RETURNING MATERIALS: MSU Wace in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this ChECkOUt from “ your record. FINES will] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. THE PORFIRIAN HACENDADO IN SALTILLO: AN ENTREPRENEURIAL ELITE BY William Earl McNellie A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1981 ABSTRACT THE PORFIRIAN HACENDADO IN SALTILLO: AN ENTREPRENEURIAL ELITE BY William Earl McNellie In the period after the Revolution, historians were ex— tremely critical of the hacienda system--particularly as it functioned during the Porfiriato--which had dominated Mexi- co's rural landscape for more than three centuries. Haciendas were described as inefficient, paternalistic, and exploitative. Hacendados fared little better. At best, they were portrayed as absentee landowners who were more concerned with status than production. At worst, they were landgrabbing feudalistic lords, forcing their peons to toil from dawn to dusk under conditions that amounted to virtual slavery. This dissertation, based almost entirely on records housed in local archives, focuses on haciendas and hacenda- dos in Saltillo, Coahuila. The general thesis running throughout this work is that the Porfirian hacienda did not correspond to the stereotypes developed by earlier histo- rians and critics of Mexico's pre-Revolutionary landholding structure. Haciendas in Saltillo were productive units which for their time effectively utilized, within the William Earl McNellie constraints imposed by geography and climate, the land they encompassed. Saltillo's hacendados were successful due to their de- termination not to become totally dependent upon landed hold- ings. Agricultural holdings were supplemented by massive in- vestments in mining, banking, commerce, and industry. Social status appears not to have been necessarily related to land tenure. Hacendados were far more than mere landowners. They were entrepreneurs who supplied both the capital and the ex- pertise to initiate the transformation of Saltillo from a traditional, agricultural society to a modern, urban-industri- al society. This study is divided into six chapters--each an essay unto itself but linked by a common thread--which deal with various aspects of rural life in Saltillo during the Diaz era. Chapter I provides historical and geographical frame- works while Chapter II discusses hacienda profitability and stresses the importance of water in an arid region like Saltillo. Chapter III describes landholding patterns in the municipio while the fourth chapter dissects the hacendados' key role in the region's economic deveIOpment. Chapter V offers brief portraits of several major hacendados which serves to underline the role of the hacendado as entrepreneur. The last chapter examines the nature of hacienda labor in Saltillo and highlights hacendado—peon accommodation. C) Copyright by WILLIAM EARL MCNELLIE 1981 To James Michael, who never had a chance to read it iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply indebted to a number of individuals who helped make this study possible. David C. Bailey aroused my interest in Saltillo and spent countless hours helping me refine my thinking and writing. Much of what is good in this dissertation is the result of his probing questions and criticism. Thomas Benjamin and Stan Langston, fellow researchers in nineteenth century Mexico, merit special thanks for their willingness to listen to my ideas on Por- firian Coahuila. Other historians who gave of their time and expertise over the past several years include Leslie B. Rout, Paul Varg, Fred Williams, William Beezley, Harris G. Warren, and Edward Elsasser. Ildefonso Davila guided me to important collections in the Archivo del Municipio de Saltillo and assisted be- yond measure in making my research profitable and pleasant. At the Archivo Poder Legislativo de Coahuila Maria Teresa Cassigales was extremely helpful. The staffs at the Archivo de Justica, Archivo General del Estado de Coahuila, and es- pecially Emilio at the Registro de PrOpiedades also deserve thanks. iv I acknowledge the assistance of the Institute of Inter- national Education which-—through a Fulbright-Hays research grant--provided the financial support which made this re- search possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter I COAHUILA AND THE CENTRAL DISTRICT: A BRIEF HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHIC SKETCH . . . . 11 II HACIENDAS IN SALTILLO: PRODUCTION, PROFITABILITY, WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 III LANDHOLDING PATTERNS IN SALTILLO, 1880-1910: A QUESTION OF BALANCE . . . . . . 66 IV THE HACENDADO AS ENTREPRENEUR . . . . . . . . 97 V FIVE HACENDADOS: A PROFILE . . . . . . . . . 142 VI HACIENDA LABOR: WAGES, DEBT PEONAGE, MOBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 EPILOGUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 NOTES ON SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 vi Table 10 11 12 13 14 15 LIST OF TABLES Haciendas and Ranchos Taxed for Usage of Municipio Water, 1895 . . . . . . . Land Usage on Saltillo's Largest Haciendas, 1904 . . . . . . . . . . . . Yields Per Hectare, Saltillo, 1905-1910 Yields Per Hectare, Saltillo, 1904 . Price/Harvest Value Comparisons, Large Haciendas, Saltillo, 1904 . . . . . . . Major Land Transactions, Saltillo, 1880-1910 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O Land Sales, 1908 . . . . . . . . . . . Land Sales of 3,500 or More Pesos, 1880-1889 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Sales of 3,500 or More Pesos, 1890-1899 0 g o o o o o g o o o o o a 0 Land Sales of 3,500 or More Pesos, 1900-1810 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Largest Hacendados in Saltillo, 1880-1910 c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Assessed Value of Old Haciendas and Largest Haciendas, Saltillo, 1899 . . . . . . . Saltillo's Major Manufacturing Concerns, 1905 I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I Saltillo's Largest Commercial Concerns, 1905 O O O O . O C C O Q C O O O O O O Investments of Saltillo's Landowners, 1905—1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 37 44 49 49 53 70 73 76 77 78 80 88 105 106 120 Table Page 16 Investments of Largest Landowners, Saltillo, 1905-1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 17 Investments of Most Productive Landowners, Saltillo, 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 18 Number of Businesses (Commercial/Mercantile) in Saltillo and Yearly Profits, 1905 . . . . . 129 19 Capital Invested in Saltillo's Commercial/ Mercantile Concerns, 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . 130 20 Investments Made by Five Hacendados, 1870-1879 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 21 Investments Made by Five Hacendados, 1880-1889 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 169 22 Investments Made by Five Hacendados, 1890-1899 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 23 Investments Made by Five Hacendados, 1900-1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 24 Total Investments Five Hacendados, 1880-1910 0 o o o 0 Q o o o o o o o o o o o o o 172 25 Types of Industries, Saltillo, 1896 . . . . . . 193 26 Daily Wages for Urban Laborers, 1896 . . . . . 196 27 Daily Salaries of Rural Laborers in Saltillo, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 28 Laborer Indebtedness, Saltillo, 1911 . . . . . 202 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Map of Coahuila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2 Map of Central District . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3 Map of Area East of Saltillo . . . . . . . . . 35 4 Map of the Largest Haciendas and Ranchos in Saltillo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5 Landholdings of Five Hacendados, 1880-1889 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 6 Landholdings of Five Hacendados, 1890-1899 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 7 Landholdings of Five Hacendados, 1900-1909 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 188 ix INTRODUCTI ON From the end of the sixteenth century until the early decades of the twentieth century, the hacienda dominated much of Mexico's rural landscape. With the possible excep- tion of the Catholic Church, no institution had a more telling impact on Mexico's social and economic development. The hacienda was not only the basic unit of Mexico's agri- cultural production, but the relationship between peon and patron shaped as well as mirrored class relationships in society at large. Truly, it can be argued that to know Mexico's history one must first know the hacienda. With the coming of the Revolution of 1910, the haci- enda's protracted reign over Mexico's rural sector was doomed. Revolutionary governments moved, slowly at first but with ever-increasing determination, to dismantle the nation's large landed estates. The rush to dissolve the hacienda system reached its apogee during the presidency of Lazaro Cardenas (1934-1940), when slightly more than seventeen million hectares were expropriated.l By 1960, over fifty-two million hectares, 26.8 percent of Mexico's surface, had been distributed to the nation's landless masses. Opposition to the hacienda system in Mexico, as well as all of Latin America, stemmed from a fundamental convic- tion that the hacienda's continued existence was detri- 3 Along with the mental to the nation's development. church and the army, the hacienda formed what philosopher- journalist Jesus Silva Herzog called Mexico's "triunvirato diab61ico," a triumvirate whose power must be destroyed if the nation was to shake off the shackles of backwardness and Oppression.4 The hacienda was condemned not only for its supposedly paternalistic and exploitative treatment of agricultural workers, but also because the institution was deemed economically inefficient and therefore an inhibi— tion on related enterprises such as commerce and manufac- turing. Prior to the 1970's, scholars who studied Mexico's hacienda system generally echoed the complaints of the re- formers. Indeed, it was often difficult to separate the revolutionaries from the historians.5 Whether writing about the colonial hacienda, haciendas in the early na- tional period, or the Porfirian hacienda, historians and social scientists labeled the hacienda unproductive, feu- dalistic, and an obstacle to national growth and develop- ment. Most commonly, they portrayed it as an institution of social control rather than a business venture. However, in recent years, perhaps due to the recog- nition of the essential failure of Mexican governments since the presidency of Venustiano Carranza (1917—1920) to end reliance on food imports or substantially improve the rural sector's standard of living, historians have begun to examine and analyze the intricacies of the hacienda system. The conclusions of this new wave of research, al- though far from unanimous, have revealed a far more complex and diverse agrarian structure than that portrayed by ear— lier researchers.6 My research in the municipio (municipality) of Saltillo in the northern state of Coahuila has provided an additional challenge to traditional interpretations of Mexico's hacendado class. Haciendas in southeastern Coahuila were neither feudalistic, antiquarian, nor unprof- itable. They were key elements in Mexico's drive toward modernization during the period from 1876 to 1910. More- over, I have attempted to place the hacienda and the hacendado in a new perspective. Viewed against the back- ground of the rapid economic development which character- ized northern Mexico during the Porfiriato, hacendados were at the forefront of Mexico's attempted transformation from a traditional, rural society to a modern, industrial- ized, urban one. By focusing on Saltillo's landowners rather than the day-to-day operations of their landed holdings, I have modified the characterizations of the hacendado and ran- chero which have dominated historical literature. That hacendados owned haciendas and rancheros owned ranchos is true. They were, however, not merely landowners. They were also miners, merchants, bankers, and industrialists. In short, they were men of affairs who were, in large part, responsible for the economic advances Saltillo witnessed during the Porfiriato. Since the hacienda, together with its smaller counter- part, the rancho, are at the center of this study, it is essential to define these terms—~no easy task, to be sure. Scholars and other observers have employed various criteria in their efforts to describe these elemental units of Mex- ico's rural sector. For example, turn—of-the-century American historian Hubert H. Bancroft cited a figure of 22,140 acres (8,959 hectares) as equalling a hacienda.7 Ben Lemert, a geographer, believed that a hacienda was a country estate of more than 2,500 acres.8 AnthrOpologist Eric Wolf believes that the typical Mexican hacienda cov- ered about 3,000 hectares (7,143 acres).9 lOther writers have variously placed a hacienda's minimum acreage at be- tween 2,000 to 10,000 hectares.10 One nineteenth century American visitor to Saltillo, Fanny Gooch, described a ha- cienda as merely a large plantation.ll More sophisticated definitions have accorded less at- tention to acreage and have sought to define the hacienda in terms of organization and purpose. Scholars employing this criterion generally have seen the hacienda as possessing a number of easily recognizable characteristics, chief among them being low capitalization, use of primitive methods of cultivation, low levels of production, self- sufficiency, and the utilization of dependent labor (debt peonage). 12 To compound the confusion, several writers have uti- lized the concept of grandes haciendas (great haciendas).l3 Grandes haciendas were those rural estates which covered many thousands, even millions of hectares. The Sanchez Navarro empire in central and southern Coahuila and the holdings of the Terrazas family in Chihuahua are two ex- 14 amples usually cited. Although grandes haciendas were considered the prototype which other hacendados supposedly patterned themselves after, they were few in number throughout Mexico. Ranchos in historical literature have received rela- tively little attention. Eric Wolf (1969) admitted that the term does not possess a standardized meaning, while one modern Mexican historian, Moisés Gonzalez Navarro, conceded that the differences between a rancho and a ha- cienda were unclear.15 Gonzalez Navarro suggested, and rightly so, that local distinctions between haciendas and 16 As a general rule, however, ranchos must be considered. historians describe the rancho as a middle—class institu— tion, smaller in size than a hacienda, and somewhat more intensively operated than its larger counterpart.l7 Often, the rancho is pictured as a family-operated enter- prise.18 The applicability of any one of the above definitions to the state of affairs in Saltillo is virtually nil. This is especially true as regards the minimum acreage of a hacienda. For example, the Hacienda Encarnaci6n de Guzman encompassed over 70,000 hectares while the Hacienda Derramadero, easily one of the most valuable properties in the state, covered slightly less than 10,000 hectares. On the other hand, one 40,000~hectare spread, San Juan de 19 Santa Fe de Retiro, was often referred to as a rancho. los Linderos was labeled a rancho in public documents, but it covered almost as much area (8,500 hectares) as the Hacienda Derramadero and far more than the fifteen hectares comprising the Rancho Vega. Several of the municipio's most important and valuable properties referred to in pub- lic documents as haciendas, were owned, not by an individ- ual, but by as many as thirty different persons. Ob- viously, they were haciendas in name only.20 In essence, in Coahuila's Central District, the re- gion studied in this dissertation, the terms rancho and hacienda were interchangeable. A piece of land was called a hacienda or a rancho depending on the inclination of its owner or simply by local custom. It is sufficient to say that a hacienda was an extremely complicated entity, and definitions which consider only size or certain aspects of organizational structure do not accurately express its complexity; rather, they obscure the essence and function of the hacienda in Mexican society. In this study, the accepted local term for a partic- ular piece of property will be employed. The use of such terms as finca or finca rustica (rural prOperty), predio rustico (farmstead), and egtangia (ranch), all commonly utilized in Porfirian Saltillo, will, for purposes of clarity, be kept to a minimum. When the term hacienda or rancho is used, it refers to a rural holding used for raising crops and/or grazing livestock. Reflecting the absence of precise definitions, I have utilized impres- sionistic modifiers such as "large" and "small." To fa- cilitate understanding, an indication of a particular ha- cienda or rancho's acreage will often be placed in the text.21 In any event, if definitions of haciendas are confus- ing and at times contradictory, the position of the ha- cendado in Saltillo was not. He was indisputably at the center of the municipio's economic life. 1Charles C. Cumberland, Mexico: The Strugglg_for Modernity (New York, 1968), p. 299. 2James W. Wilkie, The Mexican Revolution: Federal Expenditure andHSocial Change Since 19I0—TBerkeley, 1967), p. 189. 3Early critics of Porfirian Mexico' 5 landholding pat- terns include Wistano Luis Orozco, Legislacion y Jurispru- dencia sobre Terrenos Bald1os (Mexico, 1895), and Andres Molina Enfiquez, Los Grandes Problemas Nacionales (Mexico, 1978). 4Jesfis Silva Herzog, "La Concentraci6n Agraria En Mexico," Cuadernos Americanos 62, (March—April, 1952), P. 190. 5See David C. Bailey, "Revisionism and the Recent Historiography of the Mexican Revolution," Hispanic Ameri- can Historical Review (hereafter HAHR) 58, no. I (February, 1978i) pp. 62- 79. 6William B. Taylor, Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca (Stanford, 1972); Jan Bazant, Cinco HaEiendas Mexi- canas: Tres Siglos de Vida Rural en San Luis Pot051 (1600- I9I0) (Mexico,“1975i; Charles H. Harris, A Mexican Family Empire: The Latifundio of the Sanchez Navarro FamiI , I765+1867 (Austin, 1975); and DaVidwc. Brading, Haciendas and Ranchos in the Mexican_§ajio; Leon, 1700-1860 (New YorET I978). 7Bancroft, History of the North Mexican States and Texas: 1801- 1889 (27voIs.; San Francisco, 1889), II, p. 65. 8Ben F. and Rose V. Lemert, "An Hacienda in Mexico," The Journal of Geography, 35, no. 9 (December, 1936), p. 343. 9Wolf, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York, 1969), PP- 19-20. 10See, for example, Jesfis Silva Herzog "Concentracidn Agraria," p. 186 and Raymond Wilkie, San Miguel: A Mexican Collective Ejido (Stanford, 1971), pp. 10—12. 11C. Harvey Gardiner, ed., Fanny Chambers Gooch: Face to Face with the Mexicans (Carbondale, 1966i. P. 230. Goocfi'beIieved that a hacienda was devoted only to raising cattle. lZSee, for instance, Nathan L. Whetten, Rural Mexico (Chicago, 1948), pp. 95—100; Eric Wolf and Sidney Mintz, "Haciendas and Plantations in Middle America and the Antilles," Social and Economic Studies 6, no. 3 (1957), pp. 380-411; Stanley J. and Barbara H. Stein, The Colonial Heritage of Latin America: Essays on Economic Dependénce in Perspective (New York, 1970): pp. 36-39, 139-144. Other studies in this same vein include Eyler N. Simpson, The Ejido—Mexico's Way Out (Raleigh, 1937); George McBride, Land Systems of Mexico (New York, 1923); Ernest Gruening, Mexico and Its Heritage (New York, 1928); and Frank Tannenbaum, The Mexican Agrarian Revolution (New York, 1929). 13See Armando Gonzalez Santos, La Agricultura: Estructura y utilizacién de los recursos (Mexico, 1957); Enfique Semo, ed., Siete ensayps soEYEFIa hacienda mexi- cana, 1780-1880 (México, 1977). 14The rise of the Sanchez Navarros has been analyzed in great detail by Charles Harris in The Sanchez Navarros: a Socio-economic Study of a Coahuilan Latifundio, 1846- 1853 (Chicago, 1964) and the far more expansive A Mexican Fam1l Empire. The Terrazas' family in Chihuahua—IacKs a biograpHer of the stature of Harris, yet a number of in- teresting studies on Chihuahua have some bearing on the Terrazas empire. Among the more significant are Mark Wasserman, "Oligarqufa e intereses extranjeros en Chihuahua durante e1 porfiriato," Historia Mexicana 22, no.3 (January-March, 1973), pp. 279-3I9, and Robert Sandels, "Silvestre Terrazas and the Old Regime in Chihuahua," The Americas 28, no. 2 (October, 1971), pp. 191-205. 15Wolf, Peasant Wars, p. 19; Moisés Gonzalez Navarro, "Tenencia de la Tierra y Poblacion Agricola: 1877-1960," Historia Mexicana 19, no. 1 (July-September, 1969), PP. 62:66. 16Gonzalez Navarro, "Tenencia," p. 64. 10 17See especially George M. McBride, Land Systems, pp. 60-100; Luiz Gonzalez, San José de Gracia: Mexican Village in Transition (Austin, 1974)7'pp. 31-54. 18Frans J. Schryer, "A Ranchero Economy in Northwest- ern Hidalgo, 1880—1920," HAHR 59, no. 3 (August, 1979), pp. 418-443, offers an excellent discussion of ranchos in Hidalgo during the Porfiriato; the author also deals with the problem of defining ranchos. 19Terminology used in local documents to describe rural prOperties lacks consistency. San Juan de Retiro, for example, was sometimes labeled a hacienda and some- times a rancho. 20There were seven such haciendas, usually referred to as antigua (old) haciendas. At one time they were un- doubtedly owned by individuals. By 1876, although still called haciendas, single ownership had been replaced by multiple ownership. 21Labor, the only additional term referring to units of rural property utilized in this dissertation, was usu- ally a strip (girén) of land encompassing between ten and seventy hectares. Labores were primarily used to culti- vate crops and they were often independently owned. Con- fusion arises because the term was also utilized to des- cribe a cultivated area on a hacienda or rancho. Labor was often used to identify a particular type of hacienda or rancho. For instance, a hacienda de labor was a haci- enda devoted to growing crops. CHAPTER I COAHUILA AND THE CENTRAL DISTRICT: A BRIEF HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Situated almost directly south of the Rio Grande's great convex curve, Coahuila lies at the heart of Mexico's northern frontier. Bound by Nuevo Le6n on the east, Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi on the south, Durango and Chihuahua on the west, and Texas on the north, Coahuila is modern Mexico's third largest state, comprising 7.7 per— cent (151,571 square kilometers) of the nation's landmass. Only the states of Sonora and Chihuahua are larger. Coahuila's topography is a mixture of rugged mountains and broken plains. The main mountain chain, an extension of the Rocky Mountain—Sierra Madre Oriental axis, runs in a northwest-southeast direction, from the Rio Grande, east of the town of Boquillas, to the southeastern corner of the state.1 Elevations are highest in the southern sec- tion of the cordillera, where several peaks reach heights of more than 10,000 feet above sea level.2 To the west of this range, which is the state's water— shed, exists a highland plain, sloping gradually from east to west. This plain, the llanauras boreales, encompasses 11 12 the bulk of the state's surface area. It is broken by countless buttes, low hills, and several minor mountain ranges. These ranges, discontinuous in nature, are gen- erally less than 6,000 feet in altitude and contribute greatly to the jagged topoqraphy of the state's western and central regions. At the state's far western boundary with Chihuahua lies the Bolsén de Mapimf, a true desert that is virtually uninhabitable. The area to the northeast of Coahuila's watershed is part of the Coastal Plain of the Gulf of Mexico. 810p- ing from west to east, these plains, the llanuras bravo, cover a much smaller area than their more rugged western counterparts. Elevations on the Plains of the Bravo vary from 700 to 1,800 feet above sea level. The mountain ranges, buttes, and hills common in the west are relatively rare in this region, and as a result the region lacks the rough topography of western and central Coahuila. Coahuila's climate is arid. Throughout the state precipitation is low and variable, evaporation rates are high, vegetation is sparse, and soil levels are shallow, often alkaline and of poor quality.3 To the west of the mountain chain that divides the state, yearly rainfall is often less than ten inches. Rainfall east of the water— shed is more abundant, with the extreme southeastern corn- er of Coahuila, near the municipio of Arteaga, receiving the heaviest rainfall in the state. 13 As might be expected, given low levels of rainfall, rivers and streams in the state are widely spaced and in- termittent in flow. The Rio Grande, on the state's north- ern border, and the Rio Nazas in the southwest, are Coahuila's most notable waterways. Neither is navigable. More typical are the countless streams which flow in name- less arroyos during the summer months when rainfall is heaviest but at other times of the year remain dry. Num- erous lagunas (lagoons) spring into existence in the west- ern portion of the state during the warmer months, but most are shallow and evaporate quickly. No natural lakes exist in the state, although several man-made lakes can now be found in the northeastern section. The focus of this study, the municipio of Saltillo, covers slightly more than 6,000 square kilometers. Lo- cated in the southeastern corner of the state, it is the largest of the four municipios (Arteaga, Ramos Arizpe, General Cepeda, and Saltillo) comprising the Distrito del Centro (Central District).4 The topography and climate of this region are a microcosm of the state's overall cli- mate and topography.5 Saltillo encompasses more than one-third of the Cen- tral District's total area (17,000 square kilometers). The northeastern corner of the municipio, situated just west of the Rocky Mountain-Sierra Madre Oriental axis, is extremely mountainous. Indeed, the city of Saltillo, 14 social, economic, and political center of the District and the state capital since 1836, rests in a large elongated mountain valley, 1,600 meters above sea level. The major- ity of the municipio, fanning out to the west and south of the city, rests on the eastern edge of the highland plateau which stretches south toward Mexico City. Moving west from the city, the transition from mountain to plain occurs rapidly. In fifty kilometers, the average height above sea level drops more than 400 meters. South of Saltillo the transition from mountain range to highland plain is less dramatic. Arteaga, eastern-most municipio in the Central Dis- trict, covers 1,818 square kilometers, and is the Dis- trict's smallest municipio. It is the most mountainous region in the state. Unlike its neighbor to the west, Saltillo, it lies totally within the Sierra Madre Oriental axis. Peaks in the eastern portion of the municipio, often heavily wooded, are well over 10,000 feet above sea level. The northern and western portions of the Central Dis- trict are composed of the municipios of General Cepeda (3,676 square kilometers) and Ramos Arizpe (5,253 square kilometers). The vast majority of these two municipios are part of the plateau which dominates the topography of central Coahuila. Several small mountain ranges, or Sierras, running east to west, notably the Sierra del Or- gano and the Sierra de la Guitarra, are found south of the 15 city of General Cepeda. Mountains near Ramos Arizpe are considerably lower than the 10,000 foot giants found in Arteaga. The Central District, like the state as a whole, is arid. There are no lakes or lagunas, and rivers or streams that maintain a constant flow on a year-round basis are unknown. The region around Saltillo receives an average of twelve inches of rain per year, and lesser amounts are recorded in the area west and south of the city. Arteaga, with its high mountains serving as a trap for moisture— 1aden air moving east from the Gulf of Mexico, receives the highest levels of rainfall in the Central District, often sixteen inches or more. Coahuila's arid climate and irregular topography, the absence of any large sedentary native populations, and per— haps more importantly, the region's dearth of precious minerals contributed to the slow pace of Spanish coloniza- tion. The first major expeditions to reach the vicinity of the Valley of Saltillo did not arrive until the late 1560's, forty years after Herman Cortés overthrew Aztec rule in the Valley of Mexico.6 Saltillo, the province's most prominent villa (town) during the colonial period, was not founded until 1575, and Monclova, the early capital of the province, was not permanently settled until 1689.7 Settlement was concentrated in the southeastern section of the state; the area within the triangle formed by Saltillo, 16 Monclova, and Parras, received the great bulk of Spanish settlers. Coahuila's first one hundred years of Spanish occupa— tion saw a never-ending round of attacks and raids by hos- tile nomadic Indians coupled with Spanish retaliation and attempts at pacification.8 The yllla of Saltillo suffered through three major Indian attacks in the decade following its foundation: 1580, 1586, and 1588. Monclova was nearly destroyed by hostile natives in 1721.9 Despite missionary attempts at Christianization and acculturation, Indian raids were a problem throughout the state until almost the 10 end of the nineteenth century. The last skirmish which threatened Saltillo took place in 1841, and is locally re- ferred to as "la indiada grande."ll A beneficial by—product of the desperation arising from Spanish-Indian hostility in the Central District was the relocation, in 1591, of several hundred Tlaxcalan In- dians in the area west of the yllla of Saltillo. The Tlaxcalans, staunch allies of the Spaniards against the Aztecs and fully acculturated by the end of the sixteenth century, were transferred from the city of Tlaxcala, fifty miles southeast of Mexico City, and were to be used as a buffer of sorts between Saltillo's Spanish residents and the region's hostile tribes.12 Given land and water by the local Spanish authorities, the Tlaxcalans, generally recognized as excellent farmers and horticulturists, 17 formed an important branch of the District's agricultural economy. The Tlaxcalan settlement, San Esteban de la Nueva Tlaxcala, was not officially incorporated into the city of Saltillo until 1834.13 In addition to a hunger for adventure and glory, Spanish settlers were apparently attracted to Coahuila for economic reasons. The region's chief function in the early stages of Spanish rule in Mexico was as a base of supply for mining centers in Zacatecas, Durango, and San 14 Luis Potosi. Wheat, corn, fruit, hides, livestock, and lumber were among the region's most important products.15 To a lesser extent, Saltillo functioned as a jumping-off spot for further expeditions into the southern United States and northwestern Mexico. Late in the colonial period, Coahuila, and especially Saltillo, assumed an influential role in the north's eco- nomic life aside from agricultural prominence.l6 Miguel Ramos Arizpe, representative of the Provincias_InEarnas (la Oriente (Eastern Internal Provinces, which included Coahuila) at the Spanish Cortes in Cadiz (1811) claimed, in a celebrated report, that Saltillo was the trading center for the viceroy's Internal Provinces. In addition to praising Coahuila's agricultural production, Ramos Arizpe described in glowing terms the potential future for 17 Indeed, the yearly manufacturing interests in Saltillo. fairs held near the city attracted merchants from great distances.18 18 Despite the admitted commercial and mercantile im- portance of Saltillo, the District and the Province throughout the colonial period and much of the early nine- teenth century remained sparsely settled and underdevelop- 19 ed. For example, Saltillo, largest villa in the state, had a population of only 8,000 souls as late as the mid- 1870's.20 The factors which had inhibited early settle- ment--1ack of water, lack of mineral wealth, and hostile Indians--continued to inhibit the region's advance. Con- sequently, Coahuila retained its frontier character and remained a backwater of national development. After Mexican Independence, the state's woes were compounded by a series of military and political reverses. In 1836, Coahuila was shorn of a vast amount of territory by the successful revolution and eventual independence of Texas.21 Later, in 1846 and in 1864, foreign forces, the Americans and the French respectively, invaded and occupied the state. The Central District felt the repercussions of Coahuila's military ups and downs to a degree unmatched by any other region in the state. The invading French and American armies occupied the city of Saltillo for lengthy intervals. American forces, for example, remained for nearly a year and fought a major engagement with the Mexican army several miles south of the city.22 19 The nadir of Coahuila's political existence came in the late 1850's when the state was absorbed by neighboring Nuevo Ledn. For seven long years, Coahuila remained polit- ically extinct. Then, in 1864, President Benito Juarez rewarded Coahuila for its support against the French in- vaders and their puppet emperor, Maximilian, by severing the state's union with her eastern oppressor.23 It was not until after 1876 that both the Central Dis- trict and the state began to undergo a dramatic economic expansion. The paz porfiriana (Porfirian peace) coupled with progressive economic legislation and the coming of the railroad were three significant factors in altering the region's image as a backwater. By 1900, Coahuila was considered one of the premier states of the Mexican union and Saltillo was gaining a well deserved reputation as a busy industrial center.24 The drab, dusty yllla described by Gilbert Haven, an American visitor to Mexico in the early 1870's, was gone forever.2 The rapid economic development of Coahuila and the Central District in the period from 1876 to the outbreak of the Revolution in 1910 forms the background of my analysis of the hacendado class in Saltillo. Combining a willingness to expand and diversify with Coahuila's favorable economic climate, hacendados in the municipio of Saltillo carved out a dominant role for themselves in the region's growth. In this area of Mexico, the hacendados fostered rather than hindered develOpment. 