15 minutes).

Limitations of this repatriation effort: not well-funded or organized. Information about how to file for new land grants not readily accessible.

Supreme Court noted that the 14th Amendment did not clearly state that Mexican Americans were intended to have citizenship rights.

Source for California comparison: Acuna, p. 113

Example on next slide of cordial relations?

Mintz: People v. de la Guerra p.105

Gonzales, 101 lists specific stats about Mesilla Valley and intermarriage.

Men stayed in power, rotating governor seat by lobbying GOP and using Hispano elites

Research for future material using Lamar’s The Far Southwest (already started reading some)

Clip of film: Seeks work—denied; looks at development that doesn’t benefit him; looks at property—kicks water and has an idea; becomes a social bandit.

Research Thomas B. Catron and the Santa Fe Ring, Foreigners, p. 157.

Develop later: Range Wars, Lincoln County wars, Cortina War, Salt War

His name and character became synonymous with “Robin Hood”