20 1See map of Coahuila at the end of the chapter. 2A number of works contain excellent descriptions of Coahuila's and Saltillo's geography. Material in this chapter is based on several of the more important ones: Rollin H. Baker, Mammals of Coahuila, Mexico (Lawrence, 1956); Gilberto Caballero, Geografia de Coahuila (Saltillo, 1976); Charles Harris, A Mexican Family Empire: The Lati- fundio of the Sanchez Navarros, 1765- 1867 (Austin, 1975); Eugenio del H030 and Malcolm D. McLean, eds., Diario Derrotero (1777- -l781) por Fray Juan Agustin de Morf1 {Mon- terrey, 1967i; and Frederick A. Ober, Trayels in Mexico and Life Among the Mexicans (Boston, 1887). 3This discussion of Coahuila' 3 climate is based on the works cited in the previous footnote as well as Pablo M. Cuellar Valdés, Historia de La Ciudad de Saltilla (Saltillo, 1975). ‘7 4See the map of the Central District at the end of this chapter. 5See also Miguel Alessio Robles, La Ciudad de Saltillo (Mexico, 1932), pp. 1-5. 6In 1566, Fray Pedro de Espinareda, a missionary, visited the southwestern corner of the present state of Coahuila. The first recorded expedition to reach what is now the municipio of Saltillo was headed by Francisco Cano in 1568, and in 1573 Don Luis Carvajal y de la Cueva entered the valley in which the villa of Saltillo was later founded. For more detailed information regarding early Spanish explorers in the Saltillo region see Pablo Valdes, Historia de Saltillo and Dr. J. de Jesus Davila Aguirre, Cffinica del Saltillo Antiguo de su Origen a 1910 (Saltillo, 1974). 7There is some controversy over the exact date of Saltillo's foundation. Historians who follow the version cited in Bachiller Pedro Fuentes' 1792 study, Historia de la Villa del Saltillo, use 1575 as the correct date. Others use 1577. For data on early Monclova and the prov- ince of Nueva Extremadura, see Harris, Mexican Family Em- pire, p. 4, and Ildefonso Villarello, Monclova (Saltillo, I957)! pp. l_20o 21 8Those interested in reviewing Coahuila' 5 long and varied history should begin with Vito Alessio Robles, Coahuila y Texas en la epoca colonial (México, 1938). Otfier works especially worthy of consideration include, in addition to those already mentioned, Vito Alessio Robles, Bibliggrafia de Coahuila: Hist6rica y_Geografica (Mexico, 1925); Ildefonso Villarello Velez, Historia de Coahuila (Saltillo, 1970); and Oscar Flores Tapia, Coahuila: La Reforma, La Intervenc15n_y El Imperio (Saltillo, 1966T. One of the best studies of C5ahu11a 8 pre- Spanish Indian populations is William B. Griffen, Culture Chaage and Shifting Populations in Central Northern Mexico (Tucson, 1969). Early Spanish- -Indian cofiflict in northern Mexico is discussed in Franciso R. Almada, ed., laforme da Hugo De O'Connor Sobre el Estado de laa Proyincias Internaa del—Norte 177I41776 (MExico, 1952) and Donald E. Worcester, ed., Instructions for Governing the Interior Provinces of New Spain, 1786 (Berkeley, I951). 9Harris, Mexican Family Empire, p. 4. 10Robert Weddle, San Juan Bautista: Gateway tq_Span- ish Texas (Austin, 196877 asserts that along the Rio Grande border, Indian raids were more of a problem to settlers than a lack of water. Saltillo's archives reveal numerous instances of complaints to the state government about In- dian attacks in the 1870's and 1880's. 11Literally "the great gang of Indians." See Valdes, Historia de Saltillo, p. 38. David B. Adams, "The Tlaxcalan ColSnies of Spanish Coahuila and Nuevo Leon: An Aspect of the Settlement of Northern Mexico," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 1971, offers the best discussion of Spanish-Indian relations in the vicinity of Saltillo. 12Charles Gibson, The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule (Stan- ford, 1964), pp. 10—200 passim. 13The only indepth study of the Tlaxcalan settlement in Saltillo is contained in Adams, "Tlaxcalan Colonies." See also Valdés, Historia de Saltlllo, pp. 22-28. 22 14This VieWpoint is documented in Barry Carr, "Las Peculiariades del Norte Mexicano, 1880-1927: Ensayo de Interpretaci6n," Historia Mexicana 22, no. 3 (January- March, 1973); Vito Alessio Robles, Basqaejos Histdricos (Mexico, 1938); Francois Chevalier, T'T'he North Mexican Hacienda: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries," in Archibald R. Lewis and Thomas F. McGann eds., The New World Looks at Its History: Proceedings of the Sagand Interna- tiBfial Congress of Historians of the United States and Meiico (Austin, 1963T7 and Neitie Lee Benson, ed., Report of Ramos Arizpe to the Spanish Cortes (Austin, 1950). 15Benson, Report of Ramos Arizpe, pp. 8-20. 16The north, in the context of this paper, encompasses the area north of the Tropic of Cancer including the pres- ent—day states of Sonora, Chihuahua, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, and part of Sinaloa. 7Benson, Report of Ramos Arizpe, p. 20 ff. 18A brief description of these fairs can be found in Harris, Mexican Family Empire, pp. 107-109. 19Leonidas Hamilton, Barder States of Mexico (San Francisco, 1881), p. 182. “ 20Hamilton, Border States, p. 182. 21Texas, once a part of Mexico, was governed by Spanish/Mexican authorities from Saltillo until the 1830's. 22Samuel Chamberlain, My_Confessiaa (New York, 1956), and Benjamin F. Scribner, Camp Life of a Volunteer: A Campaign in Mexico (Austin, I975), are two excelIent sources describing various aspects of the American occupa- tion of Saltillo. 23Final approval of Coahuila's separation from Nuevo Le6n by the national legislature was not secured until 1868. 24Percy Martin, Mexico of the Twentieth Century, (2 vols.; New York, 19073, II, p. 25. 23 25Gilbert Haven, Our Next Door Neighbor: _a Winter in Mexigg_(New York, 1875), p. 385. —_ ‘— '—' 24 Texas Rio Grande Chihuahua Boquillas Piedras Negras . Bolsdh de ’ Mapami .Sierra Mojada Monclova . I Nuevo Leon ’ 2 .Monterrey ' Torreon . Parras ,3 4. 1. Durango Zacatecas Key 1 - Saltillo 2 - Ramos Ariz e 3 - Arteaga P San Luis Poto~ 4 - Patos/General Cepeda FIGURE 1 MAP OF COAHUILA “+13 25 BUHmBmHQ Aflmezmu m0 m42 N mmDOHm n OHH spawn Tu. .r .1 ,, Hmhmcmw wofimu CHAPTER II HACIENDAS IN SALTILLO: PRODUCTION, PROFITABILITY, WATER The agricultural structure of the municipio of Saltillo during the Porfiriato was extremely varied and the role of the hacienda was at least as complex. Haciendas were nei- ther an overwhelmingly dominant force, as in the state of Morelos, nor the virtual nonentity described by Frans Schryer for the Sierra Alta district of northwest Hidalgo.l The distinctive feature of Saltillo's rural structure was balance: balance between haciendas and smaller landhold— ings, and balance between subsistence and market agricul- ture. Haciendas were important in the region's rural framework, but they did not—~indeed, given their lack of control over dependable sources of water for irrigation, could not—~lay undisputed claim to the dominant position. In most respects, agricultural production in Saltillo was not unlike that of other regions in north and north central Mexico.2 Corn, wheat, and beans combined with onions, beets, and other vegetables comprised the bulk of the municipio's crops. Alfalfa, barley, oats, and other cereal grains were harvested in smaller quantities than those registered for corn, wheat, and beans. A myriad of 26 27 orchards located in and around the city of Saltillo, par- ticularly in the old Pueblo de San Esteban, yielded nuts and fruits, especially apples and quinces, for local con- sumption as well as export.3 Fibrous plants such as guayule and ixtle4 were harvested throughout the municipio but did not approach the status of large—scale cash crOps as did henequen in Yucatan or sugarcane in Morelos.5 Al- though Coahuila was an important source of cotton for Mex- ico's emerging textile industry, its cultivation was limit- ed to the western portions of the state and did not extend into Saltillo. Agricultural staples such as rice, sugar, and coffee were imported from outside the municipio. Great divergence was evident in the production of corn, wheat, and beans within the municipio. Corn, accord- ing to various municipal documents, was harvested on near- 6 Sown in 1y every hacienda, rancho, and labor in the area. May and June, and harvested in November and December, it was Saltillo's principal crop, at times exceeding wheat 7 Corn har— production by as much as four hundred percent. vested in the municipio was shipped both to markets in the city of Saltillo and to the interior states of central Mexico. Wheat, typically sown in October and November and harvested the following spring, may not have been as exten- sively cultivated as corn, but it was certainly one of the most profitable crops for area agriculturalists. In 1902, 28 municipal officials indicated that returns from the sale of wheat were roughly three times the cost of production, while the return from the sale of corn was, again roughly, twice the production cost.8 In local markets wheat was frequently more expensive than corn. In 1893 and 1896, two years for which complete monthly price lists for agri- cultural products sold in Saltillo's markets are available, wheat never sold for less than corn, even when wheat sup- plies were abundant. For example, in the late summer and early fall of 1893, wheat cost three to four centavos per 9 pound, while corn was only two centavos. In 1896, a year when wheat was abundant, wheat still sold for more than corn.10 Whether wheat was harvested on the majority of area haciendas and ranchos is open to question. In 1899, as well as 1904, wheat was not reported to have been grown on all landed estates in the municipio but, from all in- dications, only on those pr0perties possessing dependable 11 By 1910, however, most sources of water for irrigation. haciendas and ranchos were reported to be cultivating wheat.12 Perhaps the gradual transformation of Saltillo's agricultural sector from subsistence orientation to one producing for national and international markets during the latter half of the Porfiriato provide Saltillo's landowners with an increased incentive to expand their cultivation of wheat. Indeed, land under cultivation in the municipio, 29 although a constantly fluctuating area, increased gradually between 1900 and 1911, from 35,000 to 51,000 hectares.13 Wheat harvested in the municipio, much like corn, was consumed in local markets in Saltillo, Arteaga, General Cepeda, and Ramos Arizpe. Wheat, often in the form of flour, was also exported to Mexico's interior states, the burgeoning industrial center of Monterrey, and the United States.14 In 1883, the United States' consular officer in Saltillo, John Wadsworth, reported that grain exports from the municipio went principally to San Antonio, Texas. Wadsworth went on to claim that the export of Mexican wheat to the United States was surprising, but that wheat grown in Saltillo had an "exquisite flavor" which presum- ably accounted for its great demand north of the border.15 Beans, third member of Mexico's triumverate of basic foodstuffs grown in large quantities in the municipio, were, from all indications, consumed only at the point of production or sold in the marketplaces of Saltillo. There is little indication that they were exported from the municipio, paralleling a situation common in other regions 16 Unlike the case of corn, beans, even by of the country. 1910, were not grown on more than fifty percent of the ha- ciendas and ranchos in the municipio. Perhaps the fact that neighboring Ramos Arizpe and Arteaga harvested large quantities of beans which were apparently marketed in Saltillo contributed to the relatively low production lev- els in Saltillo.l7 30 Rainfall and frosts were the crucial factors in sepa- rating good years from bad in Saltillo. Guillermo Purcell, an influential industrialist and hacendado in the state, succinctly analyzed the importance of water to area agri- l8 culturalists when he stated that no rain meant no crops. In 1910, the presidente municipal, Rafael Siller Valle, in a report to the governor's office, claimed that lack of rainfall coupled with killing frosts made agricultural production in the municipio's unirrigated lands quite risky. Siller Valle also indicated that it was rare to have two or three consecutive years of good harvests. A much more typ— ical ratio, according to the pgesidente municipal, was one 19 good year for two years of scarce havests. It is little wonder that news of rain or frosts was faithfully reported in the few newspapers published in Saltillo. Water and cultivated acreage went hand-in-hand since lack of water meant that potentially arable and fertile land was not placed into cultivation. In 1865, owners of the Hacienda Encarnacidn de Guzman reported that not all their land was planted because of "esterilidad aa aguas."20 Instead, their lands were dedicated to the raising of live- stock. In the same year, the renter of Rancho Trinidad suggested in a letter to the presidente municipal that lack of water contributed to the fact that three quarters of his land was uncultivated.21 31 Throughout the Porfiriato, Saltillo and the Central District as well as the entire state of Coahuila were plagued by periodic droughts which crippled agricultural production. Municipal and state congressional documents reveal drought conditions prevailed in the early 1880's as well as the late 1890's.22 But by far the worst drought spanned the years immediately preceeding the outbreak of the Revolution. From 1905 to 1910, landowners in Saltillo and the northern tier of Mexican states suffered one disas- trous harvest after another. In 1908, responding to in- quiries from the Federal government, owners of flour mills in Saltillo reported that grain harvests in the municipio that year would not be sufficient even to meet local de- mand.23 Clemente Cabello, a millowner and one of Saltillo's largest landowners, claimed in 1911 that "in the past five years only one [harvest] has been prosperous . . . the other four have been completely sterile. . . ."24 In short, agriculture was a risky business in Saltillo, and this perceived risk, which seemed more pronounced than the chances undertaken by hacendados in Yucatéh and Morelos who could produce cash crops for which there seemed to be an insatiable worldwide demand, played a significant role in the municipio's landholding patterns. Without depend- able sources of water for irrigation, and without the possi- bility of growing such commercially profitable crops as sugarcane, cotton, hemp, or coffee, land was not in great 32 demand. The drawbacks inherent in Saltillo's agricultural sector drove many individuals into safer investments in banking or industry. The importance of water in Saltillo cannot be overem- phasized. Water, or better said, a lack of it, determined not only how land was utilized, but the very nature of Saltillo's landholding patterns. To own large amounts of land in Coahuila meant, in reality, little without suffici- ent water for irrigation or to maintain livestock. Control of water brought with it not only high agricultural yields, but some escape from the problems caused by the region's arid climate. Water, not land, was the key element in Saltillo's agricultural structure. Somewhat surprisingly, the municipio's best irrigated land was not controlled or owned by hacendados. The bulk of the land in the municipio which possessed dependable sources of water for irrigation was centered in the triangular—shaped stretch of land between Saltillo, Arteaga, and Ramos Arizpe. Water in this region flows from a number of alga (literally, "eyes," artesian wells) which even today provide Saltillo's residents with much of their water.25 This was was the property of the municipio.26 Landowners holding rights to utilize this water paid taxes, computed monthly, to the municipio for its use.27 This land and water, among the most valuable properties in the municipio, was not controlled by area hacendados. Rather, 33 parcels in this relatively small portion of Saltillo were owned by smaller proprietors who worked them as a family unit, often with the assistance of one or two sharecrOppers. The control small landowners exercised over the muni- cipio's most dependable sources of water can be seen by examining landholding patterns in two old haciendas: Cerritos and Gonzalez. As early as 1865, ten years before Porfirio Diaz's rise to national eminence, the Hacienda Gonzalez, situated northeast of Saltillo (see map below), was owned and operated by thirty—nine separate individu— als.28 A typical proprietor held one lEBSE (usually less than ten hectares), and more importantly, corresponding water rights. The hacienda received monthly the use of thirty days of water and each resident was permitted to tap into the hacienda's water supply for periods of from four hours to as much as six days. Twelve to eighteen hours was the average.29 Ten years later, in 1875, municipal documents reveal that the proprietors of the land and water of the Hacienda Gonzalez still numbered more than thirty--thirty-seven in 30 fact. In 1896, the hacienda contained forty-five fincas 31 Finally, in 1904, Gonzalez was reported (rural estates). to have simply "several" (varios) owners.32 Moreover, al- though land registry records indicate a brisk action in land sales throughout the Porfiriato, especially in small landholdings such as those comprising the fincas in the 34 Gonzalez hacienda, there is no indication that any one in- dividual tried to acquire substantial amounts of land in Gonzalez or elsewhere. For example, between March 1900 and May 1901, a period of fourteen months, three separate holdings in Gonzalez changed hands. None of the three new landowners, José Le5n del Rio y Gonzalez, Jose Maria Divila, and Emilio Rodriguez, owned land in the hacienda prior to their new 33 In short, the Hacienda Gonzalez received acquisitions. approximately ten percent of the municipio's water and was, throughout the era of Diaz, owned by an ever-increasing number of small proprietors. The Hacienda de Cerritos, located south of the Hacien- da Gonzalez close to the eastern edge of Saltillo along the major highway between the city and Arteaga, had sev- eral important sources of water, principally the 912 aa agaa. Landholding patterns on the hacienda present another example of small proprietors obtaining and retaining land with reliable sources of water. Cerritos was, apparently, during the colonial and early national periods, a hacienda of at least 3,500 hectares, but by the beginning of the Porfiriato, the hacienda had been divided into thirty-two separate holdings. Each lot or holding encompassed no less than 114 hectares coupled with proprietary rights to twenty-four hours of water per month.34 35 Ramos Arizpe Arteaga Saltillo Cerritos Gonzalez - Ramones Torresillas - Valdez - San Juan Bautista - Rodriguez - Pefia (DQONU'IQUJNH I FIGURE 3 MAP OF AREA EAST OF SALTILLO 36 . . I . . Like the Hac1enda Gonzalez, Cerritos continued to be labeled in municipal documents a hacienda, despite the fact that it was not, in any common sense of the word, a hacien- da.35 More significantly, even fifteen years after the final determination of the hacienda's property boundaries, Cerritos' small proprietors had not lost their land to supposedly land-hungry hacendados. Transfers of property had taken place, but the overall number of holdings had not been reduced. No single individual attempted or at least succeeded in acquiring a majority of the plots in the ha- cienda when they came on the market. Municipal documents in 1904 and 1911 simply listed Cerritos as being owned by "varios" individuals.36 The control small proprietors managed to maintain over their holdings in the old haciendas of Cerritos and Gonzalez enabled them to dominate ownership of the municipio's well irrigated lands. Of the roughly 3,900 hectares reported as comprising the Hacienda Cerritos in 37 The 1904, 880, or twenty—three percent, were irrigated. owners of Cerritos therefore controlled sixteen percent of the total number of hectares in the municipio (5,500) which benefited from dependable sources of water for irrigation.38 A similar set of circumstances existed in numerous old haciendas near Saltillo. Of the ten haciendas and ranchos which in 1895 were listed as paying taxes for the use of municipal water, seven were owned by more than one 37 individual. (See Table 1.) In all, the seven haciendas, which were collectively owned by over 100 individuals, controlled nearly 2,000 irrigated hectares, or approximate- ly forty percent of the municipio's total amount of well irrigated acreage. The remaining three properties paying taxes for the use of municipio water were owned by single individuals: Antonio Narro, Miguel Cepeda, and the widow of Eugenio Barousse. Moreover, based on 1904 records, neither Buenavista nor Encantada had more than 100 irri- gated hectares.39 TABLE 1 HACIENDAS AND RANCHOS TAXED FOR USAGE OF MUNICIPIO WATER, 1895 Water Utilized Hacienda Owners (in days) Arispe Widow of Barousse 30 Buenavista Antonio Narro 30 Cerritos Varios 30 Encantada Miguel Cepeda 30 Gonzalez Varios 30 Rodriguez Varios 30 San Juan Bautista Varios 30 Pefia Varios 30 Torresillas y Ramones Varios 30 Valdez Varios 30 38 Most large haciendas and ranchos in Saltillo were relegated to the drier southern and western portions of the municipio (see map on following page). There, on holdings which were apparently dwarfed by haciendas in the neighbor- ing state of Chihuahua, the land's surface was covered with cacti and scrub brush and, more importantly, lacked reli- able sources of water. It is this area of Coahuila which Andres Molina Enriquez referred to as seco, arenoso, arido, 40 y triste. Why hacendados were not interested in control- ling the municipio's well irrigated properties is a ques- tion treated in the following chapter. Of greater signifi- cance for the purposes of this chapter is how the hacendado utilized the land at his disposal and to what degree he was able to gain ascendancy over the agricultural structure of Saltillo. Overall the hacienda's control of the region's agriculture was limited, due to a lack of dependable sources of water for irrigation. The small prOprietor was alive and well in Saltillo throughout the Porfiriato. CrOps cultivated on area haciendas followed the same pattern found on the region's smaller landholdings. Corn, wheat,and beans, along with barley and oats, were the pri- mary crops, and it appears that acreage planted in corn accounted for more than eighty percent of hacienda crop- land. For example, in 1904, Clemente Cabello's Hacienda Ventura produced 2,000 hectoliters of corn and minimal amounts of beans. No wheat or other cereal grains were 39 I 11 10 1. ‘» Saltillo. General Cepeda . v w San Juan de Retiro 1 - Buenavista 2 - Encantada 3 - Aguanueva 4 - Hedionda Grande 5 - Jagfiey de Ferniza San Juan de Vaqueria - Derramadero - Muchachos Rancho Nuevo - Chif16n — Sauceda 0‘ I Homooq I Hra FIGURE 4 MAP OF THE LARGEST HACIENDAS AND RANCHOS IN SALTILLO 40 harvested on Ventura. In the same year, corn harvested on the Hacienda Derramadero, located west of Saltillo near the boundary with the municipio of General Cepeda, dwarfed the hacienda's wheat production (11,000 hectoliters of corn compared to 130 hectoliters of wheat).41 As a result of a general lack of dependable sources of water on their holdings, owners of large estates in the western and southern sections of the municipio developed avenues other than raising cereal grains to ensure their livelihood. Guayule and ixtle, both of which are found growing wild over most of the municipio, were harvested for export to Europe and the United States, and were a source of profit to area hacendados. In 1904, Clemente Cabello sold to the Anglo-Mexicana Company Options to har- vest guayule on land he owned in Ramos Arizpe. The con- tract was to last for ten years, and in addition to an initial 12,000 peso payment, the company agreed to pay Cabello, monthly, fifteen pesos for the use of his roads 42 and pastures. Two years later, in 1906, Cabello signed a contract with a German and British backed firm, Adolfo Marc Sociedad, which permitted the company to harvest 43 In 1909, Damaso guayule on the Hacienda Ventura. Rodriguez's heirs sold all existing guayule on the so- called Hacienda San Carlos to a Mexican company for 27,500 pesos.44 San Carlos had cost Rodriguez, originally, just slightly more than 4,000 pesos.45 41 Other hacienda owners took advantage of the scrub brush and small trees which covered much of their land, particularly along the slopes of the sierras which criss— crossed their holdings, to raise money. In 1896, on Enrique Maas's Jagfiey de Ferniza and Hedionda Grande, 345,000 kilos of wood, worth 1,200 pesos, were cut to use as firewood in Saltillo. In the same year, on other ha- ciendas in the western and southern regions of the munici- pio, including Démaso Rodriguez's Derramadero, nearly 3,000,000 kilos of wood, worth slightly over 17,000 pesos, were cut for firewood, for conversion into charcoal, and for construction.46 Despite the importance of guayule, ixtle, and wood in the overall scope of hacienda operations, most hacienda owners in the arid and sparsely settled sectors of Saltillo turned more often to stock raising as a major source of income. Goats and sheep (ganado menor) and cattle and horses (ganado maygr) were found in considerable numbers on large landholdings. Goats, due to their adaptability to the climate and their multitude of uses, were the most numerous type of livestock held by Saltillo's landowners. Most livestock was of native origin, the importation of Specialized breeds from EurOpe or the United States being relatively uncommon. 42 Stock raising frequently rivaled the production of cereal grains as the primary factor in Saltillo's economic structure. For example, the market value of the meat from animals slaughtered during 1907, including goats, pigs, sheep, and cattle, was reported to be 393,777 pesos. For the same year agricultural production, specifically beans, 47 In 1908, corn, and wheat, was valued at 341,000 pesos. livestock slaughtered in Saltillo was valued at 471,000 pesos, while corn, wheat, and bean production was reported to be worth 593,000 pesos.48 Meat from slaughtered animals was consumed by Saltillo's residents; hides were used in manufacturing and were also important exports. According to United States Consular Officer John Wadsworth, nearly 30,000 pounds of goat skins were shipped from Saltillo in Septem- ber and October 1883, destined for markets in New York.49 In 1908, Damaso Rodriguez, owner of several haciendas and ranchos, reported that he had cured well over 2,000 hides during the past year. Rodriguez's hides may have been destined either for transshipment to foreign markets or for use in the growing shoe manufacturing industry in Saltillo.50 The importance of stockraising to large landowners can be measured by several yardsticks. In addition to the above mentioned figures for the value of meat and hides, the percentage of the municipio's surface area 43 devoted to pasturage overshadowed land under cultivation. In 1904, for the municipio as a whole, 607,764 hectares were devoted to pasturage as compared to only slightly more than 30,000 hectares under cultivation-~a ratio of approximately twenty to one.51 Land usage on the Hacienda Ventura brings the extensive but unavoidable dominance of pasture land into sharper focus. In 1904, less than three percent (1,600 hectares) of Ventura's total area was cultivated while nearly 46,000 hectares, ninety—seven percent of the hacienda's acreage, was described as pas— turage.52 Table 2 illustrates the ratio of pasture land to crOpland on several of the municipio's largest hacien- das. An essential matter that this—-or any inquiry into Mexico's late nineteenth century rural structure——must deal with surrounds the question of hacienda profitability, which in turn depends on the degree to which resources were utilized. Writers such as Andrés Molina Enriquez and his legion of followers insisted that the hacienda was a non- economic enterprise, a throwback to Europe's feudalistic middle ages where social status and the amount of land one owned went hand-in—hand. After Molina Enriquez published his scathing-critique of Mexico's economic ills in 1909, historians and others accepted and expanded upon his as- sumption. Critics of the hacienda came to associate un- profitability with underutilization. The typical argument Ventura San Juan de Retiro Derramadero San Juan de Vaqueria Muchachos Hedionda Grande Aguanueva Jagfiey de Ferniza Buenavista 44 TABLE 2 LAND USAGE ON SALTILLO'S LARGEST HACIENDAS, 1904 o cpio c: o c><3 o c: o c: o c: o c: o c: o c: o c: o c: o c: o c: 0 <3 0 c: o O O O s ~ s s s ~ s 5 ~ s Q ~ . c>nn c>nn c: m c: o.c> o m .—1 m H H N N m m v m up [x hectares ‘-‘-Tlunder cultivation pasture lg|“[J1“]J[fl]U]I] 45 was that haciendas were too large to utilize their land effectively. Hence, they were underproductive and un- profitable, and drags on Mexico's economic development. In recent years, however, historians have begun to erode the foundations of this View of the hacienda.53 Writers who criticized the hacienda and hacendados did so without examining the ambience in which they operated. Saltillo's haciendas were large, but they were not under- utilized. They appear to have been functioning, given the talents of their individual owners, more than adequate- ly within the context forced upon them by climate and geog- raphy. Despite the fact that area haciendas were strongly oriented toward raising livestock, they harvested the great bulk, typically seventy percent or more, of the municipio's corn and beans crOps. Only their harvests of wheat fell below those recorded by small prOprietors, and available evidence suggests this was a matter of circumstance rather than an inherent inefficiency. The remainder of this chapter will discuss yields attained by area agri- culturalists--both large and small-—and will offer some indication of hacienda profitability. The message which emerges is that in an arid region like southeastern Coahuila, property size (hacienda, rancho, labor) was not related to agricultural yields; water was. 46 As suggested above, the picture of hacienda production in Saltillo was mixed. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that haciendas, as a group, did not monopolize the production of wheat. In 1904, small proprietors har- vested nearly eighty percent (500,000 kilograms) of Sal- tillo's yearly wheat production. Landowners on the well irrigated old haciendas northeast of Saltillo devoted nearly all of their small parcels of land to the cultiva- tion of wheat. The small proprietors working the old, well irrigated, Hacienda Cerritos in 1904 harvested 160,000 kilograms of wheat, nearly twenty—five percent of the municipio's total production in that year.54 In the period from 1905 to 1910 small proprietors contributed no less than forty-five percent of the municipio's yearly wheat production.55 For corn and beans, the productive superiority achieved by small proprietors in wheat was absent. In 1904, haciendas produced well over seventy-five percent of the corn harvested in the area and seventy—one percent of Saltillo's bean crop. The Hacienda Derramadero produced nearly ten percent of the municipio's total bean harvest in 1904, and two haciendas, Derramadero and Muchachos, accounted for almost thirty-five percent of the area's corn production in that year.56 Between 1905 and 1910, haciendas maintained their superiority in the production of corn and beans. Small prOprietors contributed no more 47 than thirty percent of the total harvests of these main— stays of Saltillo's agriculture.57 Nevertheless, the ratios presented by these figures require an important modification. Hacendados in Saltillo, paralleling a situation common in other regions of northern Mexico, made heavy use of sharecroppers.58 Large—scale employment of sharecroppers, although contributing to the municipio's overall production levels, undoubtedly de- creased the share of that production assigned to the ha- cendado. Sharecroppers, despite sharing their production with landowners, were in essence small prOprietors.59 Data from a 1911 municipal census indicate that there were at least 950 sharecrOppers working land on thirty-six of the area's largest landholdings in that year, far more than the 276 sharecroppers reportedly working on area ha- ciendas and ranchos seven years earlier in 1904. In all, these sharecroppers cultivated more than a third (9,000 hectares) of all land under cultivation on those same properties. Sharecroppers (medieros) who received one-half of the crOps they harvested in 1911, outnumbered those who retained only a third of their harvests (tercieros) by more than three to one.60 Determining per hectare yields attained on area land- holdings over extended periods is difficult. Periodic droughts coupled with killing frosts caused yields to vary wildly. In 1908, for example, 70,000 hectoliters of 48 corn, 10,430 hectoliters of wheat, and 17,000 hectoliters of beans were harvested.61 One year later, only 40,000 hectoliters of corn, 8,690 hectoliters of wheat, and 8,000 hectoliters of beans were produced.62 Moreover, local doc- uments provide data for total production on individual landholdings, but not the number of hectares devoted to cultivating specific crops. However, although precise figures are beyond reach, determining the general order of agricultural yields in the municipio is a definite possi- bility. According to data taken from the Ceaao Agroepecuario (Land and Livestock Census) of 1911, haciendas as a group were outproduced, on a per hectare basis, by every type of small proprietor: those who worked their land them- selves, renters, and independent sharecrOppers.63 (Table 3 provides a visual display of yields attained by area landholders between 1905 and 1910; Table 4 provides compar- able data from a 1904 municipal survey.) However, this should not suggest that small landholdings were more effi— cient than larger holdings nor that small proprietors utilized their land more effectively than hacendados. Rather, they reflect the basic divisions of the municipio's agrarian structure. Given the concentration of large land- holdings in the arid, desolate southern and western por- tions of Saltillo where stock raising was predominant and little land devoted to cultivation, there exists no reason 49 TABLE 3 YIELDS PER HECTARE, SALTILLO, 1905-1910 Bushels Per Hectare 14 F 12 _ ___ J I 10 r 8- 6__ ' 4.. 1 __, 2L . z ' 0% ciwlol cl cwb Large Small Small Small Haciendas PrOprietors PrOprietors Proprietors and (Sharecroppers) (Renters) Ranchos Key: c - corn w - wheat b - beans TABLE 4 YIELDS PER HECTARE, SALTILLO, 1904 Bushels Per Hectare 6— 4 _ r I 2 _ . 0 c b‘ w c b w Large Haciendas Small Proprietors and Ranchos Key: c - corn w - wheat b - beans 50 to expect hacienda production levels, per hectare, to match those of smaller landholdings. Small proprietors, who benefited from the use of dependable sources of water for irrigation of cereal grains, especially wheat, were destin— ed by conditions rather than by an inherent superiority to outproduce neighboring hacendados. Indeed, it is essential to note that on large hacien- das in Saltillo which did possess water for irrigation purposes, a rare circumstance, agricultural yields actually exceeded those registered by small proprietors. For exam- ple, in 1904, the Haciendas Derramadero and Buenavista, each encompassing more than 6,000 hectares and possessing sufficient water for irrigation, produced per hectare yields of corn and beans which equaled or surpassed yields 64 Buenavista and Derramadero, respec- on smaller holdings. tively, produced in that year 4.5 and 17 bushels of corn per hectare. Yields for corn on small landholdings in 1904 were 4.5 bushels per hectare. (See Table 4.) Derramadero, which accounted for ten percent of the munici- pio's entire bean crOp in 1904, recorded a yields of two bushels per hectare for beans, double that registered by small proprietors.65 Water, not land, was the great equalizer in Saltillo. Landholdings there and perhaps all of northern Mexican cannot be meaningfully divided into the classic categories of large and small, except to provide elementary 51 descriptions. A more logical and accurate division cuts along a more precise line: landholdings with water and landholdings without water. Disputes over water rights and the upkeep of irrigation ditches were seemingly more frequent than arguments over prOperty lines.66 More sig- nificantly, agricultural yields in Saltillo were sometimes given in terms of the amount of water utilized rather than the land area.67 Proprietors of small parcels in well irrigated, old haciendas such as Cerritos and Gonzalez had more in common, in terms of yields, with large haciendas like Buenavista, which also utilized municipio water, and Derramadero, than they did with other small but waterless landholdings which dotted the landscape. Although small prOprietors, as a group, produced over eighty percent of the municipio's wheat in 1904, the vast bulk of wheat harvested by small proprietors was produced on well irrigated holdings. The haciendas Cerritos, Pefia, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, San Juan Bautista, and Valdeces—-all receiving water from municip— ally owned sources-—accounted for eighty percent of the wheat produced by small proprietors.68 In the same year, 1904, large haciendas with water for irrigation like Derramadero and Muchachos, harvested nearly thirty-five percent of the municipio's corn and twenty percent of its beans.69 52 If, as the above paragraphs stress, haciendas were not underutilized, there also exists sufficient data in Saltillo's archives to suggest that haciendas, overall, were profitable enterprises.7O A rough measure of profit- ability is to compare the initial cost of a hacendado's land to the market value of the crops he harvested. For instance, Damaso Rodriguez's landed holdings in Saltillo, acquired between 1880 and 1896 in five separate transac~ tions, cost slightly over 18,000 pesos.71 In 1904 alone, his estates produced crops (beans, wheat, and corn) with a market value of 54,000 pesos, or three times his origin- al investment. Additional monies were earned by selling firewood, guayule, and livestock. In the same year, 1904, Clemente Cabello's Hacienda Ventura, purchased by Cabello in 1885 for 30,000 pesos and essentially a livestock ha- cienda, harvested corn and beans worth 12,000 pesos, a re- turn of forty percent.72 Granted, additional factors enter into the task of determining profitability besides the cost of land com- pared to market value of harvests. Wages, cost of seeds, taxes, mortgage interest payments,improvements to the property, transportation costs and livestock losses must be taken into consideration. The managerial ability of the hacendado coupled with the fact that sharecrOppers usually got large percentages of the crops harvested on local haciendas are two major factors, indeed perhaps the 53 most important factors, in determining the actual rate of return attained by Saltillo's large landowners. With these limitations in mind, however, it is poss- ible to use a comparison of original investment in land with the market value of harvests in a particular year to gain an impression of overall hacienda profitability. The rate of return attained by local hacendados, measured by this standard, would appear to have been higher than the four to six percent return on capital reported by D.A. Brading for haciendas in the Bajio, and closer to, if not greater than, the ten percent return Jan Bazant suggests was common in San Luis Pot051. TABLE 5 PRICE/HARVEST VALUE COMPARISONS, LARGE HACIENDAS, SALTILLO, 1904 (See Table 5 below.) Hacienda Ventura San Juan Retiro Derramadero I Vaqueria Buenavista Muchachos JagHey Ferniza Purchase Price 30,000 14,000 10,000 7,000 20,000 15,000 25,500 Market Value of Harvest 11,000 2,600 51,625 1,772 22,500 Livestock 4,000 2,000 AlI figures given in pesos. 54 An additional measure of hacienda profitability can be found by examining the rental prices demanded by hacien— da owners in Saltillo as well as all of the Central Dis- trict. Very few rental contracts are filed in local ar- chives in Saltillo. Indeed, renting prOperty in the municipio was not, apparently, a common practice. Supple- mental information, particularly in the municipal archive, indicates, however, that as a general rule, landowners who leased their properties received excellent returns. For example, Vicente Rodriquez, owner of half of the Ha- cienda Florida located in the highlands north of the yllla of General Cepeda, rented his portion of the hacienda in 1890 to Mariano Siller for 2,000 pesos per year. This re- flected a return of ten percent based on his original pur- chase price of 20,000 pesos.74 The master of the other half of La Florida, Dr. Ismael Salas, an active combatant against French forces which occupied Coahuila in 1864, leased his share of the hacienda, in 1895, to Manuel Rodriguez Orozoco for 3,500 pesos per year, a return of nearly eighteen percent.75 In Saltillo, ConcepciSn Narro y Sinchez leased her portion of the predios rdsticos Las Galeras and San Nicolis de los Berros to Yldefonso Charles for six hundred pesos per year.76 She sold the property in 1895 to Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, and if the selling price of her por- tion of the holdings, which she inherited from her mother, 55 Josefa Sanchez de Narro, 1,500 pesos, was a true reflection of the value of the property, then her return on capital obtained by renting the property was forty percent.77 Few landed holdings in Saltillo were rented. The Censo Agro-pecuario referred to earlier in this chapter reveals that in 1911 only one major hacienda, Aguanueva, was rented while five smaller fincas or labores were re- portedly being leased by their owners, this out of a total of over 150 individually owned properties.78 Municipal records from earlier years reflect the same hesitancy on the part of landowners in Saltillo to lease their land.79 Why renting was uncommon is a perplexing question. Certainly the rental contracts found in local archives re- veal that landowners faced few potential risks in letting their lands. The terms of Yldefonso Charles' renting of Concepcién Narro y Sanchez's holdings were, perhaps, typ- ical of rental contracts exercised in the Central District. Charles was to make his payments promptly; three hundred pesos in silver in January and another three hundred in July. He was obligated to maintain the land in the same state in which he received it, and he was responsible for damages resulting from negligence on the part of share- cr0ppers or subrenters. He was compelled to maintain the finca's irrigation system and was not permitted to cut guayule or trees. Permanent improvements made by Charles would not be compensated and the rental contract could be 56 voided and Charles evicted if any of the restrictions were violated or if a year's rent were missed.80 That lands were not frequently rented indicates that owners likely felt they could achieve a greater return on capital by operating them themselves. Indeed, landowners, through the utilization of sharecroppers, seem to have had the best of two worlds. Investments in machinery and cash outlays for wages could be limited. At the same time, losses could be minimized, while profits, especially when agricultural prices were high, could be spectacular. In summary, haciendas, as a whole, were enterprises which returned to their owners, at least over the span of several years, a return on capital which very probably matched the eight to ten percent return paid by most urban 81 The hacienda was neither underproductive enterprises. nor unprofitable, but there were practical limits to its potential for producing wealth. Moreover, Saltillo's ha- cendados did not seek mastery over the region's well irri— gated lands. As a result, they did not-~could not-~com- pletely overshadow small proprietors in the production of cereal grains, especially wheat. The Porfirian hacendado in Saltillo may have controlled large amounts of land, but size counted for little in this area of northern Mexico. The hacienda and the hacendado were integral factors in Saltillo's economic structure during the Porfiriato. Rather than wielding an oppressive control over the Central 57 District's local economy, the hacendado had less influence in the realm of agricultural economics than historians have given him credit for. In the period from 1876 to 1910, Saltillo had several Goliaths but more than its fair share of Davids. 58 1John Womack, Zapata and the Mexican Revolution (New York, 1969), provides a description of hacendado dominance in the southern, sugar-rich state of Morelos. See also Frans J. Schryer, "A Ranchero Economy in Northwestern Hidalgo," HAHR 59, no. 3 (August, 1979), pp. 418—433. I 2See for example Jan Bazant, Cinco haciendas Mexicanas (Mexico, 1975), and John Tutino, "Life and Labor on North Mexican Haciendas: The Querétaro—San Luis Potosf Region: 1775—1810," in Elsa Frost, Michael C. Meyer, Josefina Vazquez, eds., E1 trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de Mexico: Ponencias y comentarios presentados en la V Reunion de Historiadores Mexicanos y Norteamericanos (Mexico, 1979)} 3Archivo del Municipio de Saltillo (hereafter AMS), carpeta 142, volume 2, legajo 12, expediente 9, 18997— Hereafter only the appropriate numbers will be provided. For example,the citation here would be rendered AMS, 142-2, 12-9, 1899. It should be noted that the municipal—archive reorganized its numbering system in 1893. Consequently, citations prior to 1893 will not contain a legajo number, documents in the archive being numbered indiv1dua11y. See also AMS, 150—2, 17-9, 1907; 139-2, 28-unnumbered exp., 1896; 130-2, 81, 1887; 137-2, 7-6, 1894. 4Ixtle was a fibrous producing plant much like henequen. Guayule was a source of raw rubber. 5Ixtle was exported primarily to the United States. See Consul Charles B. Towle, Saltillo, to Chief, Bureau of Foreign Commerce, 11/12/1900. United States Department of State, Consular Dispatches, vol. 29, National Archives Record Group 84. Hereafter records in the National Ar- chives are indicated by the symbol NA, followed by the Record Group (RG) number. See also Commercial Relations of the United States with Foreign Countries, 1892-1893 (Washington, 1894), p. 222; and Consul Fechet, "Fiber Plants of Coahuila," The Miscellaneous Documents of the House of Representatives for the First Session of the Fifty-second Congress 1891, vol. 15, pp. 168-169. 6AMS, 142—2, 12-9, 1899; 148-1, 5-2, 1905. 7Ibid., 139-2, 28-unnumbered exp., 1896; 145-4, 17-3, 1902; 140-3, 26-unnumbered exp., 1897. 59 8Ibid., 145-4, 17—6, 1902. 9Ibid., 137-2, 7-6, 1894; 139-2, 28~unnumbered exp., 1897. 10 Ibid., 139—2, 28—unnumbered exp., 1897. In 1896, although wheat and corn were slightly lower in price than they were in 1893, beans cost, at times, almost twice as much as wheat. llIbid., 142—2,12——9, 1899. This would seem to paral- lel the Situation David A. Brading noted for the Baj1o. See Brading, Haciendas and Ranchos in the Mexican Baj1o: Leon 1700— 1860 (New York, 1978), p. 11. See also AMS, 148:1, 5- 2 1905. ’7— Ibid., 151—4, 16-4, 1907; 155-2, 10-3, 1912; 148-1, 14Ibid., 142-2, 12-9, 1899. 15John Wadsworth, Saltillo, to Secretary of State, 8/31/83, NA, RG 59 (Dispatches from U.S. Consuls in Saltillo, 1876-1906), 300. l6Brading, Haciendas and Ranchos, p. 67. 17In 1889, for example, Arteaga produced 8,000 fanegas (a measure of dry weight, typically 1.5 bushels) of beans and Ramos Arizpe 1,600 fane as. Together, Arteaga and Ramos Arizpe produced more than three times the amount of beans harvested in Saltillo (3,000 fanegas) in that year. See AMS, 135—1, 121, 1892. 18Anita Purcell, ed., Frontier Mexico, 1875-1894: Letters of William L. Purcell (San Antonio, 1963), p. 183. 19AMS, 153-2, 9-9, 1910. 20Ibid., 108—1, 16, 1865. 21Ibid. 6O 22Archivo Poder Legislativo de Coahuila (hereafter APLC), 8tH'Legislature, 1884, leg. 8, Com1sion de Hacienda, exp. 43; 9th legis., 1886— 1887, leg. 2, Comis1dfi de Ha- c1enda, exp. 15; 12th legis., 1891— ~1893, leg. 4, Comision de Hacienda, exp. 40; 13th legis., 1893-1895, leg. I, Comisiofi'de Hacienda, e_p. 9; 13th legis., 1893:1895, leg. S,Comis16n HE Hacienda, exps. 72, 74; 13th legis., 1893- 1895,1eg. 3, Planos de Arbitrios; let legis., Comision Permanente, 4th Periodo, 1911, leg. 1,Comision de Hacien- da, exps. 82, 83-—87_-60. 23AMS, 151—4, 16-8, 1908. 24Ibid., 154-1, 33—4, 1911. 25According to John Woessner, the U.S. Consul in Saltillo in 1888, the very name Saltillo was a "corruption of an expression in the Chichimec language signifying high land of many waters." See Woessner, "The State of Coahuila." Report to the United States Secretary of State, 1/25/1888, NA, RG 59 (Dispatches) 300. Woessner's prede- cessor in Saltillo, John Carothers, in a commercial report to the State Department, claimed that "excellent water breaks forth from many springs around Saltillo." See Carothers to Secretary of State, 8/31/83, NA, RG 59 (Dis— patches) 300. 26For a discussion of the origins of Spanish water legislation in North America, see Richard E. Greenleaf, "Land and Water in Mexico and New Mexico: 1700-1821," New Mexico Historical Review 47, no. 2 (April, 1972), pp. 85-112; and Betty Dobkins, The Spanish Element in Texas Water Law (Austin, 1959), pp. 60- 100. 27It must be stressed that individuals in this area did not own water; they simply owned the rights to use water. See AMS, 133-1, 7, 1890; 135-1, 7, 1892; 137-1, 3-8, 1894; 138:1, 2-unnumbered exp., 1895. 28Both the antigua (old) haciendas Cerritos and Gonzalez are prime examples of multiple ownership. They were continually referred to as haciendas in local docu- ments, but by 1865 single ownership had obviously disap- peared. See AMS, 108, 16, 1865. 29AMS, 149-3, 16-36, 1906. The actual amount of water rEEEived by the various haciendas utilizing munici- pal water is difficult to determine since the rate of flow from 913 to 919 varied. 61 AMS, 118-1, 84, 1875. 31Ibid., 139-1, 7—unnumbered exp., 1897. 32Ibid., 148-1, 5-2, 1905. 33Registro de Propiedadas, Libros de Compra—Venta (hereafter RP), tomo 18, Iibro l, partido 3321, folio 478. From this po1nt forward, using the above citation as an example, material from the Registro'syLibros de Compra-Venta will be cited as follows: RP, 18-1, 3321: 478. See also RP, 21-1, 3499:22; 23—1, 3711:72. 34Archivo de Justicia del Estado de Coahuila, 1894, leg. 83, exp. 2653. 35The sometimes confusing terminology illustrated by this case reinforces a point made in the introduction. A hacienda was whatever one wanted to call a hacienda. 36AMS, 148—1, 5—2, 1905; 154-1, 33-4, 1911. 37 . Ibid., 148-1, 5-2, 1905. 381bid. 39 Ibid. The widow of Eugenio Barrousse owned a flour mill and the water she received from municipal sources was Very likely used to power this mill. 40"Dry, sandy, arid, and dismal." Molina Enriquez Los grandes problemas nacionales (Mexico, 1978), p. 79. 41AMS, 148-1, 5—2, 1905. 42RP, 36—1, 4938:30. Determining the dollar equiva— lent of—Ehe Mexican peso during the Porfiriato is a com- plex task. Generally, the rate of exchange was tied to the value of silver, which fell steadily after 1891. The rate stabilized at roughly fifty cents totflmapeso after 1897. The following table provides a measure for convert- ing pesos to dollars for the decade of the 1890's. See Commercial Relations 1900, p. 9. 62 Value of Mexican Peso in Terms Year ' of U.S. Gold Dollar 1891 .83¢ 1892 .75¢ 1893 .66¢ 1894 .55¢ 1895 .49¢ 1896 .52¢ 43 Registro de PrOpiedades, Libros de Sociedades (here- after RPLS), tomo 5, libro 3, partido 215, folio 226. Future citations will follow the pattern used for citations from the Registro's gibros de Compra Venta; only the ap- prOpriate numbers will appear. 45Ibid., 8—1, 1501:127. San Carlos was located in General Cepeda and 1,383 pesos of the rancho's purchase price was for livestock. 46AMS, 141-3, 20-6, 1898. 47£§i§3, 150-2, 17-9, 1907; 151-4, 16—4, 1908. 48£§£§., 152-4, 16-1, 1909; 152-4, 16-2, 1909. 49Carothers to Secretary of State, 11/17/1883, NA, RG 59 (Dispatches) 300. In 1893 goat hides were the most valuable export (353,000 pesos) from the municipio. See Commercial Relations, 1892-1893, pp. 221-222. SCAMS, 151-4, 16-5, 1908. 51 . Ib1d., 148-1, 5-2, 1905. 52Ibid. 53 The two best examples of this new wave of research are Harris, Mexican Family Empire, and Brading, Haciendas and Ranchos. 63 54AMS, 148-1, 5-2, 1905. Small prOprietors are de- fined in footnote 63. 551bid., 154-1, 33-4, 1911. 56Ibid., 148—1, 5-2, 1905. 57£Ei§oy 148-1, 5-2, 1905; 154-1, 33-4, 1911. 58Friedrich Katz, "Labor Conditions on Haciendas in Porfirian Mexico: Some Trends and Tendencies," HAHR 54, no. 1 (February, 1974), pp. 33—35; Jan Bazant, Cinco Haciendas, pp. 105-119. 59Few data are available regarding sharecropping agreements in Saltillo, since most were verbal contracts. The only written sharecropping agreement I found in local archives called for the landowner to furnish seed and for the sharecrOppers to furnish the necessary implements to till the soil and harvest the crops. The landowner, in this case Clemente Cabello, agreed to purchase the share— cropper‘s share of the harvest (one half) at current mar- ket prices. See 32, 34—1, 4678:25. Goggg, 154-1, 33-4, 1911; 148—1, 5-2, 1905. 61Ibid., 152-4, 16-2, 1909. 621bid., 153-2, 9-2, 1910. 63The 1911 Censo Agro—pecuario contains figures for average harvests on landed holdings in the municipio be- tween 1905 and 1910. On 25,405 hectares of cultivated land, the thirty—six largest haciendas and ranchos in Saltillo (each typically cultivated more than 100 hectares) produced an average 16,843 hectoliters (47,000 bushels) of corn, 6,605 hectoliters (18,745 bushels)of wheat, and 1,600 hectoliters (4,711 bushels) of beans. Proprietors in the old haciendas Cerritos and Gonzalez, for example, were not included in this group. Rather, they fell into the classification of pequenos prOpietarios (small pro- prietors). Small proprietors (typically cultivating less than 100 hectares) included those who Operated the land themselves, renters, and independent sharecroppers. Among small proprietors (over 125 in number) over 15,000 bushels of corn, 8,000 bushels of wheat, and 2,000 bushels of beans 64 were harvested. The 1905 municipal surVey referred to above did not divide landholdings into the categories of large and small. In order to facilitate comparisons, I placed landholdings in the 1904 survey in the same group (large or small proprietors) into which they were placed by municipal officials in the Censp Agro—pecuario. Yields per hectare were determined by dividing the total number of hectares cultivated by a particular group of landholders into the total harvests they recorded. For example, on 349 hectares let to independent sharecrOppers by small landowners, 1,472 hectoliters (4,177 bushels) of corn, 777 hectoliters (2,191 bushels) of wheat, and 255 hecto- liters (724 bushels) of beans were harvested. This equals a per hectare yield of 4.2 hectoliters (12 bushels) of corn, 2.2 hectoliters (6.3 bushels) of wheat, and .73 hectoliters (2.1 bushels) of beans. (See Table 3.) More precise de- terminations of per hectare yields are impossible since the number of hectares devoted to the cultivation of a particular crop was not recorded. 64Derramadero drew at least five days of water per month. See AMS, 14—13, l6—unnumbered exp., 1898. 65AMS, 148-1, 5—2, 1905. 66Ibid., 141-3, 23-8, 1898. See also Archivo Justica del Estado de Coahuila, 1905, exp. 6084; 1890, leg. 64, exps. 2766, 2782; 1894, leg. 84, exp. 3475. 67For example, the Hacienda Gonzalez's residents re- ported, in 1906, that their yields, per hectare, were ten to twelve cargas (of wheat per day of water). A carga is a load; weights vary from region to region, but one esti- mate is three bushels. See Iris E. Santacruz, Luis Giménez, Chaco Garcia, "Pesas y Medidas: Las pesas y medidas en la agricultura," in Enrique Semo, ed., Siete ensayos sobre la hacienda Mexicana (Mexico, 1975), pp. 247— 265. 68The six old haciendas mentioned above produced seventy-two percent (6,391 hectoliters) of the total wheat crOp (8,800 hectoliters) recorded in Saltillo in 1904. They accounted for nearly eighty percent of the wheat crop harvested by small proprietors in that same year. The Hacienda Gonzalez offers an indication of the productive capacity of these well irrigated old haciendas. On only twenty—one hectares, Gonzalez's residents produced 812 hectoliters of wheat; a per hectare yield of nearly forty hectoliters (113 bushels). See AMS, 148—1, 5-2, 1905. 65 69The two haciendas harvested 16,800 hectoliters of corn and 2,200 hectoliters of beans. 70A projected chapter in this study was to have ex- plored, in depth, the profitability of hacienda Operations in Saltillo. Without the supplemental use of private ac- count books, such an undertaking proved impossible. It must be stressed that the following pages are based solely on public documents. As such, a degree of caution must be employed. 71RP, 1—1, 50:60; 4-1, 549:203; 6-1, 1223:315. 72AMS, 148-1, 5-2, 1905. The inflationary trend in food priEEs which Mexico experienced in the Porfiriato may have affected the real rate of return obtained by area landholders. See Charles C. Cumberland, Mexican Revolu- tion: Genesis Under Madero (Austin, 19527, pp.ll4-15. 73Brading, Haciendas, pp. 89-90; Bazant, Haciendas, pp. 177, 192, 197, 204-205, 209. 74AM5, 133-1, 4, 1890. 753g, 8-1, 1506:137. 76AMS, Protocolos (notary records), 1888-1894, vol. 1, partido 26,2folio 57. 77RP, 7-1, 1383:113. 78AMS, 154-1, 33—4, 1911. 791bid., 133-1, 4, 1890. 80AMS, Protocolos, 1888-1894, vol. 1, partido 26, folio 57. 81Generally, large—scale urban enterprises brought an eight to fifteen percent return. Rates on urban enter- prises will be considered more fully in chapters four and five. CHAPTER III LANDHOLDING PATTERNS IN SALTILLO, 1880-1910: A QUESTION OF BALANCE One aspect of the hacienda system in Porfirian Mexico which historians and others have singled out as the cause of grave problems for the country's economic development was the supposed tendency on the part of hacendados to ac- quire enormous tracts of land.1 Property acquired by the hacendado, according to this line of thinking, remained uncultivated or at least undercultivated, thereby depriv- ing the majority of Mexico's rural pOpulace of an oppor- tunity to own land and the Mexican nation of the productive capacity of millions of hectares. Charles C. Cumberland, a critic of the hacienda system, echoed the sentiments of many scholars when he suggested that the hacienda system, as it functioned in Mexico during the Porfiriato, was at the roots of Mexico's inability to feed itself. According to Cumberland, production of wheat, corn, and beans de- clined by as much as thirty percent during the Porfiriato.2 Northern Mexico was, since the colonial period, marked by the presence of large landed estates. In fact, in 1766, Coahuila‘s governor complained that a few hacendados had almost taken possession of the province.3 During the 66 67 eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Coahuila was the location of the largest estate ever put together in all of Latin America. The latifundio of the Sanchez Navarro family covered, at its peak, some 16,500,000 acres and dwarfed by more than 10,000,000 acres the immense hold- ings of Luis Terrazas in early twentieth century Chihuahua.4 The apogee of the latifundio in Mexico, however, came after the mid—nineteenth century. During the period from 1856 to 1910, huge landed estates were erected with the approval and assistance of Mexico's federal government.5 In Chihuahua, Sonora, Durango, Coahuila, and Baja Califor- nia, through purchases of great chunks of terrenos baldfos (vacant lands), individuals and survey companies, much like the beneficiaries of the United States government's various programs to promote western expansion and settlement, ac— quired enormous landed holdings.6 In the south and central regions of the country, hacendados, with the unobtrusive but none the less active support of the federal and state governments, expanded their holdings at the expense of Indian ejidos (communal lands), free villages, and independent farmers.7 Accord- ing to John Womack, Indian villages in Morelos opposed to the "planters‘ progress" were doomed to failure. One village, Tequesquitengo, was flooded when a neighboring hacendado diverted the flow of his irrigation ditches.8 In all, some thirty—two million hectares (nearly one-fifth 68 of Mexico‘s total land area) were removed from the national domain between 1883 and 1900.9 Mexico was truly the land of the hacendado. Nevertheless, this generalization needs qualification. Revisionist studies have revealed considerable diversity in the country's landholding system as regards its economic impact but also as to trends in the acquisition and trans— fer of rural property. Saltillo obviously defies the pat- tern, and this is most readily apparent in the sale and purchase of land in the municipio. In the municipio of Saltillo, the landholding system in existence in 1876 reflected a balance between large and small landholdings which reamined virtually unchanged throughout the Porfiriato. It was as if the problems other areas of Mexico experienced by-passed Saltillo. Although land was a readily transferable commodity with scores of exchanges taking place, particularly in the decade preceeding the outbreak of military action against Porfirio Diaz, there was no attempt to create huge landed empires in the grand tradition of the Terrazas or Sanchez Navarros. Rather, large and small landholders co- existed in Saltillo. Large landholdings in the western and southern sections of the municipio were primarily devoted to livestock raising while smaller holdings, con- centrated in the Saltillo-Ramos Arizpe-Arteaga triangle, took advantage of dependable supplies of water and focused 69 on growing wheat and to a lesser extent corn for markets in the Central District and much of northern Mexico. The reluctance or inability of large landholders to overwhelm their neighboring rancheros was perhaps the most unique feature of Saltillo‘s landholding patterns during the Porfiriato. Indeed, the number of small landholdings or ranchos actually increased during a period when some states, Morelos for example, were experiencing a marked trend toward concentration. The number of ranchos in Saltillo climbed from ninety—four in 1887 to one hundred 10 and two in 1898. Between 1907 and 1911, ranchos increased in number from one hundred and sixteen to one hundred and 11 This chapter will explore the nature and sixty-nine. volatility of land transactions in Saltillo during the Porfiriato, and, secondly, probe the circumstances of Saltillo's small proprietors' ability to thrive and expand in a period when their counterparts in other states were suffering. Although sales of rural prOperties did not come close to matching the number of urban prOperties changing hands in Saltillo during the Diaz era, land was readily trans- ferable. Between 1880 and 1910, slightly more than four hundred major land transactions12 were registered in the municipio's Registro de Propiedades (land registry office), 13 an average of thirteen sales per year. Table 6 illus- trates the number of rural properties sold in the municipio during the Porfiriato. 70 TABLE 6 MAJOR LAND TRANSACTIONS, SALTILLO, 1880~1910 1880 - 3 1881 - 4 1882 — 7 1883 — 3 1884 - 4 1885 - 11 1886 - 3 1887 - 6 1888 - 1 1889 — 5 1890 - 5 1891 — 5 1892 - 8 1893 — 15 1894 — 12 1895 - 7 1896 H 9 1897 - 12 1898 - 11 1899 - 13 1900 - 17 1901 — 10 1902 ~ 12 1903 ~ 13 1904 - 18 1905 - 25 1906 ~ 24 1907 n 32 1908 - 28 1909 - 28 1910 H 37 71 Data in Table 6 reveal two very general but discern- ible divisions in the pattern of land sales in the munici- pio. Between 1880 and 1900, land sales increased steadily but gradually. During this twenty year span, yearly sales often exceeded ten in number, but the overall average was a more modest figure: seven. The year 1885 witnessed one of the largest numbers (eleven) of transfers taking place during this period. The arrival of the narrow-gauged Mexi- can National Railroad, which connected Saltillo directly with the southern United States, in late 1883, may have provided the impetus for this temporary increase in land sales. Indeed, in 1886, the United States consular officer in Saltillo, John Woessner, estimated that in the three years since the arrival of the railroad, agricultural ex- ports from the municipio had doubled.14 After the turn of the century, sales of rural hold- ings increased markedly. The number of haciendas, labores, and ranchos changing hands after 1900 was often double or triple the number of yearly sales registered during the previous two decades. The five years before the collapse of the Dfaz government was the most active period of land transfers in Saltillo during the entire Porfiriato: over one-third of all major land transactions in Saltillo took place in this brief period. 72 Of perhaps greater significance than the volume of land transactions is the indiSputable fact that land owner- ship in Saltillo throughout the Porfiriato did not become concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. The vast majority of land sales in the municipio, as the following pages will illustrate, were to individuals who were unre— lated by blood. Hacendados in Saltillo were important ele- ments in the region‘s rural structure but they were not motivated by dynastic ambition or by greed for land as has been suggested by critics of the hacendado and hacienda system. The situation in the southern state of Morelos, where a small group of individuals (seventeen) owned over twenty—five percent of the state's land area and almost all the state's arable land did not exist in Saltillo.15 Table 7 is an inventory of the buyers and sellers involved in all major land transactions in the municipio in 1908, a typical year for land sales in the last decade of the Porfiriato. The major inference to be drawn from Table 7 is that land sales were dominated not by the hacendado but by the small prOprietor. Only four of twenty—five transactions involved sums of more than 2,000 pesos, and most were for less than 500 pesos, a sum sufficient to purchase no more than twenty well—irrigated hectares. Ruperto Garcia, a minor landowner, was the only individual to purchase more than one plot of land.16 More importantly, no major 73 TABLE 7 LANDMSALE‘S , 1908 Seller Genovevo Farias Manuel Bosque Benito Lépez Lorenzo Recio Albino Tovar Tomas Gonzalez Luis Rodriguez Fuentes Benita Aguirre Francisco Pérez Valeria Oviedo Leonardo Valdés Josefa Rodriguez anacio Ramos Justo Alvarado Lazaro Rodriguez Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez Sra. Mendez Francisca de Leon Pedro Enohedo Dionisia Morales Santiago Flores Valle Manuela de la Pena de Galindo Anastasio de la Cruz Estanislao Davila o I Ricardo Gonzalez Purchaser Carlos Gonzalez Benito Flores Cenovio Carrejo Lazaro Recio Ramon Gonzalez & Jose Cabello Gregorio Villarreal Maria Rodriguez Serafio Aguirre Andres Cadena Juan Martinez Cabello Ruperto Garcia de Letona Lic. Miguel Cardenas Tomas Gonzalez Flores Jesus Maria Rodriguez Estanislao Davila Soledad Trevifio Feliciana Briseno Ruperto Garcia Ramon Gonzalez Encarnacion Favitas Lic. Miguel Cardenas Ruperto Garcia Felipe de la Cruz Rodriguez Francisco Valdés Davila Jose Calderdn Price (Pesos) 500 200 400 2,000 300 200 trade 300 300 2,000 300 500 600 200 450 200 150 250 200 350 350 2,000 200 400 9,000 All figures given in Pesos. 74 hacendado acquired land in that year.17 Indeed, Saltillo's hacendados were, overall, at least as prone to sell land as they were to acquire it. The pattern revealed by land transactions in 1908 was representative of land sales in Saltillo as well as other municipios in the Central District throughout the Porfiriato. Hacendados in this part of northern Mexico were simply not engaged in an active campaign to acquire huge amounts of land. As chapters four and five will ex- plore in greater detail, one explanation for the hacendado's adversion to expanding his landed holdings was his interest in nonagricultural endeavors. The last decade of the Porfiriato, despite being a busy period in terms of the number of land transfers, wit— nessed few sales of large landholdings. Indeed, only eight land sales involving sums of 3,500 pesos or more took place after 1900. In 1902, Enrique Maas, a major hacendado in the municipio, disposed of the Hacienda Jaguey de Ferniza, but four years passed before the next such sale transpired: the sale of the Hacienda Encarnaci6n de Guzman to Yreno Lopez of San Luis Potosi.18 In 1907, the governor of Coahuila, Miguel Cardenas, purchased three different ranchos in the area northeast of Saltillo, and finally, in 1908 Jose Calderdn, a native of Monterrey, acquired 19 part of the Hacienda Tortuga. The total value of these eight transactions was slightly over 100,000 pesos. 75 The relative scarcity of hacienda transfers in the first decade of the twentieth century contrasts sharply with sales of large landed estates in the period from 1890 to 1899, when fourteen sales involving amounts of 3,500 or more pesos took place, as well as the decade from 1880 to 1889, when twelve such transactions occurred. Tables 8, 9, and 10 provide the names of sellers and buyers of large landed estates in Saltillo during the three decades of the Porfiriato. There is no mistaking the general decrease in the num- ber of large haciendas and ranchos offered for sale be- tween 1876 and 1910. This should not, however, suggest that sales of haciendas were stagnated in Saltillo nor that concentration of land ownership had taken place in the 1880's and 1890's. The decline in sales of large haciendas was coupled with a steady, if not spectacular, increase in the number of small ranchos or labores changing hands. Apparently, as the Porfiriato wore on, there was a marked decline in demand for large properties. Land, as evidenced by the increasing number of small properties changing hands, was available; it was the buyer who was in scarce supply. Perhaps the most telling evidence that the municipio of Saltillo escaped the forces leading to the concentra- tion of land in a few hands is the fact that every large hacienda in the region—~Hedionda Grande, San Juan de 76 TABLE 8 LAND SALES OF 3,5040 OR MORE 'PESOS, 1880:1889 Property Seller k Purchaser % of H. Muchachos Eugehio Aguirre —' Manuel Lobo —§otrero de Guajada Juan Arizpe Jesfis Maria Morales % of H. Buenavista José Maria Santos CQY 7' ' Higinio de Leon % of H. Muchachos Victoriano Cepeda Manuel de Lobo % of H. Buenavista Antonio'de Santos CQY _ .., MiguEI Cepéda San Juan de Retiro Sanchez Navarro Heir§""‘ AntoniE'Zertuche % of H. Encantada Antonio de Santos COX; .7. . Miguel Cepeda I H. Muchachos ManuelHLobo Jesfis Valdes Mejia H. Ventura Geronimo Trevino Clemente Cabello H. Derramadero Enrique'Maria Aguirre Damaso Rodriguez Mojado Colorado Ramon Fonseca Agustin Rodriguez H. San Juan de Vaqueria, Pedro Sanchez Navarro Melchor Lobo Rodriguez 77 TABLE 9 LAND SALES ’OF 3,500 OR‘ MORE PEsqs, 18‘9k1899 Property Seller Purchaser Tinaja Francisco Barro Agustin Rodriguez Aguanueva & Hedionda Grande I Sanchez Navarro Heirs Enrique Maas %.of H. Buenavista Sra. E. de Valle L. Enrique Maas % of H. Buenavista Antonio Sauz “A Enrique Maas San Juan Retiro AntoniOAZertuche Felipe Ruiz Charles I; San Alberto & Tinajuela Micaela Guerrero I I Damaso Rodriguez San Juan de Retiro Felipe Ruiz Charles Clemente Cabello Jagfiey de Ferniza J. V. Contreras Heirs Enrique Maas % of Tortuga Juan Arizpe y Martinez Jesus Arizpe y Martinez % of H. Buenavista Enrique Maas Antonio Narro Casa Blanca Sixto Maria Garcia Jose Negrete Palma y Pereyra Modesto Ramos Romulo Larralde Canutillo Sanchez Navarro Heirs. A Manuel Rodriguez Orozco Rancho Flores Dionisio Farias 0 Juan Gonzalez Trevino 78 TABLE 10 LAND SALES OF 3,500 OR MORE PESOS, 1900-19L Property ,. Seller . 'Purchaser Jagfiey de Ferniza Enrique Maas Rafael Siller Valle & .Cesearo Elizondo % of H. Galeras C. Rodriguez Anglo—Mexican Co. 7 Gonzalez. . I l _ I Encarnac1on de Manuel LOpez Yreneo Lopez Guzman 4 Gutierrez Miraflores , I Ysabel.Molina . Juan Cabello Siller Lote (near Gerbrudis Valdes Miguel Cardenas Saltillo) . .. _ % of Tortuga . . Ricardo.Gonzalez Jose Calder6n Land in Old H. Gregorio Miguel Cardenas Rodriguez . Villarreal Land in Old H. Jose Le6n del Miguel Cardenas Rodriguez Rio 79 Vaqueria, Aguanueva, Encarnacidn de Guzman, Ventura, Derramadero, San Juan de Retiro, Jaguey de Ferniza, Muchachos, Buenavista, Encantada, and ChiflOn——changed hands at least once during the Porfiriato. For example, the Hacienda de San Juan de Retiro, located in the south- ern part of the municipio near its border with Zacatecas and acquired by Antonio Zertuche after the precipitous de- cline of the Sanchez Navarro family fortunes, was sold to Felipe Ruiz Charles in 1892.20 Ruiz Charles, in turn, sold the hacienda two years 21 In a complex series of trans- later to Clemente Cabello. actions, the Hacienda Jagfiey de Ferniza passed, by 1890, from Florencio Llaguno and Francisco de LeOn to Jesus Valdés Contreras, whose heirs sold the property to Enrique 22 Maas in 1894 Maas sold the hacienda in 1902 to Rafael Siller Valle and Cesareo Elizondo, who later divided the 23 property into two separate holdings. The Hacienda de Sta. Teresa de los Muchachos and the Hacienda de Buenavista also changed hands several times during this period.24 More significantly, as a brief examination of the "buyer" category in Tables 8, 9, and 10 illustrates, no one individual purchased and retained more than three of the region‘s fifteen major haciendas, Enrique Maas, the only man to buy four haciendas, sold two of them after holding them for brief periods of time. Table 11 lists the major hacendados in Saltillo in the Porfiriato as well as an 80 estimate of the acreage they owned. No individual owned more than 90,000 hectares. The average surface area con— trolled by Saltillo's six largest hacendados was slightly less than 50,000 hectares. TABLE 11 LARGEST HACENDADOS IN SALTILLO, 1880-1910 Hacendado Maximum Hectares Owned Damaso Rodriguez 23,179 Clemente Cabello 87,800 Enrique Maas 40,300 Melchor Lobo Rodriguez 28,290 Hipolito Charles 30,573 Yreneo Ldpez 77,241 It should also be noted that Saltillo's hacendados generally limited the geographic scope of their operations. To be sure, more than one individual who owned land in Saltillo owned prOperty in other parts of the state, par— ticularly along the Rio Grande border and in the Laguna 25 district. However, material in the Archivo Poder Legislativo de Coahuila as well as the Central District's Registro de Propiedades indicates that no hacendado resid- ing in Saltillo owned significant amounts of land in the neighboring municipios of Ramos Arizpe, General Cepeda, or Arteaga. Moreover, Saltillo's landowners do not appear to have been unique in this respect. Major landowners in 81 Arteaga, Ramos Arizpe, and General Cepeda did not generally expand their landed holdings beyond the municipio in which they resided.26 Why large haciendas and ranchos changed hands so fre- quently in the first two decades of the Porfiriato is diffi- cult to ascertain with any degree of certainty. Perhaps the rapid decline of the Sanchez Navarros' economic for— tunes after 1865 created a vacuum of sorts in Saltillo economic life. David Brading's suggestion that deaths of primary landowners often led heirs (forced by creditors) to sell haciendas and ranchos does not satisfactorily ex- plain the large number of land transactions in Saltillo between 1880 and 1900. Although this seems to be how one of Saltillo's richest haciendas, Buenavista, came into Enrique Maas's hands, most land sales in the municipio did not involve heirs or creditors.27 Sales were generally voluntary. In some cases, indebtedness resulting from poor man— agement, or—-just as likely, given the vagaries of the municipio's weather-~bad luck, may have forced hacienda sales. For example Enrique Maas, a wealthy moneylender, held mortgages on several of the properties he purchased. However, entries in the records of the Registro de Propiedades noted whether property being sold was burdened by mortgages or other debts, and very few haciendas chang- ing hands, less than ten percent, were so burdened.28 82 Likewise, declining family fortunes cannot explain the bulk of the transfers of haciendas and ranchos in Saltillo. Enrique Maas was certainly not in dire economic straits when he sold the Hacienda Jagfiey de Ferniza (1902) or the Hacienda de Buenavista (1896).29 John Carothers, who sold a pair of small ranchos-~Palma and Pereyra-—in 1893, was a prosperous merchant/professional earning, at least in 1904, 6,000 pesos per year.30 Perhaps the most logical explanation for the sale of the majority of landed holdings in Saltillo is that land was viewed not as a mere indicator of social standing but as a tool for increasing or elevating one's economic posi- tion. The social prestige which came with landownership was undoubtedly important, but in Saltillo that considera- tion does not merit the overriding importance historians 31 have attributed to it. Some of the wealthiest individ- uals in Saltillo, although perfectly capable of doing so, never sought to purchase land.32 In point of fact, on countless occasions land holdings, typically small ranchos or labores bordering the property of large and supposedly greedy hacendados, were sold without an apparent effort on the part of the hacendados to acquire these properties 33 and expand their holdings. The conclusion is obvious: land was preeminently an object of economic investment. 83 The relative decline in the number of large haciendas or ranchos changing hands after 1900 seems natural when viewed from this perspective. Individuals who acquired their rural properties in the 1880's and 1890's saw little reason to expand their holdings once they had purchased as much as they deemed necessary. There were too many oppor- tunities in banking, industry, and mining for them to con- tinually invest money in land. The careers of Clemente Cabello, Enrique Maas, Guillermo Purcell, Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, and Damaso Rodriguez, examined in great detail in chapter five, will bring this facet of hacendado status into sharper focus. Despite the frequency of sales, it is doubtful that speculation accounted for the great number of land trans- actions which took place in Saltillo during the Porfiriato. The essential ingredient which would suggest waves of speculation-~rapidly increasing or fluctuating prices--was not evident in this region of northern Mexico. In fact, land prices did not vary greatly. Certainly, the overall trend in prices was upward, and profits from the sale of land were undoubtedly re- spectable; for example, in 1902 Enrique Maas sold the Hacienda Jagfiey de Ferniza, purchased in 1894, for a gross profit of 18,300 pesos.34 However, there was no major a1- teration in the economic underpinnings of the Saltillo re- gion such as occurred in Morelos as a result of the rapidly 84 expanding worldwide sugar market to increase the demand and hence force the price of land upward.35 General Cepeda was the only municipio in the Central District to experience anything remotely resembling a land boom during the Porfiriato.36 Outright cash purchases of haciendas and ranchos in the region surrounding Saltillo were not unheard of, es- pecially for smaller properties, but when purchasing a large landholding, a payment schedule spread over a number of years was more common. This undoubtedly contributed to the relative ease with which individuals undertook the responsibilities and demands of landownership. Four to five years was the typical period granted to purchasers to pay for their newly acquired holdings. Several of the municipio's most influential personages acquired their prOperty in this fashion. For example, when Clemente Cabello purchased the Hacienda de San Jose de la Ventura from GerOnimo Trevifio in mid—1885, Trevifio received no cash down payment. Cabello agreed to pay Trevifio 10,000 pesos at the end of the calendar year and 5,000 pesos annually on his outstanding principal, which was somewhat unusual. Most individuals who purchased land in this fashion were obligated to pay interest.38 Roughly half of the rural transactions valued at 39 3,500 pesos or more were financed in this fashion. In all, the length to which individuals went to arrange 85 favorable terms for land purchases, while reminiscent of contemporary real estate ventures, does not bespeak, in and of itself, a great demand for rural prOperties. More- over, payment schedules were rarely renegotiated, an addi- tional indication that landowners expected to, and appar- ently did, earn substantial profits from their estates. Land in the municipio was readily available and vir— tually all of it was owned by Mexicans. Throughout his protracted thirty—five year reign, Porfirio Diaz was touted by foreigners, particularly Americans and Western Europeans, as a model of an enlightened ruler. Undoubtedly the favor- able legislation passed by Diaz's puppet congresses which permitted foreign capitalists to siphon enormous profits from Mexico's riches contributed to their glowing Opinions of the dictator. Indeed, investments by North Americans in Diaz's Mexico have been estimated at nearly three 40 quarters of a billion dollars. Railroads and mining operations constituted the bulk of American investments in Mexico, but substantial amounts were invested in bank— ing, commerce, industry, and land.41 But at a time when other regions of Mexico witnessed this great wave of foreign investment, Saltillo was the scene of little foreign investment, either in industry or land.42 A British firm, the Cameron Freehold Land and Investment Company, owned land in Arteaga and Ramos Arizpe, 43 but its holdings did not extend into Saltillo. No other foreign company owned land in the Central District and 86 aside from the Mazapil COpper Company's smelter, construct- ed near Saltillo prOper, no foreign company made major in- vestments in the municipio. Foreign—born Mexicans who owned land in Saltillo and the Central District were, on the other hand, numerous. Enrique Maas and Clemente Cabello were the most significant 44 aliens who owned land in Saltillo. However, Maas and Cabello, along with many foreigners residing in Saltillo 45 Al- during the Porfiriato, were foreigners in name only. though often retaining citizenship status in their native lands, they married Mexican women, established homesteads and business enterprises, and integrated themselves into the local community. If Mexico missed the great waves of European immi- grants which so benefited Argentina and Chile, those few who did migrate to Saltillo were extremely productive ad- ditions to the region's economy. Maas and Cabello never returned to their native lands (Germany and Italy) and neither had economic links with foreign owned companies which withdrew money and resources from Mexico and left little in exchange. Indeed, Saltillo's economic develop- ment during the post 1880 period was financed by local, not foreign, capital. Moreover, although Saltillo's businessmen developed strong economic ties with businessmen in the United States, particularly in Texas, and several Americans invested funds 87 in relatively minor industrial concerns in the city, few North Americans owned land of appreciable value in the municipio.46 John Carothers, as mentioned above, was an American who owned several small ranchos in the region.47 Carothers, however, was an exception. None of the major haciendas listed in Tables 8, 9, and 10 were owned by Americans during the period from 1880 to 1910. Americans, in fact, were relatively scarce in Saltillo. In 1910, there were four hundred Americans (including women and children) in the municipio.48 From all indications, the major concentrations of North Americans in the state were in the cotton—rich Laguna district, and along the northern frontier in the Rio Grande Valley, where large herds of cattle were grazed. While sales of large landholdings in Saltillo gradu— ally decreased during the Porfiriato, the same cannot be said of small properties. Sales of property valued at under 3,500 pesos climbed steadily throughout the period from 1880 to 1910 and such transactions comprised the bulk of major land transactions noted earlier in Table 6. In- deed, nearly ninety percent of the land transactions re- corded in the Registro de Propriedades fell into this cate- gory. Many transfers of small properties (less than 3,500 pesos) involved parcels in the old haciendas of Cerritos, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Valdez, San Juan Bautista, and 88 49 These properties, centered in the Torrecilla y Ramones. area northeast of Saltillo, were well irrigated and ex- tremely valuable. In fact, these old haciendas, although relatively small in size, covering as a group nearly 7,000 hectares, were valued in 1899 at far more than several of 50 Table 12 shows the the municipio's largest haciendas. value of the above mentioned fincas compared to several of the area's largest haciendas. TABLE 12 ASSESSED VALUE OF OLD HACIENDAS AND LARGEST HACIENDAS, SALTILLO, 1899 Old Assessed Largest Assessed Haciendas Value Haciendas Value Gonzalez 23,398 Muchachos 26,950 Cerritos 24,998 Derramadero 14,750 Rodriguez 24,456 Buenavista 18,800 Torresilla San Juan de y Ramones 18,000 Retiro 16,050 Valdecez 23,559 Ventura 20,100 All figures given in pesos. Chapter I suggested that large landholders did not control the municipio's most valuable resource, water. Rather, small prOprietors managed to obtain and retain con- trol over the best irrigated lands in the municipio. Sev- eral reasons can be cited to explain this set of circum- stances. First, Saltillo's hacendados were far too 89 involved in a variety of economic ventures to have any real need to own all of the best land, i.e., irrigated land. Agriculture in Saltillo was not, as it may have been in Yucatan and Morelos, the only avenue available to local entrepreneurs. Secondly, and more importantly, well irrigated lands were expensive and it would have been difficult, if not impractical, for a single hacendado to acquire huge amounts. For example, in 1902 a semi~official report to the gov- ernor's office indicated that land prices in Saltillo varied from 1,000 to 5,000 pesos per sitio d3 ganado mayor 1 (pasture land, 1,755 hectares).5 Good quality land with water brought the highest price while poor quality land without water was worth far less. Well irrigated plots of land were, however, worth far in excess of 5,000 pesos per sitig. In 1899, three years before the report men— tioned above was written, the old Hacienda Pefia--a well irrigated property composed of 360 hectares, or less than one-fifth of a sitio d3 ganado mayor—~was valued at 16,500 52 pesos, or forty-six pesos per hectare. The old Hacienda Cerritos, also well irrigated, was valued at 25,000 pesos, 53 Conversely, or 6.5 pesos per hectare in the same year. large haciendas without dependable sources of water for irrigation,although as a whole relatively valuable, were on a per hectare basis inexpensive. San Juan de Retiro, covering some 40,000 hectares, was valued at less than 90 three pesos per hectare while the Hacienda San Juan de Vaqueria, encompassing nearly 28,000 hectares, was worth just 1.1 pesos per hectare.54 Actual transfers of land ownership lend credence to the validity of the above figures. In 1900, 3.5 hectares in the Hacienda Gonzalez, a well irrigated hacienda east of the city, sold for two hundred pesos, or fifty—seven pesos per hectare.55 Three years later, in 1903, Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez purchased nearly 4,000 hec— tares in San Juan de Retiro for 2,000 pesos, or only two pesos per hectare.56 The above prices indicate that small landholdings with dependable sources of water for irrigation were simp- ly too expensive relative to other types of investment opportunity for one individual hacendado to attempt to pur- chase. Indeed, documents in local archives, particularly the Archivo de Justica del Estad9_de Coahuila, although revealing concern over water rights, indicated a remarkable absence of disputes over land. In fact, the physical area of haciendas and ranchos in Saltillo was frequently loosely defined. Property descriptions used arroyos, Sierras, or other natural landmarks to determine boundary lines.57 Water rights, on the other hand, were without exception accurately described. Water usage rights were divided into days, hours, and frequently minutes. The specific time when water could be taken from communal aqueducts was 91 also spelled out and provisions for leap years and months with thirty—one days were made.58 This examination of landholding patterns in Saltillo underscores the image of a balanced agricultural structure described in the previous chapter. Haciendas, as well as smaller estates, changed hands frequently. Land concentra- tion was foreign to the Porfiriato in this corner of Coahuila. The same factors which combined to drive small proprietors into the production of wheat ensured their in- dependent existence. Water was not only the key to agri- cultural production in the municipio, but it was in a very real sense the key to the survival of the region's small rancheros. Small, well irrigated holdings, while perhaps not prohibitively expensive in individual parcels, were, collectively, far too valuable and expensive to be con- trolled by a few hacendados, who had other profitable uses for their capital. 92 1This view is prominent in a number of works. See for example Fernando Gonzalez Roa, Chapters on the Agrarian Question in Mexico trans. Gustavo E. ArchilIa (New York, 1937); Jesus Silva Herzog, "La Concentracién Agraria en Mexico," Cuadernos Americanos, 62, (March-April, 1952); Armando Gonzalez Santos, La Agricultura:; Estructura y utilizaciOn de los recursos (México, 1957Y: George McBride, Land Systems of Mexico’TNew York, 1923); and Ernest Gruening, Mexico and Its Heritage (New York, 1928). 2Cumberland, Mexico: The Struggle for Modernity (New York, 1968), pp. 203—204. John H. Coatsworth's "Anotaciones sobre la producciOn de alimentos Durante e1 Porfiriato," Historia Mexicana 26, no. 2 (October-December, 1976), pp. 167-187, provides a far different View of food production in Mexico between 1876 and 1910. 3Charles Harris, Family Empire, p. 7. 4Ibid., p. 116. 5Key elements in the erection of Mexico's large landed estates during the post 1850 period were the various anti-clerical measures of the Juarez regime. For a brief survey of these acts, see Jan Bazant, "The Division of Some Mexican Haciendas during the Liberal Revolution 1856-1862," Journal of Latin American Studies 3, no. 1 (May, 1971): PP. 25-37. 6For an analysis of how Porfirian legislation was turned to the benefit of large landholders, see Helen Phipps, Some Aspects of the Agrarian Question in Mexico (Austin, I925), pp. 100-110. 7Womack, Za ata, pp. 37—66. 8 . Ibld., p. 45. 9Cumberland, Struggle for Modernity, pp. 198-202. 10 1898. AMS, 130-2, 145, 1887; 132-1, 1, 1889; 141-3, 20-4, lllgig., 150-2, 17-8, 1907; 151-4, 16-4, 1908; 153-2, 9-2, 1910; 155-2, 10—3, 1912. 93 121 have defined major land transactions as sales of rural property involving 100 pesos or more. 13Saltillo's Registro de Propiedades contains a record of prOperty sales in the Central Digtfict from 1880 to the present day. l4Woessner to Secretary of State, 11/15/86, NA, RG 59 (Dispatches) 300. 15Womack, Zapata, p. 49. For a somewhat different View of landholding patterns in Porfirian Coahuila see Ildefonso Villarello Velez, Historia de la RevoluciOn Mexicana en Coahuila (México,1970), pp. 30-36. l6Garcia also owned a brickyard in Saltillo. 17The total acreage involved in these twenty-odd land transactions is difficult to determine. Acreages are not always provided in records of the Registro. Assum— ing land was worth one peso per hectare (and this would be on the low end of the price spectrum for land in northern Mexico during the Porfiriato) slightly over 20,000 hectares changed hands in Saltillo during 1908. See AMS, 145-4, 17-6, 1902. —__ 1852, 28-1, 4041:101; 38-1, 6451:89. 191bid.’ 40-1, 6851:165; 40-1, 6902:271; 41-1, 7078:289; 41—1, 7125:376; 43-1, 7566:381. 201bid., 6-1, 950:72. 211bid., 6-1, 1253:368. 22;g;g., 5-1, 676:115; 5—1, 775-265; 5—1, 777-268; 6-1, 1307:466. 23I§i§,, 28-1, 4041:101. RPLS, 5-3, 178:124. 2433, 2-1. 87:12; 2-1, 181:137; 3-1, 330:132; 6-1, 910:19; 9-1, 1560:42. 25Damaso Rodriguez, for one, owned land in the nor- thern part of the state, as did Miguel Cérdenas. 94 262mm, 13th legis., 1893—1895,'l§g. 3, Comisidn de Hacienda, Planos de Arbitrios, 1894. This document pro— vides tax lists for every municipio in Coahuila in 1894. Such lists (Planos de Arbitrios) were prepared yearly and all are filed in the APLC. The Planos were also published in the Periddico Oficial. 2753: 5‘1, 894:457; 6-1, 907:13; 6-1, 910:19. 28If land was mortgaged, the purchaser was usually required to pay the holder of the mortgage any funds due him before turning over funds to the property holder. 29Maas, for example, invested 40,000 pesos in the ~ Banco de Coahuila in 1897, and 50,000 pesos in the Compania Ganadera y Textil de Cedros in 1903. Perhaps he used the money he received from selling these two haciendas to fi- nance his entry into other businesses. For a more detailed description of Maas's activities in nonagricultural invest- ments see Chapters five and six. 30AMS, 148—1, 5—5, 1905. 31See for example, Edith Boorstein Couturier, "Modern- izacidn y Tradici6n en una Hacienda: San Juan Hueyapan, 1902—1911," Historia Mexicana 18, no. 1 (July-September, 1968), pp. 35—55. 32Guillermo Purcell, a wealthy merchant-industrialist, never purchased land in the vicinity of Saltillo. Other merchants or industrialists in Saltillo who never acquired land included Bernardo Sota, Clemente Sieber, David Zamora, Francisco Arispe y Ramos, and Jose Juan Rodr1guez. 33Numerous sources in Saltillo's Registro de Propiedades could be cited. The following are simply in- dications of those which can be discovered: RP, 16-1, 2049:30; ll-l, 1775:90: 21—1, 3499:22; 39—1, 6631:144. 345g, 28-1, 4041:101; 6—1, 1307:466. Maas paid 7,200 pesos for the property and sold it for 25,500 pesos. 35Womack, Zapata, pp. 47—50. A similar set of cir- cumstances may have affected the state of Yucatan. 95 36El Estado de Coahuila (a weekly newspaper in Saltillo during thé’Porfiriato) 4/26/07. Land prices in General Cepeda quintupled between 1902 and 1907. 373g, 4-1, 422—25. 38Interest on such loans usually amounted to ten per- cent or leSs. See for example, RP, ll—l, 1759:43; 18-1, 3274:320; 20-1, 3411:61. 395ee 52: 1880-1910. 40Moises Gonzalez Navarro, El Porfiriato, La Vida Economica in Cosio Villegas, ed., Historia Moderna de Mex1co_(Mexico, 1955), p. 1137. 41Ibid., pp. 973-1185. See also NA, RG 59, Box 3699, 312.11/338; Commercial Relations, 1902, pp. 400-500. 42Coahuila, in 1902, had more U.S. capital invested in the state (48,700,000 dollars) than any other state. Overall, Coahuila had fifteen percent of all U.S. invest- ment in Mexico (320,800,000 dollars). These figures are, however, somewhat misleading. The vast majority of U.S. investment in Coahuila (37,800,000 dollars, or seventy- eight percent) was in railroads. See Commercial Relations of the United States with Foreign Countfies, 1902, p. 439. 43RP, 5-1, 644:60. 44The economic activities of Maas and Cabello will be explored in depth in chapter six. 45In one municipal document, for example, Cabello is referred to as a "mexicano." See AMS, 148-1, 5-1, 1905. "' “‘ 46 From all indications, John Harlan, a mill owner in Saltillo and Monterrey, owned the highest valued prOperty (10,000 pesos) in Saltillo during the late Porfiriato. John Woessner, one-time American consul, was, by marriage, heir to one of the largest fortunes in the Central District, that of Valeriano Ancira, a moneylender and hacendado in General Cepeda. 96 47Carothers, a graduate of the University of Pennsyl— vania, also owned a pharmacy in Saltillo. 48NA, RG 49, 312.11/8798. 49See map in Chapter 1. SCAMS, 142-2, 12—9, 1899. 511bid., 145—4, 17-6, 1902. 52Ibid., 142—2, 12-9, 1899. Forty-six pesos per hec- tare equals a value, per sitio d3 ganado mayor, of 80,000 pesos. If, by way of comparison, the 17,000 hectare Ha- cienda de Jagfiey de Ferniza had been worth forty-six pesos per hectare, it would have brought well over 750,000 pesos when Enrique Maas sold the property in 1902, rather than the actual purchase price of 25,000 pesos. 53AMS, 142—2, 12-9, 1899. Cerritos, at 6.5 pesos per hectareT—Was worth approximately 11,400 pesos per sitio d3 ganado mayor, far above the maximum 5,000 peso figure noted in 1902. 54AMS, 142—2, 12—9. In short, large haciendas like San JuaH—de Retiro and San Juan de Vaqueria were worth, per sitio de ganado mayor, no more than 4,500 pesos, far less than {He value of their smaller, well irrigated counterparts. 553g, 21-1, 3499:22. 56Ibid., 31-1, 4352:76. 57See Ibid., 7-1, 1436:232; 9-1, 1562:48; 10-1, 1674:37; 2-1, 131:81; 3-1, 235:56; 3-1, 400:189. 581m records of the Registro de Propiedades, descrip- tions of water rights often preceeded a description of land to be transferred, an oblique indication of water's im- portance. See RP, 13—1, 1840:65; 6-1, 116:178; 6-1, 1121: 184; 6-1, 1210:299; 7—1, 1334:27; 7-1, 1392:33; 2-1, 164:116; 4-1, 435:43; 4—1, 530:174. CHAPTER IV THE HACENDADO AS ENTREPRENEUR The Porfirian hacendado in Saltillo was in many re- spects the antithesis of the figure pro—Revolutionary his- 1 The following pages will examine torians haVe described. several important aspects of the northern hacendado's makeup that have remained virtually unexplored, principally his investments outside the realm of personal landholding.2 By reviewing the nature and scope of the varying types of investments undertaken by Saltillo's large landowners, new dimensions will be added to our portrait of the Porfirian hacendado in the north; the image of the hacen- dado as entrepreneur will emerge into sharper focus. A brief review of the economic structure of Coahuila and the Central District would be helpful in understanding the role landowners (propietarios) played in the region's economic development.3 Coahuila and especially the municipio of Saltillo were, originally, a base of supply for Spanish mining centers located to the south and west in Zacatecas, Durango, and San Luis Potosi.4 Later in the colonial period, Coahuila, and again especially Saltillo, assumed an influential role in the north's economic life 97 98 aside from their agricultural prominence.5 The Villa's location astride the major trade routes connecting Monterrey with Spanish Texas and San Luis Potosi and points south permitted the city to develop as a major trade cen- ter.6 Despite the undeniable commercial and agricultural importance of Saltillo, the region remained sparsely settled and relatively undeveloped until past the mid- nineteenth century. Although it was the state capital and largest yilla in the state, Saltillo had a population of only 8,000 as late as 1870.7 During the next forty years, however, from 1870 to 1910, Coahuila changed dramatically. By 1890, long before the apogee of Porfirian rule in Mexico, the state's economic underpinnings had undergone a remark- able transformation and vitalization. Export of agricul- tural goods including livestock and hides to central Mexi- co was still extremely important. However, the railroad construction which crisscrossed Mexico during the Porfiriato opened Coahuila and the Central District to wider markets, and by so doing, widened the scope of the region's economic activities.8 With the coming of the railroad, cereal grains such as barley and wheat could be tranSported cheaply to pre- viously unreachable markets. Fruit and nuts also found new markets as a result of the railroad's arrival.9 More- over, after 1898, when the web of railroad construction 99 connecting Saltillo with the rest of Mexico was finally completed, it became increasingly possible for residents of the Central District to take advantage of the region's resources, both natural and human, and initiate large-scale manufacturing and industrial projects. Saltillo, although rivaled by TorreOn, a rapidly growing city located in the southwestern corner of the state in the Laguna district, reigned as Coahuila's most important industrial center throughout the later Porfiriato.10 During this period of rapid economic development, textile manufacturing became an increasingly important ele- ment in the economic structure of the state as well as the 11 municipio of Saltillo. By 1905, there were four fac- tories located in Saltillo selling finished cotton goods throughout most of northern and central Mexico, including 12 Mexico City. This contrasts sharply with the sleepy little yilla described by earlier visitors to the region.13 Similar factories Operated in Ramos Arizpe and nearby Parras.l4 The largest textile factory in the Central Dis- trict, "La Bella Unidn," was owned by a dynamic trio of Saltillo residents who operated a major industrial com- plex in the small‘yilla_of Arteaga, east of Saltillo.15 In addition to exporting finished cotton goods, the municipio also emerged as a center for the milling of corn and, more importantly, wheat. The largest milling complex in the municipio, the Molino de Fénix, was founded in 1900 100 by a consortium of investors from Saltillo and Parras.l6 The company sold flour throughout Mexico as well as in the United States. In 1905, there were at least a half dozen mills in operation in Saltillo, and all, apparently, exported flour outside the state's borders.17 Besides textiles and milling, mining interests in the state began to assume significance after 1880. Coahuila's mineral wealth, unlike deposits in San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato, was composed principally of base metals, notably copper, lead, and zinc.18 The yilla of Sierra Mojada, referred to as the Leadville of northern Mexico by prominent local historian Vito Alessio Robles, was the undisputed center of Coahuila's mining industry.19 A smaller, secondary mining center was located north of the old state capital, Monclova, in the Sierra del Carmen.20 Although Sierra Mojada was located nearly three hun- dred and fifty kilometers northwest of Saltillo, in the heart of the BolsOn de Mapimi, the Central District was recognized as an important center of mining activity in its own right. Numerous small mining operations were carried on at various points in the District, particularly in the mountainous region south of Saltillo. Despite losing out to Monterrey in the race to capture the modern smelter constructed by Guggenheim interests in 1891, one of nor- thern Mexico's largest smelters, owned by the Mazapil Copper Company, a primarily British concern, was 101 constructed on the southern rim of the city after 1906.21 Copper matte shipped to the United States from the Mazapil Smelter remained an important export until 1914, when Revo- lutionary forces closed the mines which supplied the smel— ter with raw material.22 In brief, Coahuila and the Central District represent- ed, throughout the Porfiriato and especially during the period from 1885 to 1910, an area with an effective mix of agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, and mining. It was this balanced mix combined with an effective transporta- tion system and a strong commitment by the region's resi- dents to economic development and modernization which led English historian Percy Martin to refer to Coahuila, in 1907, as the premier state in the Mexican union.23 The hacendado's role in Coahuila's rapid rise to economic prominence during the Porfiriato was as effective as it was complex. Aside from their landed holdings, the region's hacendados were deeply committed to and involved in the region's economic development. Not only did land- owners invest heavily in Saltillo's basic economic growth areas, such as textiles and milling, but area hacendados were often the driving force behind the organization of new business enterprises. So intertwined were the hacendado, the industrialist, and the merchant, that it is often difficult and frequently impossible to determine whether an individual was primarily 102 24 As data a hacendado, an industrialist, or a merchant. in the following pages will demonstrate, the holding of nonagricultural enterprises by area hacendados was rela- tively commonplace in the Central District throughout the Porfiriato. Hacendados owned mines, mills, factories, warehouses, as well as other types of commercial and manu- facturing endeavors. At the same time, merchants and pro- fessionals invested in landed holdings in addition to op- erating and managing their commercial and professional efforts. For example, in 1907, Francisco Sieber and Blas Narro, two comerciantes residing in Saltillo, formed a five year partnership with Carlos Morales and Joaquin Rodriguez Narro.25 The company, Carlos Morales y Compagia, was to rent or purchase cattle or crop haciendas in the Central District. In the same year, Lic. José Verea, a lawyer, formed a partnership with Julian Pastor of Monterrey, J. Pastor y CompaHia, to exploit Pastor's Hacienda de la Paila 26 In short, there was no radical dichotomy in Nuevo Ledn. between rural landholders and urban businessmen in Saltillo. Often they were one in the same; the same individuals, and on a larger scale, the same class or elite group. Hacendado involvement in the economic growth of the Central District took several forms. Proprietors often owned outright such typically urban enterprises as flour mills and textile factories. In fact, the two largest 103 factories in Saltillo in 1904, based on the value of goods 27 Indirect produced, were owned in part by hacendados. ownership or participation in nonagricultural concerns was also commonplace. This latter type of involvement was ac- complished by purchasing shares (acciones) in newly formed companies. The process was similar to investing in today's stock markets. Perhaps more significant is the fact that area hacendados doubled not only as investors but as manage- ment officials. Many of the companies established in Saltillo during the Porfiriato were headed by landowners. If local hacendados could not be found living or work- ing on their landed estates, it was often because they were busy directing their nonagricultural ventures. Outright ownership of nonagricultural concerns by proprietors was not, apparently, as prevalent as indirect ownership or investment. This may have been due to a reluctance on the part of proprietors to assume total responsibility for the day—to—day operation and maintenance of an urban concern. More plausibly, the region's prOprietors, by purchasing shares, could diversify their capital investments and thus limit their potential losses; diversification of invest- ment through shareholding allowed for greater potential return and offered greater flexibility than outright ownership. 104 Nonetheless, despite the apparent advantages accruing from indirect ownership, hacendados in Saltillo did own, outright, a variety of urban establishments. As a general rule, these were not small enterprises such as barbershops, bakeries, or hotels. Rather, their direct investments were concentrated in larger concerns such as factories, mills, or warehouses. For example, Clemente Cabello, master of several large cattle haciendas in the southern stretches of the municipio, owned a flour mill and a textile fac- tory.28 Damaso Rodriguez owned, in addition to the Hacien— da Derramadero, a tannery, a shoe factory, and a ware- 29 house. Guillermo Purcell, although his landed holdings were not within the municipio, owned one of the largest warehouses in Saltillo.30 It should be emphasized that urban holdings such as those mentioned above were not minor concerns but large- scale operations. Damaso Rodriguez's and Guillermo Pur- cell's warehouses were among the largest in the municipio and District if not the state. In 1897, sales, both wholesale and retail, for Damaso Rodriguez's commercial holdings were estimated at 150,000 pesos.31 In the same period, sales by Guillermo Purcell's commercial enterprises were reported to have been nearly 80,000 pesos.32 Clemente Cabello's textile factory, acquired in 1894, and flour mill, while not the largest in the municipio, nonetheless did a significant business; the total value of 105 the goods produced in 1905 was estimated at 150,000 pesos.l3 Table 13 lists the major manufacturing concerns in Saltillo in 1905, along with a notation of those owned by hacendados.34 Table 14 (following page) lists the largest commercial enterprises in the municipio in the same year, 1905, as well as an indication of those which were owned by area landowners. TABLE 13 SALTILLO'S MAJOR MANUFACTURING CONCERNS, 1905 Value of Company Business Capital Production *El Féhix Flour Mill 100,000 194,000 *Libertad Textile/Flour Mill 60,000 150,000 *Gran. Co. Ladrillera Brickyard 80,000 30,000 Aurora Textile/Flour Mill 80,000 75,000 Hibernia Textile Mill 50,000 70,000 *Denotes hacendado involvement All figures given in pesos Damaso Rodriguez, Clemente Cabello, and Guillermo Purcell were only the most prominent hacendados residing in Saltillo who owned urban or nonagricultural property. . I I Cresenc1o Rodriguez Gonzalez, owner of several small rural 35 properties, also owned a brickyard. Enrique Mass, owner of numerous haciendas in the municipio throughout the Porfiriato, operated a profitable money lending concern.36 106 TABLE 14 SALTILLO'S LARGEST COMMERCIAL_CONCERNS, 1905 Company or Owner Clemente Sieber & CO. *Guillermo Purcell *Damaso Rodriguez & Sons Bernardo Sota F. Groves y Cia. Blanc y Garcia I . *Genaro DaV1la y Cia I Mart1n Hermanas *R. Mellado y Cia. Torre Hermanos *Juan Carothers Villar Hermanos Business Hardware/ Drygoods Warehouse Commission Agent/ Clothing Clothing Clothing/Hats Warehouse/ Clothing Commission Agent/ Shoes Commission Agent Hardware/Drygoods Clothing Drug Store Commission Agents 951211311 500,000 500,000 200,000 100,000 60,000 50,000 30,000 50,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 Yearly Profit 24,000 36,000 16,000 16,000 10,000 10,000 12,000 6,000 6,000 10,000 6,000 5,000 *Denotes hacendado involvement All figures given in pesos 107 Smaller landowners, among them Antonio Santos Coy, Cayetano Sousa, and Amado Cavazos, owned grocery stores.37 Félix M. Salinas Operated a tannery and a shoe factory, while Ruperto G. Letona owned a brickyard.38 More than one area hacendado took advantage of the ap- parent scarcity of good houses or residences in Saltillo, noted in 1883 by John Wadsworth, United States Consular 39 Officer, to invest in urban real estate. Damaso Rodriguez acquired numerous houses in Saltillo throughout the Porfiriato, and in 1910 ran an advertisement for house 40 rentals in the state's Periddico Oficial. Clemente Cabello, as evidenced by a 1905 court case involving non- payment of rent by Vicente Valdez, who was renting a house Cabello owned on Bravo Street, dabbled in real estate.41 Guillermo Purcell and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, to name only two, also purchased houses in Saltillo which they presumably rented.42 Indirect ownership or participation by area landowners in nonagricultural enterprises was extremely important to Saltillo's industrialization and modernization. Given the fact that raising the large amounts of capital necessary for such concerns as banks or flour mills often precluded individual ownership, the only viable alternative was a consortium of individual investors. Many of Saltillo's largest enterprises were founded by the efforts of such 108 consortiums, and within that framework, Saltillo's land- owners played an extremely important role, and possibly a dominant one. The following examples serve to illustrate not only how area landowners invested their funds in various non— agricultural concerns, but also the rate of return they received on their capital. The Banco de Coahuila was es- 43 tablished in 1897. Its capitalization was set at 500,000 pesos, divided into 5,000 shares worth one hundred pesos each.44 The following year, the bank was authorized to raise its capital to 1,600,000 pesos, which, in turn, per— mitted a new subscription offering of 11,000 shares also at one hundred pesos each.45 Almost every significant area hacendado as well as numerous smaller landowners subscribed to the bank's 46 Area hacendados investing in the bank included stock. Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez (80,000 pesos), Enrique Maas (40,000 pesos), Guillermo Purcell (40,000 pesos), Damaso Rodriguez (20,000 pesos), Clemente Cabello (20,000 pesos), Gabriel Flores (10,000 pesos), Francisco Narro Acufia (5,000 pesos), Amado Cavazos (4,000 pesos), and Teodoro Carrillo (3,000 pesos).47 In all, the landowners listed above, all residing in Saltillo, invested slightly over 220,000 pesos, or nearly fifteen percent of the bank's 48 capital. Money invested in the bank in 1897 and 1898 by these nine individuals was more than twice the amount 109 of money invested in major land transactions in all the municipio during that two year period. This indicates hacendados selected their investment opportunities care- fully and, when presented the opportunity, did not hesitate to bypass additional purchases of land. Not only were area hacendados major subscribers to the bank's shares, several were in administrative positions within the organizational structure of the bank. The first board of directors (consejo dg_administrac15n), composed of five members with five year terms, was staffed by . ~ . Franc1sco Narro Acuna, Enrique Maas, Cresenc1o Rodriguez 49 Gonzalez, Marcelino Garza, and Manuel Mazo. All were 50 landowners. The consejo, in addition to hiring manage- ment level employees and setting salaries, fixed interest rates, supervised yearly accounts, and authorized divi- dends.51 The bank was a profitable venture for its stockhold— ers. Dividends in 1907 amounted to twelve percent, or 52 In 1908, 1909, and 1910 divi- 53 twelve pesos per share. dends of ten percent were paid. Landowners who had in- vested in the bank earned, obviously, substantial returns during this period. Damaso Rodriguez, who owned two hun- dred shares, received 6,000 pesos in dividends between 1908 and 1910. Enrique Maas and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez earned at least 4,000 pesos and 8,000 pesos, respectively, per year during this same period. Earnings 110 are, of course, only significant or relative when compared to some definite yardstick. In this case, the above men- tioned trio, with the dividends they received, could have purchased gygpy major plot of land sold in the municipio between 1908 and 1910.54 That they did not, underscores again the fact that landowners in Saltillo did not seek to expand their landed holdings in the municipio. Public utilities were also targets for hacendado investments. Landowners bought shares in the CompaHia Luz Eléctrica de Saltillo (electric power company), and in the Compafiia Limitada de Tranvias del Saltillo (streetcar company).55 The latter company was founded in 1902 with a capitalization of 25,000 pesos divided into 1,000 shares 56 Landowners who owned worth twenty-five pesos each. shares in the streetcar company included Gabriel Flores, Guillermo Purcell, Marcelino Garza, Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, Enrique Maas, Damaso Rodriguez, Valeriano Ancira, Clemente Cabello, Rafael Siller Valle, Geronimo Siller, Jesds del Bosque, Pragedis de la Peas, Gabriel Valero, 57 The above named individuals, al- and Jesfis de Valle. though numbering less than twelve percent of the total number of shareholders, accounted for over one-third of the company's outstanding shares.58 Large companies in which local landowners invested monies were numerous. In addition to the Banco de Coahuila and the Compaflia Limitada de Tranvias del 111 Saltillo, area landowners invested heavily in the CompaHia Coahuilense de Ahorros e anersiones, a bank; Credit Agricola, another bank; and a soap factory, La Estrella del Norte.59 Of the three companies, La Estrella del Norte was the largest. Founded in 1899, it numbered among its shareholders several hacendados: Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, Damaso Rodriguez, Clemente Cabello, Gabriel Flores, and Guillermo Purcell.60 An equally common means of investing utilized by area landowners was the formation of partnerships. These were seldom composed of more than a dozen individuals and frequently less than five people. Partnerships in the municipio operated within the broad range of the business spectrum, from large-scale industrial concerns to smaller urban or rural endeavors. The most graphic illustration of a large-scale indus— trial complex operated by a small partnership was La 61 Industrial Saltillera. Formed by Damaso Rodriguez, Marcelino Garza, and Guillermo Purcell in 1889, La Indus- trial Saltillera's original capital was 160,000 pesos.62 The company's physical assets included a flour mill, the Molino de La Unidn, and a textile factory, La Bella Unidh, both located in Arteaga.63 By the time the company was reorganized in 1901, under the name Compafiia Industrial Saltillera, the value of its holding had increased to 675,000 pesos and the company, in addition to the textile 112 64 The factory and mill, had acquired a paper factory. company exported its products, particularly its textiles and paper, to neighboring states as well as to the central region of the country.65 Each partner's share of the com- pany in 1901 was reported to have been worth 225,000 pesos, an increase of five hundred percent in the value of each partner's share in the firm in less than a dozen years.66 The partnership formed by Purcell, Rodriguez, and Garza was an exceptionally large company in terms of capital value. Most partnerships in which landowners par— ticipated, although involving healthy sums, were less im- posing. For example, the Molino de Fenix, established one year after La Industrial Saltillera, in 1899, ground 67 Its 68 wheat into flour as well as manufacturing pastas. capital in the year it was founded was 100,000 pesos. The Gran CompaHia Ladrillera de Saltillo, successor of the Compafiia Ladrillera de Saltillo, had a capital of 120,000 pesos at the time it was founded.69 It must be stressed that hacendados did not limit their investments to urban endeavors such as banks, street- car companies, or manufacturing concerns. Often, they invested in essentially rural enterprises. The best example of this type of investment effort was the CompaHia Ganadera y Textil de Cedros. This company, composed of only thirteen investors, pledged, in 1903, 1,100,000 pesos 70 to purchase the Hacienda de Cedros. The hacienda, 113 located near Mazapil, Zacatecas, southwest of Saltillo, was in a semi—desert, high, rocky tableland unsuited for agriculture. There were, however, in 1910, more than a quarter million goats grazing on the hacienda, which had been sold in 1906 to an American concern, the Interconti— nental Rubber Company.71 Investors in the original CompaHia Cedros included several of Saltillo's largest hacendados-~Enrique Maas, Francisco Narro Acufia, Damaso Rodriguez, Cresencio Rodriguez 72 Gonzalez, and ROmulo Larralde. Rodriguez invested 100,000 pesos, while Maas, Rodriguez Gonzdlez, and Narro 73 In keeping with the AcuHa invested 50,000 pesos each. responsibilities inherent in investments of large sums, Rodriguez, Rodriguez Gonzalez, and Narro Acufia secured positions on the company's board of directors.74 The massive investments made by Saltillo's hacendados in such ventures as the Compafiia Cedros reflect, once again, the varied economic pursuits of the region's hacendados. The sums Damaso Rodriguez, Enrique Maas, and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzglez invested in the Compafiia Cedros would have purchased gpy single estate sold in the municipio from 1903 to the fall of Porfirio Diaz in 1911. That land concentration did not occur in Saltillo because potential buyers lacked funds or the inclination to invest their surplus cash. Rather, those who were in a position to buy land in Saltillo lacked the interest to do so. 114 An organization similar to the CompaHia Cedros, the Compagia Agricola y Ganadera de Saltillo, was organized 75 in October 1900. The company was to "cultivate and ex— ploit the fincas r6Sticas (rural estates) now being rented" in the municipio of Saltillo. Marcelino Garza, Enrique Maas, Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, and Francisco Narro Acufia, landowners all, were partners in this venture. Each contributed 20,000 pesos to company coffers.76 The Compafiia Ganadera y Textil de Cedros and the Compafiia Agricola y Ganadera de Saltillo, much like the partnership formed by Guillermo Purcell, Damaso Rodriguez, and Marcelino Garza, were far larger than the typical agri- cultural company or partnership propietarios found them- selves in. Perhaps more typical was the partnership formed by Rafael Siller Valle and Cesareo Elizondo. Both men purchased, in 1902, equal portions of the Hacienda Jagaey de Ferniza, located in the highlands south of the 77 city. Rather than divide the hacienda into two separate and smaller holdings, Siller Valle and Elizondo formed a partnership to more fully exploit the hacienda's potential.78 In addition to the above mentioned forms of urban and rural investment opportunities, Saltillo's landowners often formed partnerships to run small commercial enterprises. In such cases, the hacendado, more often than not, was labeled a socio capitalista (silent partner). Socios capitalistas supplied the funds necessary to Operate a 115 business but little else. Marcelino Garza, for example, was the socio capitalista in two small commercial or mer- 79 . I cantile concerns. In 1889, Garza and Honore V. Dessommes formed an enterprise under the name H. V. Dessommes and 80 Company. In exchange for a contribution of 5,000 pesos worth of merchandise, Garza was to receive two—thirds of the firm's yearly profit.81 Dessommes was to be respons- ible for day~to~day operations of the company. In 1898, Garza entered into a similar arrangement with Genaro Davila.82 The partnership of Gabriel Flores and Luis Cortez illustrates, again, that hacendado investments or partner- ships were not necessarily limited to urban ventures. Gabriel Flores, a propietario in the municipio of Saltillo, also owned land in the neighboring state of Nuevo LeOn. In 1897, he formed a partnership with Cortez to establish a giro mercantil on his Hacienda Ciénega del Toro for the purchase and sale of livestock as well as wheat, corn, beans, and other crops harvested by agriculturalists in the municipio of Geleana.83 Flores' contribution to the partnership was 8,000 pesos.84 Cortez, the administrator of the company, contributed only his labor, for which he received thirty—five pesos monthly.85 Mining Operations provided Saltillo's hacendados with additional opportunities to participate in the state's economic growth and development. Mining companies in Coahuila during the Porfiriato were frequently short-lived 116 and, to a far greater degree than any other type of busi- ness venture discussed in this chapter, highly speculative. Nevertheless, area hacendados were often among the sub— scribers to shares of local mining companies. Indeed, mining companies seemed to have been a particularly fa- vorite investment vehicle for the region's landowners. Aside from the spectacular profits which accrued to share- holders in the event of a "strike," there was the general practice of requiring only a partial advance of promised funds until or unless a claim showed true merit.86 Several mining companies organized in Coahuila during the Porfiriato illustrate the involvement of area land— owners in local mining Operations. The Compafiia Minera La Constancia, formed in 1894, was made up of eleven part- ners.87 La Constancia proved to be one of the most profit- able mining ventures on record in Coahuila during the Porfiriato, returning huge profits to its shareholders.88 Among the company's original investors were Guillermo Purcell, Clemente Cabello, Gabriel Flores, and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez.89 One of the largest mining companies organized in Saltillo was the Compafiia Minera del Saltillo, formed in 90 1899 to exploit mines in the state of Zacatecas. Its capitalization was set at 100,000 pesos, to be collected at the rate of only two pesos per share per month.91 Among area hacendados subscribing to the company's stock, at 117 one hundred pesos per share, were Miguel Cardenas (200 shares), Damaso Rodriguez (50 shares), Encarnac16n Davila (20 shares), and Marcelino Garza (20 shares).92 The Compagia Minera Eureka, formed in 1903 to operate mining claims in western Coahuila, numbered several promi- nent members of Saltillo's hacendado class among its sub— 93 Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, Clemente Cabello, scribers. and Damaso Rodriguez all invested in the company. Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, in fact, became president of Eureka's board of directors.94 The previous paragraphs suggest that Saltillo's land- owners played a significant role in the region's economic expansion during the Porfiriato. The lack of foreign in- vestment in Saltillo enhanced the hacendados' willingness to invest large sums of money in areas outside the tradi- tional realm of rural estates. To a degree perhaps un- matched in all Mexico, Saltillo's economic advance and modernization were financed by native or local capital. Paralleling the absence of foreign ownership of land noted in chapter three, foreign investment in banking or indus- trial concerns organized in Saltillo between 1880 and 1910 was rare, especially by Americans. For instance, only one American, William Richardson, owned shares (one hundred) in the Banco de Coahuila.95 No American invested in the Molino de Fenix, La Estrella del Norte, the Gran Compafiia Ladrillera de Saltillo, or 118 the Compafiia Coahuilense de Ahorros e anersiones, which were among the municipio's largest companies. Most Americans in Saltillo, despite a consular official's characterization of the municipio as an excellent field for the investment of capital and the establishment of manufacturing concerns, seemed to be itinerants of sorts—- 96 John railroad workers, engineers, or store clerks. Harlan's flour mill was the only American—owned property in Saltillo in 1912 according to consular officer Philip Holland.97 European immigrants were more pronounced in their effect upon Saltillo's economic growth, but unlike the Americans, most had become Mexicans to all intents and purposes. In addition to Enrique Maas and Clemente Cabello, a number of EurOpeans attained notable success in Saltillo. Clemente Sieber, a German, operated one of the largest commercial houses in the District and invested 98 Spaniards, heavily in a variety of industrial ventures. in particular those from the province of Santander, were also present in large numbers. Spaniards such as Tomas and Francisco Mfifi1z, two brothers, seemed to concentrate their activities in commercial or mercantil concerns.99 However, the majority of European immigrants in Saltillo were foreigners in name only. They adopted Saltillo as their own, and from all indications, severed their economic ties with their homelands once they established themselves 119 in business. If Mexico, as characterized by one prominent North American historian, was a mother to foreigners and a stepmother to her own children during the age of Diaz,100 the stepchildren in the case of Saltillo proved to be grateful. A succinct overview of the sc0pe and variety of land- owners' nonagricultural investments can be obtained by using a simple table. Owners of single large haciendas and ranchos as well as smaller plots of land in 1905 and 1910, are listed in the left hand column of Table 15. In the right hand columns are the various types of busi- nesses they owned or operated as well as the companies they 101 A major observation to be drawn from the invested in. Table is that the sharp dichotomy between landed elites and merchants—industrialists which historians have stressed as characterizing Porfirian Mexico seem inappropriate for Saltillo.102 Landowners, particularly individuals who owned the region's largest estates, were entrepreneurs- investors who had a definite stake in Saltillo's continued and varied growth. The involvement of area prOprietors in business ven- tures was more pronounced among the nation's largest land- owners. The landowners appearing in Table 16 owned, in 1905, the largest haciendas or ranchos in the municipio Over eighty percent of these landowners invested funds in some type of business venture above and beyond their in- vestments in their haciendas or ranchos. 120 mmm>smue m_mmmaoo .maocmumsoo a mxmusm manor“: mommmmaoo .moupoo mammmsou .oaafluamm oumumm mp waooflnms mmwmmaoo .wpuoz op maamuuwm flown swam: .suwn .maoomumm ouflpmuo .mHflssmoo on oocmm DHHosm .oummMOHsm umeNsow Nosmwuoom CHOCOMOHU wHosmumcoo w mxonsm MMHDCHE,MMHWMQ Dynamo Hows cmnuo IEOU .mrosuHoN a oaawomo .wumoz mp waamuumm HHHE HDOHE .mmm>smue mmhmmaoo .maflsrmoo mp oosmm Haws mafluxwe oaamnmo ousoaoau msmusoz w muommumN mmnmcwz mommmmaou usmmd GOAMMHEEOU opsoNHHm omummoo wsoum mumoouo mmom esopmhmo ouumz oasousfl Nwsmmuoom moamuoz oasousa ocmum>H4 oaumummsd mmHHMSU “HUNG: Mg MOEmm Nosmmupom sapwood mHoomum4 ouflpmno .muoaaflupmq mmhmmfioo cmuo .mHHssmoo op oosmm wuoum >nooouo Nooowupom sflumsmfl HHHE HDOHh mowmoo mpflmamp< cH poumm>sH pos3o OHmHlmomH,#mmm2300z¢Q m.OHAHBA¢m m0 mBZWZBmm>ZH mH mqmfia umskopsmq 121 smog mp swab fimfi>mua Hopsoaamsoz Noaszoo cosh mswum Gosh N00 mousmm .mz wwon mucosa Ma mp memh Nosmmupom swam: mwmmb mmm>smna mwmwmaoo mawmom Hop mwmoh msosuHmN meon wmumz wwwmh onoq cocoon NwHszow oflomsmH mwmumm ocw>ocmw mmw>smue MMMOQEOU OHHDHO> HOHHQMO Hmaaoso oHEHusm mmmsousmm oaswmsm OHHHuHmm op maopmnmm MHMMQEOU .moupoo mHmmmEoo .xfiswm mp osflaoz .mmm>cmufi mwmmmfioo .wafisamoo oosmm moonwamwsoz mmmz mswflusm mommsoflo ouumso mp ducmummmm w .ouasoo OHOMDB .mxousm .OHHfluHmm .COHGD .mmsampmsw .muuwsm mmumsflz modmmmfiou .woupmo MHMOQEOU .mmm>smme mwmmm9oo .muoaaflpHMm mumumw Amos can HMHHumcosH mkhmmaoo .muwaafluomq OMMMQEOU IHD .wuouomm worm ammo .wuuoz 0p maaouumm .maflosmou 0U oosmm mmsonwumz .muwssme monomupom Onwawo sH pwumw>cH posso Hossopsmq AUODGHHCOUV ma mqmdh 122 smog mp ouuwmsm mafimsusm muwsflz fiwmmmfiou onwaxoflum msouoq .w ounwmom DHHO> HDHHHm coamm MH H>WQ COEMNH momDQOAU ouumso op MN Ismuommm muons: mMmmmEou .mmm>cmue MMMOQEOU OHHM> HOHHHm memmm Nopsmssom ouumu memmm moose: Nam Moonwammsoz mmonmw mommwo Hosmwz MHODMsmm Ouaposo .muoaaflupmq mmmmmsou some .mHHosmoo ow oocmm mmswpuwo Hooves \ mofluupme Nod mmmmmaou mom>smne mMMmmEoo Nosmwupom 030A “cacao: moamuoz sfluumz Nonmwupom onwaumz oomuouo Nosomupom Amoco: Opmum Housmz onoq Opaomomq OHH>WQ smwasb NmeNcow snob wmmaus snob :H ooumm>sH posso lemonaocoov ma mamas HOQBOUGMA 123 mxmusm w madampmsw mmnmsflz mommmmaoo Normans: oHflmomB maflmansm w msmusoz monoswz mmwmmmaoo .maflssmoo mp oosmm OHHHHHOU oncpoma sH pmumo>sH posse Apossflusoov ma mqméa Hos3oosmq 124 TABLE 16 INVESTMENTS OF LARGEST LANDOWNERS, SALTTLLO, 19051181041.' Businesses Owned Hectares Or Landowner OWned Invested In Clemente Cabello 87,800 8 Enrique Maas 16,500 6 Melchor Lobo Rodriguez 28,000 2 Damaso Rodriguez 22,700 18 Rafael Siller Valle 17,600 & Cesareo Elizondo José Ma. Santos Coy 8,500 1 He was an attorney Juan Arizpe 47,800 Teodoro Carillo 9,200 3 Teofilo Martinez 14,800 2 Yreneo Ldpez 77,250 Unknown, lived in another state When landowners, as measured by the average value of the crops they marketed, are examined, a similar pattern of investment emerges. Landowners appearing in Table 17 re- ported, in 1905, harvesting crops with a market value of 103 Fifty percent of these proprietors, 2,500 pesos or more. perhaps the region's most prosperous, invested in business concerns other than their own haciendas. The investments of these two groups of hacendados, the largest and most productive, as compared to the majority of propietarios listed in Table 15 were more diversified. Few had monies invested in only one enterprise. 125 TABLE 17 INVESTMENTS OF MOST PRODUCTIVE LANDOWNERS, * ‘ SALTILLO,'1905 ' Businesses Owned Landowner Harvest Value and/or Invested In Clemente Cabello 12,600 8 Enrique Maas 17,000 6 (Includes Livestock) Leopoldo & Jacobo Unknown, lived in Monter- Lobo 42,500 rey Teodoro Carrillo 27,000 3 Manuel Rodriguez Orozco 3,100 Damaso Rodriguez 55,000 18 Ana Maria Charles 5,200 Unknown, lived in Tamaulipas Miguel Cardenas 8,500 3 Juan Gonzalez 2,500 Juan Arizpe 3,400 Gabriel Valerio 3,600 1 Melchgr Lobo 4,000 Rodriguez (Livestock) 2 Eutimio Cuellar 2,600 Agustin Rodriguez 12,300 3 (Includes Livestock) All figures given in pesos. 126 Oligarchic control, if such it was, was diffuse. Saltillo's landowners included those who did not invest in nonagricultural concerns; those who invested in a few (two or three); and those who invested in large numbers of en- terprises. The situation seems to parallel the conclusions drawn by Michael C. Meyer (1967) and William H. Beezley 104 As in Porfirian (1973) in their works on Chihuahua. Chihuahua, there was an elite at the tOp of Saltillo's socio—economic structure. Hacendados such as Enrique Maas, Clemente Cabello, Damaso Rodriguez, Guillermo Purcell, Rafael Siller Valle, Miguel Cdrdenas, and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez fall easily into such a category. Never- theless, the question of particular importance is whether this elite group of wealthy hacendados—industrialists pre- vented or hindered the upward movement of other individuals (perhaps the landowners in Table 15 who had not invested in urban ventures) by monopolizing investment opportunities. Evidence of whether or not a small group of individuals excluded the majority of Saltillo's residents from partici- pating directly in the benefits resulting from the region's economic development is far from conclusive. A number of considerations, however, point to the fact that Saltillo's elite did not monopolize the benefits of modernization. They were a porous group. Economic growth in and of itself was more important than limiting the advantages of such growth to a small number of individuals or family groups. 127 Multiple opportunities existed for entry into the ranks of the landholders. Land concentration was not the problem in Saltillo and the Central District as it may have been in Morelos, Chihuahua, and Yucatan, Indeed, the five year period prior to the outbreak of Madero's rebellion was the most active Span for land transfers in the municipio during the Porfiriato. Moreover, investment opportunities existed in the areas of commerce, banking, and to a lesser extent, industry. Just as the period from 1905 to 1910 witnessed a dramatic upsurge in the number of rural proper- ties changing hands, so too was this five year period a watershed for the formation of new companies or businesses. Between 1905 and 1910, more new companies or partnerships were formed than in any other five year period during the Porfiriato. The following tables (Table 18 and Table 19), con— structed from data contained in a 1905 municipal census, reveal not only the breadth of Saltillo's commercial- mercantile sector in the latter stages of the Porfiriato, but the relative dominance, in terms of numbers, of the small shopkeeper-investor—entrepreneur. Based on the dual yardsticks of capitalization and yearly profits, there seems little doubt that there was room in Saltillo for 105 As in the case of newcomers to the world of business. landownership, the hacendado—industrialist may have owned the largest commercial houses or industrial plants, but he 128 made no conscious, or at least successful, effort to limit or prevent the growth of other, smaller entrepreneurs. Data presented in this chapter permit the researcher to make several generalizations about Saltillo's landowners, and their role in the municipio's economic develOpment. First, at least forty percent of landowners in the period from 1905 to 1910 invested in business ventures above and beyond their personal land holdings; they could just as easily be classified as bankers, merchants, industrialists, or miners. Often, they were the same individual: witness the cases of Clemente Cabello, Damaso Rodriguez, and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez. Even if a distinction is attempted, as a result of the propietagios' apparent will- ingness to invest in nonagricultural endeavors, there existed a close interrelationship between hacendados and urban businessmen. To continue to talk in terms of an urban elite and a rural elite in Saltillo when attempting to describe and understand Porfirian socio-economic struc- ture is inadequate. It is more appropriate to argue that Porfirian Saltillo was not dominated by elites, but by an elite. In a very real sense, hacendados in Saltillo, through their investments in banks, factories, commercial houses, and mining companies, were responsible for the region's economic growth. They had a vested interest in develOp- ment and modernization and were by no means the foes of 129 .mommm as mosesumm oooom oooma cocoa comb ooom ooov ooom ooom oooH omh oom oov com com 000. Hoom ... . 0. Ho.. oo ,oo coo Hm I.m H.v Hom om o. / . . L \2 i m moma .meHmomm wqmamw oz< oqueaam zH imaHezaommz\A¢Hommzzoov mmmmmszom mo mmmsoz ma mammfi I oa I ma I cm I mm I on mm ov me om mm on no cm I ms I om I mm I om I mm 1 com lLll ] l mommmsflmsn mo Honssz 130 .momom as I Hmfloom Hmuwmmu oooooa oooom oooov oooom oooom cocoa ooom oooa com com coo oom coa I- + ooeeos .oo.m o... o.o Ho.o Hoes ,..m secs .1 so. see _em Hes . I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILr/////7/ I m //- I OH /z/////// \\\\\/ ma 1 om mm om mm co no on mm 00 mm on mm om mm om mm 00H \\\ II Ll / \‘ l lLJl 1L1 lJ Ll mommoswmsn mo Honasz moms .mzmmozoo quezaommz\qzH maeHmao ma mflmda 131 progress that earlier historians often portrayed them to be. In their role as investors and entrepreneurs, hacen— dados aided Mexico's transformation from an agrarian society to a commercial and industrial society. Ironically, by helping to promote Saltillo's growing industrial—manu— facturing base, area hacendados contributed to the demise of the society which had fostered them for centuries. They could manage complex empires composed of landed estates, industrial plants, and commercial houses, but they could not control the emerging agricultural—industrial laborer 106 The who played a major part in the Revolution of 1910. hacendado, in reality planted the seeds of his own destruc- tion. 132 1Critics of the hacienda display little difference in attitude toward hacendados. See for example, H. B. Parkes, A Histogy of Mexico (Boston, 1970); Charles C. Cumberland, MexiEo: The Struggle for'Modernipy (New York, 1968); Carlos Tello, La Tenencia de la Tierra en México (Mexico, 1968); Ernest Gruening, Mexicp and Its Heritage (New York, 1928); George McBride, Land Systems of Mexico (New York, 1923); Andres Molina Enriquez, Los grandes problemas nacionales (Mexico, 1978). 2Recent works which have touched upon this theme in— clude Charles Harris, A Mexican Family Empire: The Lati— fundio of the Sanchez Navarro Family 1765-1867 (Austin, 1975); David A. Brading, Haciendas and Ranchos in the Mexi- can BajiO, LeOn, l700~1860 TNew York, 1978y; Jan Bazant, Cinco Haciendas Mexicapas (México, 1975); and Enrique Semo, ed., Siete ensayos sobre 1a'hacienda Mexicana; 1780-1880 (México, 1977). 3Propietario, as it is used in this study, is simply a landowner. This includes hacendados, rancheros, and other individuals who do not fit comfortably into the hacendado- ranchero classifications. 4See, for example, Barry Carr, "Las Peculiaridades del Norte Mexicano, 1880—1927: Ensayo de InterpretaciOn," Historia Mexicana 22, no. 3 (January—March, 1973), pp. 320- 3357 as well as Fran ois Chevalier, Land and Sociepy in Colonial Mexico (Ber eley, 1970). 5See Nettie Lee Benson, ed., Report of Ramos Arizpe to the Spanish Cortes (Austin, 1950). 6See David B. Adams,’"The Tlaxcalan Colonies of Span— ish Coahuila and Nuevo Leon: An Aspect of the Spanish Settlement of Northern Mexico," Ph.D. dissertation, Univer— sity of Texas, 1971, p. 214. 7Hamilton, Border States, p. 182. 133 8The importance of railroads to Saltillo's development cannot be underestimated. Exports from the municipio doubled within three years after the arrival of the Mexican National Railroad in 1883. In 1895, a committee of local businessmen including Damaso Rodriguez, Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, Melchor Lobo Rodriguez, and a half dozen others, in a letter to the governor published in the Periddico Oficial, claimed that aid to the contemplated Coahuila- Zacatecas Railroad was "the most important task facing the state government, and that the railraod was the key to open— ing, for Saltillo and other villas in the state, the doors to prosperity." See Periédico Oficial, 4/10/1895. 9Hills Brothers Co. to American Consul, Saltillo, 11/17/1902, NA, RG 84, Consular Dispatches, vol. 32. See also John Carothers, Consular Officer, Saltillo, to Secre- tary of State, 11/17/83, NA, RG 59 (Dispatches) 300; Carothers to Secretary of State, 8/31/83, NA, RG 59, (Dis- patches) 300. 1(For a brief history of Torredn, see Pablo C. Moreno, Torreon: Biografia de la mas joven de los Cuidades Mexi- canas: De Miguél’Hidalgo a Miguel Aleman: La Comarca Lagunera (SaltilIo,II951YT* William R. Meyers, "Politics Vested Rights and Economic Growth in Porfirian Mexico: The Company Tlahualilo in the Comarca Lagunera 1885-1911," HAHR 57, no. 3 (August, 1977), pp. 425-454, is also worth consulting. 11Textile manufacturers were the beneficiaries of much of the protective legislation passed by Coahuila's legisla- ture during the Porfiriato. See Moises Gonzalez Navarro, E1 Porfiriato, Vida Economica, vol. 1, pp. 470-471; APLC, 9th IEgis., 1886-18877 13g. 4 BIS, Comisidn de Hacienda, exp. 19. 12 AMS, 148-1, 5-2, 1905; 142-2, 12-9, 1899. 13See Hamilton, Border States, pp. 182-186; Scribner, Camp Life, pp. 53-56; Chamberlain, Confession, pp. 60-161. 14Esteban Portillo, Catecismo Geogrdfico, Politico, e Histdrico del Estado de Coahuila de Zaragoza (Saltillo, 1897), pp. 45-60. See also AMS, 132—1, 1889. 134 15Portillo, Catecismo, pp. 50—51; Valdés, Saltillo, p. 76; AMS, 132-1, 1889. l6§2§§: 2-3, 56:70; APLC, 11th legis., 1890-1891, leg. 8, ComisiOn de Hacienda, exp. 12. 17AMS, 148-1, 5—2, 1905; 142-2, 12—9, 1899; 139-2, 28-unnumbered exp., 1896; 135—1, 121, 1891. [188ilver was mined in modest quantities. See Periodicio Oficial, 12/12/1894. 19Alessio Robles, BibliOgrafia'de Coahuila p. 72. 2Operio'dico Oficial, 7/12/85. 21Archivo General del Estado de Coahuila (hereafter AGC), leg. 165, vol. 1, exp. 7532 BIS, 1896. See also Bernstein, Mexican Mining Industry, pp. 10-200 passim. 22NA, RG 59, Box 3805, 312.115 m451; 312.115 m451/3. See also Commercial Relations, 1893, p. 222. 23Percy Martin, Mexico, 11, p. 25. 24A key point in this study is that Saltillo's economic development was fostered and financed by an elite, not separate elites working at cross purposes. Sharp distinc- tions between hacendado, industrialist, and merchant were blurred in Saltillo during the Porfiriato. 25RPLS, 6-3, 239:93. 261bid., 6—3, 244:205. 27.2043, 148-1, 5-2, 1905. La Libertad, a textile mill, was owned by Clemente Cabello, and E1 Fénix, a flour mill, was partially owned by Enrique Maas. RB, 6-1, 1257:377; 4-1, 422:35; 6-1, 1253:368. AMS, 148-1, 5—5, 1905; 142w2, 12-11, 1899. 135 3°Ibid., 148-1, 5-2, 1905. 31 . Ibid., 140—1, 12—5, 1897. 321bid. 33 Ibid., 148—1, 5-5, 1905. 34£bid. Companies with a capitalization of less than 50,000 pesos are not included in Table 13. 35AMS, 148—1, 5—5, 1905. 36Valdés, Saltillo, p. 97; AMS, 127—1, 43, 1884. 37Ams, 126-1, 45, 1883; 127—1, 3, 1884. 38Ibid., 127—1, 3, 1884. 39Wadsworth to Secretary of State, 8/31/83, NA, RG 59 (Dispatches) 300. 4°Peri6dico Oficial, 2/16/1910. 41Archivo de Justicia del Estado de Coahuila, 1905, exp. 6032. 4253, 6-1, 908:14; 3—1, 339:140; 6-1, 1200:289; 9-1, 1641:178. On one occasion in mid-1884, Guillermo Purcell bought a house on Victoria Street under terms which per- mitted him to pay for the property in cotton. See 3g, 3-1, 339:140. 43Gonzalez Navarro, E1 Porfiriato, Vida Economica, 44RpLs, 2-3, 36:2. 45Ibid., 2—3, 37:17. 46Ibid., 2-3, 36:2; 2—3, 37:17. In addition, land- owners from other areas in Coahuila invested in the bank, for example Evaristo Madero and Manuel de Yorto from Parras. 136 47Well over seventy individuals owned shares in the Banco de Coahuila. Many, as suggested earlier, were from the neighboring states of Durango, Nuevo Leon, and San Luis Potosi. It is probable that the total investment by those individuals who could be classified as landowners was more than fifty percent of the bank‘s total capital. 485££§. 2-3: 36:2; 2—3, 37:17. 491bid., 2-3, 36:2. 50Marcelino Garza owned a small amount of land in Arteaga. His largest holding, over 20,000 hectares, was in the northern part of the state. Manuel Mazo, in part— nership with his brother Aurelio Mazo (Mazo Hermanos), participated in the Compafiia Agricola y Ganadera de Saltillo. See RE, 3—3, 86:63. 51RPLS, 2—3, 36:2. Members of the council received, yearly, ten percent of the bank‘s profits after all ex- penses were paid and contributions made to the bank's re- serves. 52Per16dico Oficial, 1/29/08. 53Peri6dico Oficial, 2/6/09; 2/12/10; 1/28/11. Divi- dends were paid after a percentage of the bank's earnings (not more than ten percent per year) were placed in the fondo de reserva (reserve fund) and salaries were paid to the members of the'consejo. 54The total dividends received by these three indi- viduals between 1908 and 1910, 42,000 pesos, exceeded by nearly 10,000 pesos the total spent on land in Saltillo during that three year period. SSBEES, 4-3, 122:9l; AMS, 140-3, 25-unnumbered ex ., 1897. “' -49 SGRPLS, 4-3, 122:91. 57 The largest number of shares owned by any of the above-mentioned individuals was forty. Damaso Rodriguez, Clemente Cabello, Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, and Gabriel Flores each owned that number. 137 58 shares. As a group, the landowners listed above owned 337 sggggg, 2—3, 48:57; 6—3, 248:223; 2—3, 59:75, 60Ibid., 2—3, 59:75. Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzdlez and Clemente Cabello invested 5,000 pesos each as did Gabriel Flores. Purcell and Damaso Rodriguez invested 2,000 pesos each. 61RPLS, 4—3, 107:47. 62Ibid. 63Ibid. 64The paper mill, also in Arteaga, was purchased after its original owners were unable to Operate the business profitably. 65AMS, 135-1, 1892. 66RPLS, 4-3, 107:47. Documents dealing with the internal operation of companies doing business in Saltillo are not housed in the Registro de Propiedades. However, there is a three—page balance—sheet of La Industrial Saltillera in this entry which is the basis for much of my information about the company. The balance sheet is the only one of its kind found in the Registro. 67RpLs, 2-3, 56:70. GBIQiQ. Enrique Maas, a major landowner in Saltillo and the Central District, contributed ten percent of the company's capital. 69RPLS, 3-3, 72:2. Landholders investing in the com- pany included Damaso Rodriguez, Guillermo Purcell, Marcelino Garza, Miguel Cardenas, Evaristo Madero and Gabriel Flores. Evaristo Madero, with 100 shares, was, along with Viviano L. Villareal, the largest shareholder in the company. 7°RPLs, 5-3, 161:77. 138 71NA, RG 59, Box 37930, 312.115 C32; 312.115 C76. It should be stressed that public records do not indicate how much additional monies, if any, were invested in this or any other company over the span of its existence. Pur- chase of machinery, tools, and livestock was not reported in public documents. The figures mentioned in this and sub- sequent chapters are for initial investment, but one can assume additional funds were invested in these and other companies. 72RPLS, 5—3, 161:77. 73Ibid. The terms under which the company was organ- ized called for each investor to put thirty percent of his pledged investment into company coffers immediately. The above figures represent the total each investor would have made over the life of the company. 74RPLS, 5-3, 161:77. The company's profits were to be divided in the following fashion: five percent to a fondo de reserva; five percent to make improvements in the finca; five percent for members of the consejo; and eighty—five percent to shareholders. 75RPLs, 3-3, 86:63. 76Ibid. The land operated by the company belonged, in fact, to Enrique Maas. The Haciendas de Aguanueva and Hedionda Grande were the center of the firm's operations. The only other investors in the company were Romulo Larralde and Manuel Mazo. Like the other investors, Mazo and Larralde contributed 20,000 pesos each to the company treasury. 773g, 28-1, 4041:101. 78RPLS, 5-3, 178:124. The partnership, "Siller Valle y Elizondo," was a complex one. The directorship of the company alternated every other year, and the two men agreed to split, equally, profits resulting from the sale of wood and renting of pastures. However, livestock pastured on the lands of the hacienda remained outside the society formed by the two men. 79When such partnerships were formed, they were usually in the area of commerce. I discovered no such partnerships for the operation of landed estates. 139 8ORPLs, 1-3, 1:2. 81Garza had no other duties or obligations. He was literally a silent partner. 82RPLS, 1-3, 35:93. 83Ibid., 1—3, 26:73. 84Whether this was the typical tienda de raya is im— possible to say. The organization of the giro, buying and selling grains and livestock, leads one to believe that Flores may simply have been trying to take advantage of the need of local agriculturalists for ready markets and supply centers. BSRPLS: 1'3: 26:73. There is no indication that Cortez would receive a percentage of the giro's profits. 86Mining companies were frequently organized so that shareholders were required to lay out, initially, only small amounts of cash, often one to ten pesos per month. In this fashion, funds could be utilized in more productive ventures until claims being explored revealed their true merit or lack of same. 87Registro de Propiedades: Libros de Minas (hereafter RPLM), 1-2, 1:2. 88For a further discussion of "La Constancia" see chapter five. 89Purcell, Frontier Mexico, pp. 60—62; AMS, Protocolos 1896-1897, vol. 2, partido 47, folio 16. 90RPLM, l-2, 34:38. 91This is perhaps the best example of the method by which mining companies gathered capital. See footnote 86 above. 140 92RPLM, 1-2, 34:38. There were thirty investors in the company. In the same fashion as the other types of business concerns discussed in this chapter, members of the consejo received three percent of the company' s profits. Ten percent of company profits were ticketed for the fondo de reserva and the remainder was awarded to shareholders. 93RPLM, 1—3, 62:46. 94Ibid. There were thirty—six investors in the com- pany. Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, with seventy-three shares, was the second largest shareholder. 95 RPLS, 2—3, 36 2; 2-3, 37:17. 96Charles B. Towle, Saltillo, to Chief, Bureau of Foreign Commerce, 11/12/1900, NA, RG 84, vol. 29. Several Americans who invested in Saltillo‘s growing commercial- mercantile sector entered into partnerships with local resi- dents. For example, George Jones of Chicago invested 20, 000 pesos in a partnership with Tomas Farlas, "Tomas Farias y Cfa.," to sell whiskey. See RPLS,4-3,130:121. 97Philip E. Holland, Saltillo, to Secretary of State, 4/26/1912, NA, RG 59, Box 3699, 312.11/338. According to Holland, Harlan's mill was worth 25,000 dollars but was closed for lack of local grain supplies. Harlan, who owned another mill in Monterrey, was reported to be living in that city. 98AMS, 148— 1, 5— 2, 1905. Sieber' 8 commercial house, in 1904, was reported to have had a capital of over a half million pesos. He invested funds in the Molino de Fenix, the Banco de Coahuila, and the Companla Iimitada de Tran— vias del Saltillo. 99RPLS, 2-3, 42:46. 100 p. 260. Lesley B. Simpson, Many Mexicos (Berkeley, 1966), 141 101Sources for this list of landowners were two exten— sive municipal surveys. See AMS, 148- -l, 5— —5, 1905;154——l, 33-4, 1911. Owners of small plots or labores on the old Haciendas Cerritos, Gonzalez, and others are not included. In addition, several landowners were eliminated from the list due to an inability to identify them; for example, the Hacienda Encarnacion de Guzman was listed as being owned by the heirs of Yreneo LOpez. 102See Alexander Saragoza, "The Formation of a Mexican Elite: The Industrialization of Monterrey Nuevo Le6n, 1880- 1892," Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1978. lOBAMS, 148—1, 5—5, 1905. 104Michael C. Meyer, Mexican Rebel: Pascual Orozco and the Mexican Revolution I910— 1915 (Lincoln, 1967); William H. Beezléy, Insurgent Governor: Abraham Gonzalez and the Mexican Revolution in Chihuahua (Lincoln, 1973). See also Mark Wasserman, "Foreign Investment in Mexico, 1876-1910: A Case Study of the Role of Regional Elites," The Americas 36, no. 1 (July, 1979): PP- 3-21. 105As a general rule, merchants-industrialists-hacen- dados in Saltillo appeared to be more concerned with com- petition from the United States and other regions of nor- thern Mexico than with competition from within the municipio. Public documents are peppered with references to the damag- ing effects of outside competition. See AMS, 138-1,2-4, 1895; APLC, 12th legis., 1891—1892, __g. 4, “Comision de Hacienda, exp. 44; 12th legis., le . 6, Comision de Hacienda, eXp. 61; 13th legis., 93-1895, l_g. 4, Comision de Hacienda, exp. 26. 106Katz, "Labor Conditions," HAHR 54: no. 1 (February, 1974). pp- 34-33- CHAPTER V FIVE HACENDADOS: A PROFILE Despite all that has been written about landowners and landholding patterns during the era of Don Porfirio, the Porfirian hacendado remains an enigmatic figure. This chap- ter will examine the public careers of five of Saltillo's most prominent hacendados: Damaso Rodriguez, Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzélez, Enrique Maas, Clemente Cabello, and Guillermo Purcell—~men who were at center stage in Saltillo throughout much of the Porfiriato. Three were European immigrants while the other two, Damaso Rodriguez and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, were natives of Saltillo. These last were politically active, while the other three, as immigrants, were not; but all, by virtue of their wealth and economic power, wielded tremendous influence in the municipio and in the state.1 An examination of their activities, principally in the realm of economics, provides a greater appreciation of the complexities of Saltillo's economic development in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These five hacendados were active participants in the region's develOp- ment.2 They were wealthy and powerful, but they were not regressive, trenchant forces. Their efforts, as a small 142 143 group and as representatives of the larger hacendado-indus— trialist class, helped make Saltillo what it was in 1910: the commercial-industrial center of Coahuila.3 Guillermo Purcell, Clemente Cabello, and Enrique Maas were foreigners who migrated to Saltillo after Mexico's defeat in the 1846—1848 war with the United States. Purcell was born in Limerick, Ireland in 1845, and migrated to Mexi- co at the age of eighteen.4 He arrive in Saltillo in 1866, after having lived and worked in nearby Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, for four years.5 Enrique Maas was a native of Wiesbaden, Germany. He came to Saltillo in the wake of the 6 invading American forces in 1846. Clemente Cabello, an Italian, arrived in Saltillo in the late 1860's or early 1870's.7 Of the three immigrant hacendados, Guillermo Purcell was surely the most important.8 Soon after his arrival in Saltillo he established the warehouse (almacén) which be- came the cornerstone of his empire. He sold, primarily at wholesale, manufactured goods from Mexico, Europe, and the United States, and also exported agricultural goods to the 9 United States. His commercial/mercantile business grew to be one of the largest in the municipio. Municipal records for 1897 indicate that gross sales for Purcell's almacén in that year amounted to nearly 80,000 pesos.10 144 Export-import trade, although crucial to Purcell's success, did not remain his only economic interest for long. By the time of his death in 1909, his investments extended in a web-like network throughout the Central District and the state. Few of Purcell’s many interests, however, paral- leled the success he attained in mining. His move into mining was initiated, according to Purcell himself, because "there is little to be made in commerce so I was tempted to risk a little."11 His initial venture into mining proved to be an unqualified success. Purcell, in 1879, along with a dozen other investors including his brother, Thomas Purcell and his close friend Marcelino Garza, formed a mining company, La Constancia, to exploit holdings in the newly opened Sierra Mojada mining region.12 The company's principal mine, La Esmeralda, as well as others opened by the company in the same general area, were extremely profitable. Over a two-year period, in 1891 and 1892, more than 150,000 pesos in dividends were 13 paid to shareholders. The value of the company's shares reflected its successful operations. In 1886, company shares were worth nearly 3,000 pesos each.14 Two years later, in 1888, shares were worth 10,000 pesos each, an in- 15 crease of over three hundred percent. Purcell's share in the company, ten percent, was worth in 1888 nearly 100,000 pesos. In short, Purcell saw his capital increase over three hundred percent over a brief two-year period.16 145 Purcell was also a participant in another large min— ing operation: the Mazapil Copper Company in northeastern Zacatecas. His exact role in the company is unclear. Marvin Bernstein (1964) reports that Purcell acquired the holdings sometime after 1880, and sold the mines to the 17 Mazapil Company in 1893. On the other hand, material in Frontier Mexico, an edited collection of Purcell's letters, suggests that Purcell did not divest himself entirely of his interest in the mines, but, rather, sold shares through an agent in England, R. Wedemeyer.18 Moreover, after Pur- cell's death, sharestlthe Mazapil Copper Company were listed among the wealth inherited by his wife.19 One thing about the Mazapil Copper Company is, how- ever, certain. Unlike the Compafiia Minera La Constancia, Mazapil was not, in the early stages at least, terribly profitable for Purcell. In August 1894, he complained that "Mazapil is not yet paying anything—-slow indeed "20 Later in the same month he wrote that 21 and up hill work. he was "trying hard to get Mazapil straightened out." A year earlier, in April, 1893, he indicated that the com- 22 The company's prob- pany owned him nearly 180,000 pesos. lems continued long after Purcell's death early in 1909. Revolutionary forces ravaged the mine and constantly dis- rupted its railroad connections with Saltillo during the decade of strife between 1910 and 1920.23 146 In addition to commercial and mining interests, Purcell was a partner in the largest industrial complex in the Central District during the Porfiriato, La Industrial Saltillera.24 The prOperties, capital goods, and inven- tories owned by the trio of Purcell, Marcelino Garza, and Damaso Rodriguez were worth, in 1900, nearly 700,000 pesos, more than three times the value of their initial invest- 25 ment. Little is known, unfortunately, of the inner work- ings of this partnership. Damaso Rodriguez, at least in 26 1895, functioned as the partnership‘s president. The company's holdings in 1900 included a flour mill, textile factory, and a paper mill.27 Guillermo Purcell did not invest in as many non-agri- cultural ventures as did several of his contemporaries. Since his apparent base of operations was a privately owned commercial enterprise, perhaps he did not feel the need to expand in this direction. Besides the Industrial Saltillera, Purcell was a partner in only four companies: the Banco de Coahuila, La Estrella del Norte, the Compafiia Limitada de Tranvias del Saltillo, and the Gran Compafi'fa Ladrillera.28 However, if the actual number of investments Purcell made was small in comparison to those undertaken by other investors, such as Damaso Rodriguez or Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez, the amounts he invested were certainly not. His investment in the Banco deo Coahuila, 40,000 pesos, placed 29 him among the bank's six largest investors. He invested 147 7,500 pesos in the Gran Compania Ladrillera and 2,000 pesos 30 in La Estrella del Norte. Overall, his investments in these three companies, 49,500 pesos, was seventy percent of the municipio's entire revenue of 71,000 pesos in 1884.31 Purcell, for a time, was content to remain a miner- merchant—industrialist. Despite being a consistent buyer of urban real estate and one of the wealthiest men in the municipio,if not the state, he resisted entering the ranks of the rural gentry. His investments in the Banco de Coahuila alone would have purchased any hacienda or rancho sold in the municipio between 1897 and 1905; but in fact Purcell never purchased land of any value within the municipio or even the Central District. From all indica- tions, Purcell viewed agriculture, even in the cotton rich Laguna district of western Coahuila where his holdings were large, as a risky business.32 His attitude toward agricul- ture and landownership suggests that he saw landholding not as a means to gain status or social acceptance, but as a business venture that must be judged on its economic merits. To buy land for the sake of ownership was anathema to Pur- cell and to other hacendados in the municipio. Nevertheless, despite his expressed reservations about the merits of investing in agriculture, he eventually pur- chased land, but not within the municipio. With two of his close friends and business associates, Damaso Rodriguez and Marcelino Garza, he owned twenty—two sitios, totaling 38,623 148 hectares, in the northern municipio of Rio Grande.33 In addition, he held land in the municipio of Zaragoza, also located near the Rio Grande boundary with Texas. There is some indication that cattle were grazed on Purcell's nor— thern lands, but what little data exist regarding this land strongly suggests Purcell and his associates were involved 34 At any rate, Purcell still held 35 in a speculative venture. this land at the time of his death. Given his earlier negative opinions of cotton haciendas it is somewhat surprising that Purcell‘s most noteworthy landholdings were in the municipio of San Pedro, in Coahuila's Laguna District. Purcell and the small company of investors he organized, Guillermo Purcell and Company, owned four haciendas in the Laguna: San Lorenzo, San Jose, 36 Santa Elena, and Venado. Only fragmentary data exist in Saltillo’s local archives regarding these haciendas. Ap- parently, they were purchased between 1890 and 1894, and 37 one, San Lorenzo, cost 35,000 pesos. Purcell's daughter, in Frontier Mexico, casts little light on Purcell's holdings in the Laguna, simply reporting that cotton haciendas along with mining were her father‘s major interests.38 One can only speculate as to why Purcell ventured into the raising of cotton in the Laguna District while ignoring the agricultural potential of the landed estates existent in the municipio of Saltillo. There is little doubt that he could have purchased land in the municipio had he so 149 desired. Perhaps the returns on Laguna cotton haciendas, despite all the risks of drought, lack of water for irri— gation, and plant diseases, overshadowed the profits to be gained from raising cereal grains or grazing livestock on local haciendas. An additional motivation for Purcell, who was deeply involved in export—import trade as well as textile manufacturing, was that it would have been extremely practical and plausible for him to attempt to integrate his manufacturing and commercial interests with a dependable source of raw material. Indeed, problems with the supply of cotton from the Laguna were a major irritant for owners of textile factories in Saltillo and the Central District. When the Laguna's cotton harvests were poor, or failed entirely, which was a frequent occurrence since water for irrigation in that part of the state was insufficient to meet demand, factory own— ers in Saltillo and the Central District were forced, in lieu of closing their doors, to purchase cotton from other 39 sources, usually in the United States. Such a process 40 In addition, was both time consuming and expensive. cotton shipped from the Laguna by middlemen did not always meet the standards set by Saltillo's factory owners. For example, in 1906, the manager of the Industrial Saltillera, Guillermo de Velasco, rejected a shipment of cotton from San Pedro, complaining that it was not "white, clean, or of good fiber."41 150 The organization Purcell put together between the time he entered into part ownership of a textile mill in Arteaga (1889) and his land purchases in San Pedro (1892) has all the earmarks of a master plan. He could point, by 1894, to a vertically integrated organization.42 He controlled a raw material and the means of processing it as well as the means and experience to market the finished product.43 No small feat in any era. In sum, by investing in a variety of business ventures, Guillermo Purcell reveals an image of the Porfirian hacendado which is not only considerably at odds with traditional writings about the hacendado, but considerably different from the activities of the other hacendados to be discussed in this chapter. The very fact that Purcell owned no land of any value in the municipio of Saltillo is itself reveal- ing. One might characterize Purcell as an individual who moved into land ownership as a result of organizational necessity. Certainly, for Guillermo Purcell, land owner- ship was based on pragmatic considerations, as was the case with the remainder of his investments. The German,Enrique Maas, may have arrived in Saltillo by way of the United States. From all indications he came to Saltillo in the late 1840‘s, and according to local his- torian Pablo Cuellar Valdés (1975), invested in land as well 44 as operating a commercial business. References to Maas in public documents after 1870 refer to his operation of 151 a moneylending concern, but no reference to Maas as a mer- chant exists. It seems doubtful that Maas was a major land- owner prior to the mid—1880‘s.45 As a moneylender (prestamista), Maas competed with other individuals in the area. Several hacendados including Valeriano Ancira, Clemente Cabello, and Juan Gonzalez Trevino were engaged in this type of business. Perhaps due to the high rates of interest charged by local prestamistas, 46 Maas was able to thrive despite the competition. In Oc- tober 1891, he acquired three of the municipio's largest haciendas: Hedionda Grande (6,400 hectares), Aguanueva 7 After (9,000 hectares), and Buenavista (6,000 hectares).4 this rather dramatic entrance into the ranks of Saltillo's landowners, Maas acquired, at a much slower pace, a number of additional properties in the Central District, primarily in the municipio of Saltillo. The most important property he acquired after 1891 was the Hacienda Jagfiey de Ferniza, a 17,000 hectare spread south of the city which was pri- marily used to graze livestock.48 Maas, despite the relative proximity of his haciendas to the city of Saltillo where he lived with his wife, Trinidad Narro, never cared to be directly involved in the 49 day-to-day management of his estates. Unlike the case of the majority of hacendados in the region, municipal documents reveal that Maas‘s landed holdings were usually 50 rented. For example, in 1905, all of his haciendas were leased to the Compafiia Agricola y Ganadera de Saltillo. 152 It is interesting to note that Maas, sometime after 1894, decided to limit his landed holdings in the municipio and to diversify his investment efforts. He began dispos— ing of haciendas almost as rapidly as he had acquired them. The Hacienda Buenavista, site of the epic battle between Mexican and American forces during the war with the United States, was sold five years after it was purchased (1891) to Antonio Narro, his wife‘s brother. Jagfiey de Ferniza, purchased in 1894, was sold in 1902 to the two men who had been renting it, Rafael Siller Valle and Cesearo Elizondo.51, A small 13295 in the old Hacienda de San Juan Bautista, northeast of the city, which Maas had acquired in 1887, was sold three years later, in 1890.52 Land, for Maas as for Purcell, appeared to be less a measure of social standing than a business venture. A brief digression into the intricacies of land trans- actions in Saltillo will help to describe Maas' apparent de— cision to limit his holdings. Land transactions in the municipio and Central District often fell into a category known as venta con pacto de retrOVenta, literally "sale of pact of resale." Under this type of complex transaction, landowners, both large and small, sold their land to another individual, often a prestamista like Enrique Maas or Valeriano Ancira. However, rather than vacate the property, the seller remained in possession, continued to work the land, and was responsible for the payment of taxes. He 153 would, in essence, assume the status of a renter, and pay a previously agreed upon sum (interest or rent) to the holder of the contract. After a specified number of years, seldom more than four or five, the old owner, now the renter, would repay the amount originally advanced by the moneylender, i.e., he would repurchase his property. The prestamista, upon receiving his money, would cancel the contract. In effect, the cancellation of a venta cgnqpactp de retrOVenta voided the sale and returned the land in question to its original owner. If the money advanced by the prestamista was not repaid by the specified date, the sale was considered final and the property officially changed hands. Exactly why individuals resorted to this complex and confusing process to, in essence, borrow money, is unclear, but perhaps the process offered a flexibility not found in the typical mortgage process. Rights to hold or exercise the contrato de retroventa were frequently sold, often at a discount. At any rate, default in payment of rent or taxes as well as an inability to repurchase the contrato offered the holder of a contrato an excellent opportunity to expand his landed holdings. Enrique Maas, as a‘prestamista, was deeply involved in the process described above. In a two—year span, 1895 and 1896, he loaned slightly over 22,000 pesos to five separate individuals by means of a‘venta‘congpacto de 154 retroventa.53 However, from all indications, Maas seldom used the process to increase the number of his landed hold- ings. Rather than go through with finalizing a purchase when default occurred, which was a mere formality since the exchange of funds had long since taken place, Maas often permitted extensions. For instance, in August, 1897, he renewed for two years a contract with Ysmael Ramos, a small landowner in Ramos Arizpe.54 In declining to exercise his contractual right and increase his landed holdings, Maas escapes the pattern of the landgrabbing hacendado often described by historians. Maas, despite differing from Guillermo Purcell re- garding landownership in the municipio, paralleled Purcell's interest in nonagricultural investments. He was one of eleven men who invested a total of 100,000 pesos in the Molino de Fénix in 1899.55 His share in the mill, which was sold to an investor from Monterrey in 1915, was ten percent, worth 10,000 pesos at the time the company was 56 He also invested heavily (40,000 pesos) in organized. the Banco de Coahuila.57 Like Purcell, Maas limited his investments to a few companies. In addition to the Banco de Coahuila and the Molino de Fénix, the only other non- agricultural company in which he invested was the Compafiia Idmitada de Tranvias del Saltillo. Maas seemed to divide his investments between urban and rural enterprises more equitably than some local hacendados. He balanced his 155 investments in banks, mills, and public utilities with sizable investments in the Compafiia Agricola y Ganadera de Saltillo, and more importantly, the Compafiia Ganadera y Textil de Cedros.S8 Apparently, Maas was the only hacendado discussed in this chapter who did not participate in the mining boom which swept Coahuila during the Porfiriato. He owned no shares in any of the mining concerns which operated near Saltillo or in the Sierra Mojada region. Moreover, at least after 1870, he owned outright no business other than his moneylending concern. Guillermo Purcell, a close friend, mentioned in a letter to his wife's sister, when a local factory was for sale, that Maas "would never think 59 In the same way that Purcell of buying the factory." was reluctant to purchase land in Saltillo, Maas was ap- parently reluctant to venture beyond landowning and indirect investments. In this sense, he may have been representative of many of Saltillo's landowners, since few owned, outright, industrial or manufacturing firms. Exploring the social consciousness of Saltillo's ha- cendados was not a major aspect of my research. However, the actions of Enrique Maas and his wife, Trinidad Narro, offer some indications of how one area hacendado viewed his social responsibilities. Maas and his wife were philan- thrOpists on a grand scale within the municipio. While most area hacendados contributed to worthy projects such as aid 156 to flood victims, or food for the hungry, the Maas's, a childless couple, established and supported an orphanage for young girls in Saltillo.60 The orphanage, which still exists today, was organized in 1898, and was capable of caring for up to forty children. Funding for the orphanage, located in the so-called "La Casa Pinta" on the eastern edge of the city, came from an endowment fund established by Maas and his wife which included profits from their hacien- das, Aguanueva and Hedionda Grande. Control of the orphan- age, as specified by the Maas's eventually passed to state and local governments in 1915. Maas and his wife also pre- sented money to the municipio in 1912 for the formation of a trade school.61 Clemente Cabello, last of the three immigrant hacenda- dos to be discussed in this chapter, was born in Italy in 62 1845, and arrived in Saltillo probably in the late 1860's or early 1870's. Like Guillermo Purcell, he appears to have been originally a merchant. Municipal documents for 1875 reveal Cabello paying taxes for what was described 63 as simply a giro mercantil (mercantile business). Fif- teen years later, in 1890, however, municipal records do 64 If not show Cabello as Operating a mercantile venture. commerce was the origin of his wealth, cabello did not choose to remain long in that endeavor. 157 Cabello's involvement in the mining company which brought great wealth to Guillermo Purcell, La Constancia, was his ticket to entry into the ranks of Saltillo's large landholders. Cabello owned ten percent of La Constancia (ten shares), and in 1886 sold the majority of his shares (seven) back to the company.65 He used the proceeds, ac- cording to Purcell, to help pay for his first hacienda, La Ventura, which he purchased, with extended payment terms, in 1885.66 Clemente Cabello, like Enrique Maas, generally opted for acquiring land within the Central District. La Ventura, purchased from Geronimo Trevifio, was located in the southern portion of the municipio, near its border with San Luis Potosi and was primarily a livestock enterprise.67 Cabello purchased only two other large estates in the Central Dis- trict throughout the long years of the Porfiriato. In 1891, six years after acquiring La Ventura, he purchased the Hacienda de San José, located to the east of the 21113 68 of Ramos Arizpe. In 1894, he bought the Hacienda San Juan de Retiro, a 40,000 hectare spread north of La Ventura, also primarily devoted to stockraising.69 In addition to his large haciendas, Ventura and San Juan Retiro, Cabello acquired several small plots or 70 In this sense, he dif- labores in Saltillo and Arteaga. fered from the majority of the hacendados profiled in this chapter. The small plots he owned near the city of 158 Saltillo were in a well irrigated area dominated by small rancheros.71 These small properties were given over to sharecroppers and it is doubtful that these purchases were attempts on Cabello's part to acquire, on a piecemeal basis, another large hacienda in the municipio. Rather, the pur- chase of these labgreg seemed to represent an intention on Cabello's part to participate more fully in the region's growing and profitable production of wheat. Clemente Cabello, like Enrique Maas and the vast ma— jority of Saltillo's landowners, reached a point in personal landownership beyond which he did not care to go. Notary records in Saltillo's municipal archive reveal, for example, that in 1897 Cabello, who carried a 24,000 peso mortgage on Miguel Baigen's Hacienda Encarnacion de Guzman, which separated his two major holdings, Ventura and San Juan de Retiro, granted Baigen a two-year extension on the mortgage rather than take the land by default.72 It was scarcely what one expects from a landgrabbing hacendado. Moreover, although Cabello did not sell any of the haciendas he had acquired in the early years of the Porfiriato, neither did he purchase any major landed estates after 1894--this in spite of being one of the wealthiest men in the region. Rather, Cabello directed his capital, with one excep- tion, to nonagricultural enterprises. He invested 20,000 pesos in the Banco de Coahuila and 5,000 pesos in La Estrella del Norte.73 In addition to owning shares in the 159 Compagia Limitada de Tranvias del Saltillo, he retained his three shares in the Compafiia Minera La Constancia and pur— chased additional shares in the Eureka and Huerta mining companies.74 Cabello also participated in a partnership with one Segundo Zertuche under the company name Cabello y Zertuche, which was devoted to raising goats and sheep on land owned by Zertuche in Ramos Arizpe.75 Of greater importance to Cabello's empire than his in— vestments in banking, mining, and urban real estate were the flour mill and textile factory he owned near Saltillo. Located northeast of the city, in the so—called "Las Fabricas" area (factory zone), both the factory and the mill, called Libertad, were situated on the same plot of land.76 While not nearly as impressive as the Madero family's textile complex at Rosario in the municipio of Parras, or the Compania Industrial Saltillera's system in Arteaga, La Libertad was an important element in Saltillo's 77 Acquired by Cabello in 1894, during economic structure. the same month in which he purchased the Hacienda San Juan de Retiro, the factory and mill were reported in 1905 to have a capitalization of 60,000 pesos, with an annual pro- duction valued at 150,000 pesos.78 Like Purcell, Clemente Cabello may have been seeking to create a more integrated series of holdings when he ac- quired La Libertad. By purchasing the mill and factory, he effectively eliminated the middleman from the movement 160 of corn and wheat from his haciendas, and especially his smaller holdings, to the ultimate consumer.79 By purchas- ing the mill, Cabello placed himself in the middle of one of the municipio's most crucial industries. The apparent increase in wheat production in Saltillo throughout the Porfiriato created a growing need for mills to grind wheat and other cereal grains prior to export. Cabello also ap— pears to have purchased wheat from local producers for ex- port for his own account. In 1899, customs agents of the Mexican National Railroad mentioned in a letter to the United States consular officer in Saltillo, Cabello's ex- port of flour rolls to the United States.80 Much about Clemente Cabello's career parallels those of Guillermo Purcell and Enrique Maas. All were competent businessmen who successfully mixed urban investments with significant agricultural holdings. All would fit comfort- ably under a variety of labels; hacendado, banker, miner, merchant, and industrialist. Their common bond, which they shared with other landowners in the region, was a drive for integration and diversification. Neither Purcell, Maas, nor Cabello were interested in acquiring land for the sake of acquisition. Their purchases of haciendas and ranchos was an effort to both diversify and integrate their varied interests. 161 More striking is the fact that all three, Purcell and Maas perhaps indirectly, Cabello directly, held concerns-- mills and factories—~which utilized the products of their landed estates. That landowners were also millowners and industrialists was evidently more than mere chance. If hacendados such as Cabello, Maas, and Purcell recognized, as they no doubt did, the increasing importance of Saltillo's growing industrial sector, they perhaps also recognized the consequences of the changes that were transforming Mexico, including the dangers of modernization. Cabello, for one, had one of his employees in La Libertad arrested for trying to start a union. But if they underestimated their abili- ties to control the forces they helped to unleash, none was reluctant to join or even lead the forward march. Two natives of Saltillo rivaled, and in one case prob- ably exceeded, Purcell, Maas, and Cabello in the size and scope of their entrepreneurial efforts: deaso Rodriguez, and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez. Of the two, Damaso Rodriguez was undoubtedly the most important. His finan- cial holdings were so vast that it is difficult to know where to begin a discussion of his role in Saltillo's economic life during the Porfiriato. Like Cabello and Purcell, Rodriguez owned, outright, a number of businesses, including most importantly a warehouse, a shoe factory, and a tannery. Apparently a combine, these three concerns represented one of the largest commercial—industrial 162 81 In 1905, the trio enterprises within the municipio. represented a capital investment of 200,000 pesos which re— turned an average yearly profit to Rodriguez of 16,000 pesos.82 Like the three immigrant hacendados, Damaso Rodriguez appears to have acquired his landed estates after having successfully established himself in other enterprises. His initial purchase of land in Saltillo, the small rancho El Charquillo, in 1880, was not undertaken until more than fifteen years after the foundation of the keystone of his empire, his casa comercial (commercial house).83 Seven years later, in 1887, he acquired what came to be the center of his landed holdings, the Hacienda Derramadero.84 Derramadero, with its dependable water supply for irriga- tion, combined stockraising with agricultural production and was one of the most productive haciendas in the area.85 Between 1893 and 1896, Rodriguez purchased three other ranchos: San Carlos (in the municipio of General Cepeda), San Alberto, and Tinajuela, which ended his purchased in 86 San Alberto and Tinajuela were the Central District. located south of Derramadero, but not contiguous with it. Unlike Purcell and Maas, who employed administrators or rented their haciendas, Damaso Rodriguez appears to have closely supervised the operations of his landed holdings. A 1905 government survey indicated that Derramadero and the rest of Rodriguez's landed holdings were administered 163 by Rodriguez himself or one of his four sons.87 Moreover, data taken from a 1907 municipal survey reveal that Rodriguez's home in Saltillo was connected by telegraph as 88 Such well as telephone with his haciendas and ranchos. a situation suggests that Rodriguez kept a keen eye on his hacienda operations. He was, obviously, not an absentee landlord, in the strict sense of the word. It should be noted that Damaso Rodriguez also owned, in partnership with Guillermo Purcell and Marcelino Garza, nearly 40,000 hectares of pasture land near Coahuila's 89 border with Texas in the municipio of Rio Grande. Tax lists for the municipio of Ramos Arizpe, north of Saltillo, 90 There is indicate he owned a 12293 in that municipio. little doubt, however, that his holdings in Saltillo were his most important agricultural holdings. In 1905, his Saltillo lands were reported to have had an annual produc- tion of cereal grains worth nearly 60,000 pesos, more than eight times the amount of money changing hands in major land sales in 1909 and 1910.91 Dimaso Rodriguez seems to have reached a point, as did every hacendado discussed in this chapter, where the 92 Although further acquisition of land had little appeal. financially capable of doing so, as the investments he made in mining and manufacturing bear out, Rodriguez, like Maas, Cabello, and Purcell, had no desire to recreate an estate on the order of the old SSnchez Navarro holdings. Like 164 many hacendado-cum-merchants in the region he preferred to invest his funds, once he had acquired one or two haciendas, in urban enterprises. This is not to say that rural enter— prises were unprofitable, far from it; urban—industrial ven- tures were simply more or equally profitable. The Porfirian hacendado in Saltillo was in tune with the modernizing trends sweeping Mexico and sought to participate in that process. For Damaso Rodriguez, and most of the hacendados in the municipio, to invest all their money in agriculture and land would have been a truly reactionary stance, not to mention a highly precarious one. Damaso Rodriguez invested in more companies than did any hacendado in Saltillo during the period under consid- eration. For example, he invested in no less than seven mining companies; Huerta, Guadalupe, Uni6n, Eureka, Saltillo, 93 These Tesoro Oculto, and Esperanza de Cuatro Ciénegas. companies alone represented a financial commitment of no less than 10,000 pesos. Nor did his involvement stop with mining companies. Aside from his one—third share of the gigantic industrial complex of the Compafiia Industrial Saltillera, which was destroyed during the Revolution, Rodriguez held stock in a number of the municipio's largest enterprises: the Banco de Coahuila, Estrella del Norte, Gran Compafiia Ladrillera, and Saltillo's street-car com- 94 pany. His only investment in land or agriculture besides the haciendas and ranchos he owned in the Central District 165 was the healthy 100,000 peso investment in the hacienda purchased in northern Zacatecas by the Compahia Ganadera y Textil de Cedros.95 In all, these investments totalled slightly over 170,000 pesos, a huge amount for the time. Damaso Rodriguez played an active role in the forma- tion and operation of several of the companies he invested in. He was one of two men, the other being Eduardo Laroche, who petitioned the state government in 1892 for a tax con- 96 cession for La Estrella del Norte. More importantly, the Gran Compania Ladrillera, capitalized at 120,000 pesos, was an outgrowth of the Compafiia Ladrillera de Saltillo 97 which Rodriguez had helped organize in 1897. In fact, Rodriguez became president of the company when it was 98 An additional indication of reorganized in 1900. Rodriguez's managerial or entrepreneurial talents is the fact that besides holding the presidency of the Gran Com- pafiia Ladrillera, he was on the board of directors of the Banco de Coahuila and the Compafiia Ganadera y Textil de Cedros.99 Rodriguez does not appear to have been deeply involved in the very active market for ventas con pacto de retroventa.100 He was, however, along with fellow hacendado Clemente Cabello, a major holder of urban real estate in Saltillo. A notice appearing in the state's official news- paper El Peri6dio Official, in 1910, advertized Damaso Rodriguez e Hijos as having a number of houses for rent in the city.101 166 Perhaps due to the great pressures on his time caused by his numerous investments and political obligations102 Damaso Rodriguez formed a company, Démaso Rodriguez e Hijos (Damaso Rodriguez and Sons), with his four sons, Romdn, Rosendo, Everado, and Démaso.103 The corporation, formed in 1899, was originally organized to oversee Rodriguez's commercial holdings. The company's capital, all contri- buted by Rodriguez himself, amounted to 100,000 pesos in 104 Ever the businessman, merchandise, cash, and credits. Damaso was to receive seventy percent Of the company's yearly profits while his sons, who had the responsibility Of running the business on a day—to-day basis, shared the remaining thirty percent. The family company was apparent— ly expanded tO include the Operation of all Of Rodriguez's holdings prior to his death in 1910.105 Very little is known Of the background of the last landowner to be discussed in this chapter, Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzdlez. He was a native of Saltillo and first appears in public documents in 1875. In that year, he was 106 Twenty reported to have paid taxes on a giro mercantil. years later, he was a prominent member Of Saltillo's land- holding-industrial elite. Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzglez differed from the other propietarios discussed in this chapter in that he never ac- quired land, inside or outside the municipio,cu1tme same scale as Purcell, Maas, Cabello, or Damaso Rodriguez. Rather 167 than purchase single large haciendas or ranchos, Gonzglez apparently felt more comfortable purchasing small prOperties in the vicinity Of Saltillo. He owned at least seven such parcels, acquired at various times between 1894 and 1903. None of these purchases was, apparently, larger than 4,000 hectares and most were located west of Saltillo in the area once belonging tO the Old Pueblo de San Esteban de Nuevo 107 Tlaxcala. His major holding was a half interest in the Hacienda de Galeras, a well irrigated prOperty which har- vested wheat and fruit.108 If Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez was not a large land- owner in the same sense as Enrique Maas or Damaso Rodriguez, he certainly was in their class when it came to investments. Next to Démaso Rodriguez, he invested in more companies than any other hacendado in Saltillo during the period from 1888 tO 1910. He owned outright a brickyard and a public bathhouse, and he exported fruit from the municipio.109 He also owned a stock in several mining companies, includ- ing the Eureka and the extremely profitable company upon which much of Guillermo Purcell's and Clemente Cabello's wealth was based, La Constancia.110 Gonzalez, more importantly, was the municipio's larg- est investor in the Banco de Coahuila (80,000 pesos) and was a member Of the bank's board Of directors.111 He ac- quired shares in the Compagia Limitada de Tranvias del Saltillo, La Estrella del Norte (5,000 pesos), and the 168 Compafiia Coahuilense de Ahorros e Inversiones (3,200 pesos), as well as two companies devoted to agricultural endeavors: the Compafiia Ganadera y Textil de Cedros, and the Compagia Agricola y Ganadera de Saltillo.112 His in- vestments in the companies mentioned above (158,200 pesos) was sufficient for Gonzglez, if he had so desired, to buy any number of large haciendas or ranchos in the municipio, But apparently he preferred to concentrate his investments in banking, industry, and agricultural companies. Plotting the investments made by these five hacendados on a series of tables reveals several trends which seem to have been shared by all five as well as other landowners in the municipio. Tables 20 through 23 display the types Of investments these five men made as well as the sequence in which they were made. From the sequences shown in the tables, it is possible to make several generalizations. All five men followed a similar and definite pattern in the course of their economic investments. With the single exception of Enrique Maas, all were merchants by the decade of the 1870's. In the 1880's most began acquiring landed estates as well as branching out into mining and industry. In the 1890's land acquisi- tions were, for the most part, completed and most new in- vestments were made in banking and industry. The decade preceding the outbreak of the Revolution saw a consolida- tion of holdings. NO new investments in banking or industry 169 ,Nmmmfioo HMHSDHDOHHmw X N x huumspsH mmH2flz X >< X x mmwxcmm mouoEEoo puma Noawusoo Nosomuoom .0 Nosmmucom ommswo OHHobmu oucoEoHU mum: osvflucm Haoonsm oEmoHHflsw OOMpcoomm mmmalommfl moofiazmoflm m>Hh Mm mad: mBszBmm>ZH Hm mqmdfi Ncmmsoo Housuasownmm x NMUmsosH mmasfiz dawxsmm GONG—5:00 .0qu NonNcow Nosomnpom .U Nosmmnpom Ommswo Oaaobmo oncosoau moms osvflusm Haoousm OEHoHHHDO Opmcsoomm mum HIChmH moadflzmoflm m>Hh Mm mQZH 0N mgmflfi 170 x x x NonNsoo Nosmmuoom .U x x Nosmmucom Ommswo x OHHOQMU oucosoao x moms oswflusm x Haoousm osnoaaflsw Ndmmmoo amusuHDOHumd wuumsosH wwwsflz mswxsmm oOHoEEOU ocmq ocmccoomm . oamalooma momfiazmomm m>Hm Mm mfiszBmm>ZH mm mqmfie x x x NonNcow Nosomupom .0 x x Nosgwuoom Ommswa x x x Oaaobmo ousoEoHU x x x mom: osvflucm x x Haoonsm OEHoHHHSU Ncmmsoo amuspHDOHumm Nmesch msflcflz mmfixcmm oOHoEEOU coma ocmosoomr mmmalomma mOO¢QZMUHm wm @042 mBszBmm>ZH NN mqm<8 171 were made. Aside from Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez's continuing pattern Of purchasing small ranchos, the only new area in which these hacendados invested additional funds were the large—scale agricultural companies mentioned earlier: the Compania Ganadera y Textil de Cedros and the CompaKia Agricola y Ganadera de Saltillo. It is illuminating tO compare and contrast the invest- ments made by Maas, Cabello, Purcell, Rodriguez, and Gonzalez. Not only does the diversity of the interests Of these hacendados emerge, but the relative importance each assigned to various areas of investment Opportunity—~1and, commerce, mining, and industry. Table 24 offers a graphic view of the peso amount of the initial investments made by the central characters in this chapter.113 While public documents cannot reveal how much addi- tional capital, if any, was reinvested or plowed back into the various companies these five men were involved in, there is ample evidence to suggest that outright hacienda ownership was a minor investment area. Only one man, Clemente Cabello, placed more than fifty percent Of his capital into hacienda ownership. Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzélez's landed holdings, reflecting his penchant for small ranchos, claimed only seven percent of his invest— ments. Investments in banking, mining, commerce, and in- dustry outweighed, on a percentage basis, landed invest- ments. For example, Damaso Rodriguez's move into banking, 172 .mussosm csocxcs mo mucosumo>cw accowuwcpw mo poocwaoxwa morocoo + .csocxs: usosumo>cw Hopflmmo Hmswmauo moumowch m .momom ca monsmwm Ham oooe¢hH oooeon ooo.m oooeom 090.5 m oooema NOHWNGOG Nosmmupom oomemam +oooeooa +oooemm oooeom oomeoa m oovewa Nmflowuvom ooo~OHH oooemm oooeom +ooo.NH m oooehm OHHOQMU oooeomm ooonB oooeoa +oooeov oooeom moms oooewma m +oomewv oooeov +ooo~oa m +oooeon HHOOHDA mmmmm \Nsmmaou mwumsch wswxcmm mmmmmm mmmwmmmw puma oomccoomr Housbasownmd OHmHIommH mOQHm mBZMZBmm>ZH AdBOB em mqmfiB 173 mining, and industry accounted for nearly forty percent of his investments as compared to only ten percent for land ownership. Rodriguez Gonzalez's investments in the same areas equaled fifty percent of his initial investments, a marked contrast to the seven percent Of his investment capital earmarked for land. Only when investments in large- scale agricultural companies such as the Compagia Cedros are considered, and these, it must be remembered, were not made until the early years of the twentieth century, do agricultural investments exceed capital channeled into mining, banking, industry, or commerce. Overall, the activities of this group of hacendados seem to parallel the economic development Of the municipio and state as a whole during the Porfiriato. Commerce and mining were the cornerstones Of their holdings as they were in large part for the municipio prior to 1883. With the arrival Of the railroad, new vistas in industry and manufacturing were opened and these five were in the fore- front Of Saltillo's transformation into an industrial-manu- facturing center. Indeed, these five invested in almost every major industrial concern organized in Saltillo be- tween 1880 and 1910. It must be stressed that the move into land ownership did not take place on a large scale prior to 1883 and the arrival Of the railroad in Saltillo. Land, to these and other hacendados in Saltillo, was a means to an end; 174 deserving of attention but to no greater degree than any Of their myriad other investments. What seems increasingly clear from the evidence, is that hacendados not only dis- played diversity in the types of investment vehicles they chose, but that outright hacienda ownership, at least in the five cases examined in this chapter, was not a major investment area. Far more funds were invested in the large—scale agricultural concerns mentioned throughout the last two chapters than in direct purchase or ownership Of haciendas or ranchos. The implications of this patter are important not only for understanding the region's socio-economic struc- ture during the Porfiriato, but for an understanding Of post-Revolutionary Mexico. The individuals discussed in this chapter, to the degree in which they were representa- tive of Saltillo's landowners, were not simply landowners nor merchants nor industrialists. They were multi—faceted individuals, at home on the land or in the factories they were responsible for erecting. Moreover, the diverse investments undertaken by Saltillo's landowners goes a long way toward explaining the relative calm in the region during land reform efforts undertaken by the federal government in the 1920's and 1930's. Land, for many hacendados, was not necessary tO continue or maintain their way of life. Land could be, and was, surrendered without crippling effect. 175 These five hacendados illustrate the complex and varied nature Of the Porfirian hacendado in this part Of northern Mexico. They were unique only in the greater di- versity and size Of their investments than was the case with other landholders in the municipio; the latter, both those who owned the municipio's largest estates and those who owned smaller ranchos, followed their lead on a some- what smaller scale in most cases. To be sure, not all hacendados were industrialists or merchants. Conversely, there were several industrialists in Saltillo who did not choose to purchase land, but such men were in a minority.114 Sharp distinctions between merchants-industrialists and hacendados did not characterize the upper echelons Of Saltillo's Porfirian society. The merger Of the hacendado, the industrialist, and the merchant, as witnessed by the careers Of the five men discussed in this chapter, casts serious doubts not only upon the accuracy Of historical interpretations Of the role Of the landholding class in the economic development Of Mexico during the late nineteenth century, but upon the viability Of the sweeping criticism Of the Porfiriato. It seems likely that, at least in Saltillo, the Porfiriato's economic system worked, and worked well. There existed, without doubt, a small elite Of which Maas, Purcell, Cabello, Damaso Rodriguez, and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez were prominent and influential members. However, that elite does not appear to have blocked the rise of 176 newcomers to society's middle and upper ranks. Indeed, their willingness to reinvest their capital, often in asso- ciation with small investors, was the key to economic growth and development in the region. The careers of Enrique Maas, Clemente Cabello, Guillermo Purcell, deaso Rodriguez, and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzélez seem to have been inextricably linked one with the other. Four of them, Rodriguez, Cabello, Purcell, and Rodriguez Gonzalez, died within three years of each other.115 Only Enrique Maas and Clemente Cabello survived tO see Diaz's downfall, and Cabello died shortly thereafter, in 1911. Maas left Saltillo in 1915, his destination unknown. It is perhaps a measure of the es- teem in which these men were held in Saltillo that the street outside Saltillo's municipal archive, in an indus- trial sector Of the town, is today-~after more than half a century of Official denigration of the Porfiriato—-called Calle Purcell. 177 lDamaso Rodriguez and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez both served several terms in Saltillo' s ayuntamiento and Damaso Rodriguez was presidente municipal in 1895. For a complete list of the members of Sa1t1llo s ayuntamiento see the Libros de Actas del Ayuntamiento housed in Saltillo' s municipal archive. The two men also held seats in Coahuila' 5 state legislature. 2These five individuals were selected for discussion for several reasons. First, as men of affairs, there exists a great deal of information about their activities in Saltillo's local archives. Second, at least on the sur- face, they fit the traditional definition of a hacendado; namely, they owned haciendas. Lastly, these five were the hacendados of note in Saltillo during the post-1880 period. Haciendas they owned between 1880 and 1910, Derramadero, Ventura, San Juan de Retiro, Aguanueva, Hedionda Grande, Buenavista, and Jaguey de Ferniza, were among the region' s largest and most productive. In 1904, for example, these five men held over 140,000 hectares-- roughly fifteen percent of the municipio's total land area-—and accounted for nearly 80,000 pesos in crop pro- duction. 3See Martin, Mexico, II, p. 34 4 p. 95. Purcell, Frontier Mexico, p. 277; Valdés, Saltillo 5Purcell, Frontier Mexico, p. 277. 6Valdé’s, Saltillo, p. 97. 7There is some evidence that Clemente Cabello migrated to Saltillo as part of a larger family movement. Public documents reveal that his father, Anselmo Cabello, died in Saltillo in 1889. See RPLS, 5-1, 664:96. 8He is, at any rate, the best known, thanks to the publication of some of his personal letters. 9Purcell, Frontier Mexico, pp. 21, 31, 33, 25. See also John Woessner, Saltillo, to U.S. Consul General, Matamoros, 12/11/1886, NA, RG 84, Consular Dispatches, vol. 29. 178 loAMS, 140-1, 12—5, 1897. The gross sales of Purcell's almacén 1n 1897 was equivalent to 40,000 dollars. 11Purcell, Frontier Mexico, p. 55. 12Ibid., p. 61: AMS, Protocolos, 1896—1897, vol. 2, 47:16. 13 Purcell, Frontier Mexico, pp. 163-190. 14Ibid., p. 95. lsIbid., p. 129. 16The source does not give the exact value of the shares at the time of the company's formation. On the basis of my knowledge of other mining companies in Coahuila, I estimate Purcell's original investment in La Constancia to have been no more than 10,000 pesos. l7Bernstein, The Mexican Mining Industry, 1890-1950: A Study of the Interaction of Politics, Economics, and Technology (Albany, 1964), p. 69. 18Purcell, Frontier Mexico, pp. 161, 163. 1933, 49-1, 8680:141. See also AGC, leg. 165, vol. 1, exp. 7532 BIS, 1896. 20Purcell, Frontier Mexico, p. 248. 21lbid., p. 251. 22Ibid., p. 202. 23NA, RG 59, Box 3805, 312.115 m451. 24RPLs, 4-3, 107:43. ZSIbid. 179 26AGc,l 1e 157 exp., 6945, 1895; APLC, 14th legis., 1895—1897, ,Comision de Hacienda, exp. 81; 13th legis., 1893:1895,1eg 5, Comision ae Hacienda, exp. 61. 27RPLs, 4—3, 107:43. 285219.. 2-3. 37:17; 2—3, 59:75; 3-3, 72:2; 4—3, 122:91. 29 Ibid., 2— 3, 37: 17. From Saltillo, only Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez and Marcelino Garza invested more money in the bank. 30RPLS, 3- 3, 72. 2; 2- 3, 59. 75. The documentation does not give the amount he invested in the Compan1a Limitada de Tranv1as del Saltillo. 31AMS, 127-1, 47, 1884. 32Purcell, Frontier Mexico, pp. 10, 27, 33. 33APLC, 12th legis., 1891-1892, leg. 3, Comision de Hacienda, exp. 27. 34Ibid., 12th legis., 1891—1892, 133. 3, Comision de Hacienda, exp. 36; let legis., 1910—1911,Com1s13n Permanente, Period 4, leg. 1, Comisidh de Hacienda, exp. 63. See also RP, 49—1, 8680:141. 353g, 49-1, 8680:141. 36RPLS, 5-3, 218:236. 37Purcell, Frontier Mexico, pp. 225, 189. San José de los Alamos, one of Purcell's Laguna haciendas, was ap- parently acquired through the use of a contrato de retroventa. At least 33,000 pesos were involved in the purchase of this property. See AGE, 116, 1890. 38Purcell, Frontier Mexico, p. 279. 391bid., p. 27, 33. 180 40Both the state of Coahuila and the municipio of Saltillo levied import duties on domestic and foreign goods, including cotton. The combined tax may have amounted to as much as ten percent. See AMS, 135-1, 7- unnumbered exp., 1892; 138-2, 2—2, 1895. __— 41Archivo de Justicia del Estado de Coahuila, exp. 6236, 1906. 42From all indications, his purchases of cotton haciendas took place shortly after his entry into the partnership which formed La Industrial Saltillera. 43Municipal documents from 1897 reveal that Purcell's business (casa de comercio) sold products from his hacien- das. See AMS, 140—1, 12-5, 1897. 44Va1dés, Saltillo, p. 97. 45Several municipal documents from the years between 1865 and 1880 which deal with landownership reveal no holdings by Maas. See AMS, 108, 22, 1865; 118-2, 112, 1875. 46Mortgage rates charged by moneylenders in the 1880's ranged from one and one-quarter to as high as two and one- half percent per month. Yearly rates were therefore be- tween fifteen and thirty percent. See the Registro de Propiedades, Libros de Hipotecas. 475g, 5—1, 885:437; 5—1, 894:457. 48Ibid., 6-1, 1307:466. Maps of Maas' landed acqui— sitions (as well as those of the other hacendados discussed in this chapter) are located on pp. 187, 188, 189. 49Almost every major landowner in the municipio lived in Saltillo. In this respect, Maas was no different than the majority of area landowners. They were not, in the classic sense of the word, absentee landlords. See for example, AMS, 148-l, 5—5, 1905; 149-3, 16-1 1906; 154—1, 33-4, 1911. 5°AMS, 148-l, 5—5, 1905; 154-1, 33—4, 1911. 181 515g, 9-1, 1560:42; 28-1, 4041:101. Perhaps the money received from the sale of Jagfiey de Ferniza was used by Maas to purchase his shares in the Compafiia Cedros, an ag— ricultural company organized in 1902-03, which called for Maas to invest, initially, a minimum of 15,000 pesos. 5239, 5-1, 764:247. 53$§i§., 7-1, 13893127; 7~1, 1436:232, 8-1, 1486:87; 8-1, 1517:157; and 9-1, 1562348. 54Ibid., 10—1, 1685:1680. SSRPLS, 2—3, 56:70. 56va1des, Saltillo, p. 77; RPLS, 2—3, 56:70. 57RPLs, 2-3, 36:2; 2—3, 37:17. 58Ibid., 5-3, 161:77; 3e3, 86:63. 59Purcell, Frontier Mexico, p. 72. 6053, 14—1, 1876:29.’ See also Egriddico Oficial 5/5/1909, as well as Valdes, Saltillo, pp. 97-98. 61Va1des, Saltillo, p. 266. Valdés' study of Saltillo is accompanied by a number of interesting photographs. There is a picture of the orphanage inclued in his collec- tion. 62AMS, Protocolos, Anos 1889-1894, vol. 3, partido 30, folio 106. 63AMS, 118—2, 112, 1878. 64Ibid., 135-1, 121, 1892. 65Purcell,‘FrontierM‘exicg, p. 95. 66RP, 4-1, 422:25. See also Purcell, Frontier Mexico, p. 95. 182 4-1, 422:25. AMS, 130-2, 81, 1887; 142-2, 6853, 6-1, 905:7.' The purchase price of the hacienda 8,000 pesos, included 2,000 pesos for the livestock current- ly grazing the hacienda. Cabello stated at the time he purchased the property that he intended to give it to his adopted son, Daniel Gonzalez Cabello. 6933, 6—1, 1253:368. San Juan de Retiro was often referred to in local documents as a rancho. 70APLC,.13th legis., 1893—1895, leg. 3 Comisidn de Hacienda, Planos de Arbitrios, Arteaga, 1894. 7133: 8‘1. 1492:96; 8-1, 1496:103. They were in the old haciendas Pena, Rodriguez, and Torresilla y Ramones. 72AMS, Protocolos, 1896-1897, vol. 3, partido 59, folio 60. 73RP, 2-3, 37:17; 2-3, 59:75. 74RPLs, 4-3, 122:91. RPLM, 1-3, 62:46. 75RPLS, 5—3, 155:55. This was, in fact, one of Cabello's largest investments—-a healthy 30,000 pesos, as much as he had paid for the Hacienda Ventura. 76RP, 6-1, 1257:377; Va1dés, Saltillo p. 75. 77Esteban Portillo, Catecismo, pp. 50—51. 78AMS, 148-1, 5-2, 1905. 79Public documents, unfortunately, do not provide in- formation regarding the inner workings of Cabello's empire. 80Customs Agent, Mexican National Railroad, to Charles B. Towle, Saltillo, 10/6/1899, NA, RG 84, vol. 31. 1Municipal tax records indicate the almacen, shoe factory, and tannery were taxed as a single unit. See AMS, 148-1, 5-5, 1902. 183 82AMS, 148—l, 5-2, 1905. 83RP, 1-1, 50:50. According to available data, Rodriguez 5 casa comercial was founded in 1862. See Damaso Rodriguez to U. S. Consul, Saltillo, 6/1904, NA, RG 84, vol. 35. 8433, 4-1, 549:203. 85See AMS, 148-l, 5-2, 1905. In that year, Derramadero harvested c533, wheat, and beans with a market value of 55,000 pesos. This was slightly over fifteen percent of the total value of cereal grain harvests in the municipio that year, 325,600 pesos. 8653, 6-1, 1223:315; 8—1, 1501:127. 87AMS, 149-3, 16-1, 1906. 88Ibid., 150-2, 17—5, 1907. 89APLC, 12th legis., 1891-1892, leg. 3, Comisioh de Hacienda, exp. 27. 9°1hid., llth legis., 1890-1891, leg. 9, exp. 18, Planos de Arbitrios, Ramos Arizpe, 1891. 91AMS, 148-l, 5-5, 1906. In 1909 and 1910 just under 7,000 pesos changed hands in fifteen separate land transac- tions. 92The rancho San Carlos was Rodriguez's last land ac- quisition in the Central District. From the time he pur- chased San Carlos, 1896, until his death in 1909, he did not expand his landed empire. In fact, in 1902, he sold a small labor of seventy-one hectares in General Cepeda. See 52, 29- 1,4097: 28. 93Peri5dico Oficial, 1/9/1909. RPLM, 1-1, 6:13; 1-1, 10:33; 1-2, 34:38; 1-3, 62:46; 1—5, 12II68. 94 RPLS, 2-3, 37:17; 2-3, 59:75; 3-3, 72:2; 5-3, 161:77. 184 95Ibid., 3-3, 86:63. 96APLC, 12th legis., 1891—1892, 1eg., 6 Comision de Hacienda, exp. 43. 97RPLS, 1-3, 29:77; 3—3, 72:2. 98Ibid., 3-3, 72:2. 99E§i§-; 2‘3; 37:17; 5—3, 161:77. Rodriguez was also head, in 1901, of the local chamber of commerce. See AMS, 144-3, 20-14, 1901. 100I found only one reference to his involvement in the venta con pacto de retroventa market. In 1875, he acquired by thlS means the labor de Mora in General Cepeda. The labor was sold in 1902 for 2, 000 pesos. 101Periodico Oficio, 2/16/1910. 102In addition to several elective posts, Rodriguez was active in various local political clubs. See Encarnacidn Davila to Governor of Coahuila, 5/9/1903, Coleccidn Gral, Porfirio D1az, Roll 200, leg. 28,6445. lOBRPLS, 2-3, 51:64. 104This was not an unusual business practice in Saltillo; numerous families formed this type of organiza- tion, among the more important Jesus Rodr guez Saucedo e Hijos, (Francisco) Rodriguez Gonzélez e Hijos, Valdes Hermanos, and Clemente Sieber y Socios. 105From all indications, however, Démaso Rodriguez still maintained personal control over his landed estates. In 1905, for example, he was listed as owner/administrator of the Hacienda Derramadero. See AMg, 148-l, 5-5, 1905. 1061hid., 118-2, 112, 1875. 10733, 18-1, 3268:306; 16-1, 2091:66; 26-1, 3874:48; 31-1, 4352:76; 7-1, 1409:183; 7—1, 1383:113; 7-1, 1334:27. 185 108Galeras was located southeast of Saltillo proper. Gonzalez' 8 share of the hacienda was probably not larger than 10, 000 hectares. logAMS, 148-l, 5-5, 1905; 138—1, 2-unnumbered exp. 1895; 14Z:§, 19-5, 1901; 136—1, 2—6, 1893. "‘“ llOPurcell, Frontier‘MeXico, p. 62. RPLM, 1—3, 62:46. 111RPLS, 2-3, 37:17; 2-3, 36:2. 112 RPLS, 4-3, 122:91; 2-3, 59:75; 2-3, 48:57; 5-3, 161:77; 3-3, 86:63. 113The figures in Table 24 represent only the initial investments made by the individuals under consideration. Improvements made in the haciendas or other business ven- tures are not part of this table. 114Major industrialists in Saltillo who did not own landed estates included Francisco Arispe y Ramos and Jose Juan Rodriguez. Both men owned textile and flour mills. 115Guillermo Purcell died in 1909 while in San Antonio, Texas. Damaso Rodriguez died in the same year and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez passed away in 1910. 186 oSalti 10 (See Insert) Derramadero / A/l'y‘. ,/ L. r’ ,- r' /’ 1' I . ,‘i , ‘ ,t‘ A’ , ‘\.. Ventura. a ‘ l / '. T"? ‘ '3 " f ,/ I/I. . Ramos ,'/ -~ / / Arizpe {4 ,:'/ I"~ x‘ ‘A/,/::‘~,’/‘)/ KEY: 5315-180 Rodriguez 1 E Enrique Maas 2 LEE! Clemente Cabello 3 E Cresencio R. Gonzalez 4 E Guillermo Purcell 5 1:! FIGURE 5 LANDHOLDINGS OF FIVE HACENDADOS, 1880-1889 LANDHOLDINGS OF FIVE HACENDADOS, 187 oSaltillo (See Insert) (CETEBuenav ‘ta (sold 1896) \p, v. 5P\Ja°"ey de Ferniza , 3.7:- \x fill. 2 ; 9 fl,’ 2 ”'x flz’ ' v :/ {l 2 .‘ i . : ' t “L45 Aguanueva' i? 2;: '.ine;? .‘riHedionda Grande l .3. -'>--~ ?’£:‘ rIASan Alberto 5:] z, " U. 2 o o I, ’1 ,.- i i Tinaauelaz/tfi r J’/ ‘ ,»’ A San Juan de/TCSWF? . I, ‘V \ '1‘ Ret1ro 5(3V>’ /'\ r‘ ’1/‘\'/(/‘\J \‘ , Ramos Xx Arizpe Q\. 44 333 f?}_ .Arteaga .Saltillo ‘2 .._ 4444 \ am I 7‘ fl \ D aso Rodr1guez 1L4 Enrique Maas ZKE Clemente Cabello 3§§ C.R. Gonzalez 4 g Guillermo Purcell 5E] FIGURE 6 1890-1899 188 5 Saltillo (See Insert) ’ \ -__.*___‘ .\ I \ . . I o V/if y \ / J:guey de Fern1za 71'} g zgy,,’/fl-, (sold 1902) / I: i 3 .; ./ i . ; '42 Vi/f. \{I . ‘ ,n l 3 ‘ 59% .{ 57‘. {l/. i I /4~ _1_ --.’ " .14:' ~<77r~ (3 ‘( \‘ ‘/ x . ,x' ,X. ,4, m9 )‘f YK /§<< x, Y .t /\ ,1 I _ .'\ / ;< 3" ,R‘ x?“ / «"x ' \XX {X [/3/ x‘ Q' “. 1' K: ' I, ‘5 ~ ‘ \ ‘ . Ramos “\3 Arizpe 4 4 3333 ,Arteaga o Saltillo 44444 \\\ Damaso Rodriguez Enrique Maas Clemente Cabello C.R. Gonzalez Guillermo Purcell UTIbWNH 'lflmi§iiiE:j T 1...— FIGURE 7 LANDHOLDINGS OF FIVE HACENDADOS, 1900-1909 CHAPTER VI HACIENDA LABOR: WAGES, DEBT PEONAGE, MOBILITY Saltillo's hacendados were businessmen. They strove to secure profits and not merely status from their landed holdings. Reflective of their entrepreneurial orientation was their expansion into mining, banking, commerce, and in- dustry. This chapter explores various aspects of hacienda life in the municipio, and in particular the labor system on which rural life rested. It will argue that landowners, as modern businessmen, were more interested in retaining reliable and productive workers than in having a dependent, indebted labor force. Debt peonage was not the controlling feature of hacienda labor in Saltillo; in fact, it bordered on the insignificant. The incompleteness of the historical record, to be sure, imposes limitations on attempts to construct a rounded picture of Saltillo's labor system. It appears that hacienda account books and other internal documents are unavailable to researchers. Moreover, peons, at least those in Saltillo, left few if any written descriptions of their attitudes toward working conditionsand their lives in general. What are available are substantial quantities 189 190 of public documents that record wages, indebtedness and capital investment, and which hint at endemic competition among regional entrepreneurs to acquire laborers. In ad- dition, the sources shed no small amount of light on ha- cienda life including such matters as education and liter- acy. Historians have, with reason, claimed that rural laborers in northern Mexico laborered under far different conditions than their counterparts in southern and central Mexico. In asserting that labor conditions were better, or at least more benign, on haciendas in northern Mexico during the nineteenth century, researchers emphasize the crucial role played by area industrialists as well as a blossoming economy in the American southwest. Competition for laborers among hacendados and industrialists, it is said, assured the rural laborers the highest wages in all of Porfirian Mexico.1 A major weakness in this assertion is that little hard evidence is supplied to support it. Material in Saltillo‘s archives helps elevate to more concrete ground the contention that rural labor in the North benefited from the growth of commerce and industry. At the same time, the data suggest that there was less competition for a dependable labor force between hacendados and indus- trialists than there was among geographic regions. 191 Hacendados and industrialists in Saltillo were frequently one in the same individual and more commonly competed fOr laborers with their counterparts near Torreon and Monterrey and even in the American southwest. Saltillo's economic base since at least the early nineteenth century had been marked by a balance, albeit imperfect, between urban and rural interests. As the Porfiriato progressed, the developmental pace of the municipio's urbanwindustrial sector increased sharply, and as industry and commercial interests expanded their fields of operation, so too did agriculture become more attuned to national and international markets. One result of this expansion was to tie rural and urban labor more closely together, and to blur distinctions between them. It is usually assumed that labor did not share in the benefits of Mexico‘s economic growth during the Diaz years, that in fact there was a decline in living standards, and that in the rural sector that decline was paced by an in- creased subjection of workers to an already coercive labor system. In the case of Saltillo, this generalization is questionable. For one thing there is no evidence of an in- crease in debt peonage. For another, it appears that the relatively benign nature of the hacienda regime, in- cluding debt peonage, pre~dates the period under considera- tion, and that it did not lose that character. Indeed, conditions on the Hacienda Ventura, which are examined 192 later in the chapter, reveal little change during the long years of the Porfiriato. There is no doubt that the post—1876 period, especi— ally after Saltillo was connected by rail with other parts of Mexico and the southern United States in late 1883, saw a tremendous upsurge in industrial development. Much like Monterrey, fifty kilometers northeast of Saltillo, the city was a perfect image of what the Porfiriato represented to many Mexican and foreign observers: progress and modern- ization.2 Five of the flour mills in operation in the city in 1896 were constructed after 1876, including the gigantic El Fénix mill. Capitalized at 100,000 pesos, El Fenix was, until its destruction by fire in 1925, the largest flour mill, both in terms of capital invested and productive output, in the southeastern part of the state.3 A score of smaller industries, which included shoe factories and clothing manufacturers, developed rapidly after 1876.4 In 1906, the Mazapil Copper Company built a smelter, one of the largest in northern Mexico,.near the southern edge of the city.5 Table 25 illustrates the types of indus- trial concerns Operating in Saltillo at the Porfiriato's mid-point as well as the dates they were founded. Although contemporaries often proclaimed agriculture to be the cornerstone of Saltillo‘s economic superstructure, data suggest that industry and commerce played increasingly important roles as the Porfiriato wore on.6 For example, 193 V' V‘ H mqflfiofi l\ wmmH \O H mmeIHmmH m r-INr-iln ommalwme mmmHIHmmH ommalwhma NHv-lr-ilnmm mhwalahma onwalmmmfl mmmHIHmmH owwHIHme ommHIvaH Nr-ir-ir-lv-lmmfi‘ ovaIHme Hmuoe Nuouomm mummm omeIONmH UHMkMOHHm Nuouomm monm wnmpno anouomm HMDHU Nuouomm umm umaupom Haas “soam Hafiz wafluxwa Umpssom wumo mama .OAAHBQmusoo sH mousmflm Had hm hm muHmQOHpom oaoq mm .> mwtam> .2 hm hm hm (lbm mmfiomsumocm NmQOA ocmmm op 05m om om om om woaumu com Noswmupom Ommfiwo om om om om mamfihmsfie Nmsmwupom ownswa om om om om oumcmsmuuwa umsmmuoom Ommfimo No No NW. mm , OHHflsqumao Nmsmwuoom Ownswo ma ms .. mbr. msl. . memosmm mmAAmao .2 6mm om. om om om onmaafluma mnosuuws .m.s.n hm hm um um .o>msz onosmm mosmsnmm mwpam> (hm hm hm hm monowsosz moq OHHHHHMU ouopooe ow ma oh. OH msoam .mum Nmfimvnmz OHHmomB omnsm omunm - omusm. omunm wemucmocm eschew .o dogmas om om om om oamaq Hm umawmcow .Nmeom .o . om om (mmHMfisu Hm nmaamsu OHEHusm .om 0m. mNmsuwm op mwmwmn oaam> HmHHHm Hmmmwm 4 om om oomflosmnm com pmfl>mne .Nsow swab hm ,Nm (1. hm hm Opmuoaoo opmmoz . . mosmm .m sflumsmm om ,om om om onSMmm Hm . ommsonmm oasmmsm mm om ms om meb smm oHHQOo musmEmHU oo.H om oo.a om (WMmm onosmm oaambmu muswawao ms om mm om ouflumm um‘CMSh com oHHmbmu opsosmao ms om mu om ,mnsusm> MA oHHmme ousmEmao om om oonoom Hm OpsoNHHm oummmu om om om om wumfl>msmsm ounmz 0Hs0ps¢ om om .om om Nosmmmoom moq NmsmMMpom osmflumz mm om mm om Jm>wssmsm¢ mom: .2 .9 common so mowfim snowmoo so m0wwm 0302mm no mocmfiomm Hocsopsmq _mumROQMA pmubmpsH mHmHOqu pwubopsflsoz HHmH .OAHHBQ mWOHO> .z oanmch OO OON OO ON ON mmHumzu .s was m cm om OH O OH meow O Nosownpom Ommewa OOH OO OON OH OOH meow O Nosemueom cmmswo OO Om OOO OH OO meow O Omsewutom ommswa ON OO OOO OH ON meow O Nmsmmueom ommswo OH NH OO O OH on .maom Noamuums mamHua O NH ON O O N Omssmueom oaOHAOz ON OH OO OH ON ON omH>mua NmeucoO cash OH OH OO OH OH ON ovaoNHHm oummwo OH OH ON O OH OH umHHmsO oHsHusm OH OH on O OH OH mHHO> umHHHm Hmmmmm NN ON OO OH NN OO Nwsmwueom onOH Hononz ON OO OOH OH ON OOH NmHONcoo NmsmmuOom .O oasmch ON ONH ON OH OH meospumN .O.2.O ON Os OOH OH ON mocmeumm mwOHm> OO OO OON O OO ON oHHHAHOO ouoeoma oasOOH: ON OOO OH ON OH chmnumz .N oHHOome OOH OO OO ON OOO OOH mews ouumz .a.« ON OH OOH N ON OH oHHmnmo muamsmHo OH OH OOH N OH ON oHHmnmo muamsmHo ON ON OON N OO ON oHHwnmo mpamsmHo OO ON OON N NO ON oHHman muamsmHo OH OH ON O OH O mmmsoumm oHamOsm OH OH OO O OH OH ouumz oHaouaa OO ON OOH OH OO ON moans .m :mumsoa OO ON OON OH Om ON Omoumu «Omamu HmsOHz munmo .m>< .xmz .GHS muouonmq muwuonmq ums3OUsmH msflmmmmm pawn mo undead pmuQOUsH pounopsflsoz mHOHOQmH HHOH NmHHHammm .mmmzomemmozH mmmomaH mm mqm<8 203 scandalous conduct, and fighting) dominated the activities of local police. Individuals detained for prdfugos del servicio (flight from service) faltas de complemento con el servicio (failure to fulfill duties) and faltas de trabajo (labor deficiencies) were not numerous. In the last quarter of 1904, for example, no major hacendado in Saltillo had anyone arrested for what might be con- strued as fleeing indebtedness.29 The institution which historians have considered to be one of the mainstays of debt peonage, the tienda de raya (company store), was not pervasive in Saltillo and that fact Offers yet another indication that Saltillo's hacen— dados were not seeking to bind peons by means of debt to their haciendas. In 1911, only twelve tiendas de raya were in Operation throughout the municipio and most were on haciendas such as Melchor Lobo Rodriguez's San Juan de Vaqueria which were located at considerable distances from the city of Saltillo.30 Two of the largest merchant- cum-hacendados in the area, Damaso Rodriguez and Clemente Cabello, accounted for five, nearly fifty percent, of the total number of tiendas de raya in the municipio. Their haciendas, however, did not contain more than ten percent 31 Two of the of the municipio's total rural pOpulace. largest haciendas in Saltillo (Muchachos, which covered 10,000 hectares, and Jaguey de Ferniza, which encompassed 17,000 hectares) had no company store. 204 Numerous reasons can be advanced to explain why many large landowners chose not to Operate a tienda de raya. With the possible exception of those merchant-cum- hacendados who had access to a wide variety Of merchandise at wholesale prices, Operating a tienda may not have been profitable. Moreover, a tienda de raya which functioned for the express purpose Of tying laboers to the land would have been inconsistent with what appears to have been common labor policy in Saltillo; the fact that some hacendados paid their peons weekly, in cash, is only one of several indications that landowers did not encourage the running up of debts.32 The high wages, at least when compared to those paid in the southern regions of Mexico, received by Saltillo's rural laborers may have been suf- ficient when combined with other incentives to attract and hold laborers.33 Additional evidence supporting the contention that debt peonage and its counterpart, the tienda de raya, were not the overriding factors which shaped or determined the relationship between hacendado and peon can be found in a number of Operational aspects of the hacienda system in Saltillo. First, to reiterate a point made in an earlier chapter, sharecroppers, which some historians have come to View as representing an intermediate stage between a dependent labor system and a wage labor system, were utilized on a majority of the municipio's haciendas. 205 Sharecroppers in 1911 worked over a third of the land under cultivation on the area's large estates, and work- sheets completed by area hacendados to aid in the compila— tion of the Censo Agrgfipecuario indicate that some peons served double duty as sharecrOppers. Many hacendados listed the same number Of peons and sharecroppers, and in fact the terms "peon" and "sharecropper" were interchange- able. For example, when listing the area ceded to peons, many hacendados responded with the phrase dada a medieros (given to sharecrOppers). A graphic example of the inter- changeability of peons and sharecroppers is illustrated by the case of Manuel Rodriguez Orozco; he indicated that his sharecroppers were all those peons who desired land.34 Secondly, schools, often supported by contributions from the hacendado, were present on most area haciendas.35 The existence of schools in and Of itself proves nothing. Yet it does suggest a particular frame of mind. Hacendados may have been employed schools, which were viewed by rural residents as important facets of hacienda life despite their inferiority when compared to Saltillo's urban schools, as a device to attract and hold laborers. Schools can be viewed as an incentive-~a fringe benefit in today's terms-- to secure and maintain worker loyalty. If indebtedness was not employed to hold laborers on the land, substitutes such as schools were available. 206 Carpetas (folders) in Saltillo‘s municipal archive dealing with education shed light on the horizontal mo- bility of hacienda labor as well as on hacienda education during the Porfiriato.36 For instance, a list of the thirty-five students attending classes on Clemente Cabello's Hacienda Ventura in 1895 recorded the students' birthplaces. Only nine students, slightly more than twen- ty—five percent of the total, were born on the hacienda. The remainder were born elsewhere, indicating that their parents were able to move from one area of Mexico to an- other.37 The ability of the parents of these students to travel with such apparent ease strongly suggests that debt peonage, while it undoubtedly existed, was not ter— ribly effective in tying families to a single hacienda. Lastly, rural laborers in Saltillo appear to have been able to acquire some amounts of capital, principally live- stock. In 1900, the fifteen residents of Enrique Maas's Hacienda Jaguey de Ferniza owned capital goods ranging from Dario Alonzo's two burros to Severo Valeras' two 38 In the same year, residents of carts and eight bulls. several large haciendas, specifically Derramadero, San Juan de Retiro, and Chifldn, owned eight—nine burros, forty-four carts, eighteen mules, six horses, and forty- six bulls.39 The strong possibility exists, as will be- come evident in the following pages, that these capital goods more than outweighed the peons‘ financial obligations 207 to the hacendado. More significantly, these figures sug- gest that the rural laborer in Saltillo, even if landless, was far from penniless. The remainder Of this chapter examines the population-- with particular emphasis on the labor force-~of the Hacienda Ventura in the first year of the Porfiriato. Ventura‘s labor force was a miniaturized version Of rural life on large livestock haciendas in the municipio, and many of the Observations made about the hacienda's labor force apply to rural workers on other large haciendas and ranchos in Saltillo. Ventura‘s residents, overall, were neither im- poverished nor illiterate. They lived an existence far different from peons working on henequen, sugar, and coffee haciendas in southern Mexico.40 A profile of Ventura and its population suggests that the benign character of hacienda labor in Coahuila and perhaps other parts of northern Mexico was established be- fore the Porfiriato. Moreover, there is some evidence that changes in the region's economic underpinnings during the period from 1876 to 1910 served to strengthen many aspects of the structure of hacienda life rather than providing the impetus for dramatic change. Significantly, as Ventura's labor force indicates, many peons in this corner of Mexico seem to have been able to operate in large degree independ- ently of the hacendado and to attain the status of petty entrepreneurs. 208 The Hacienda de Ventura was located in the southern extreme of the municipio, near Coahuila's border with San Luis Potosi. The hacienda covered nearly fifty thousand hectares and was once the property of the fabled Sanchez Navarro family. At the time the census was taken on which this discussion of Ventura‘s labor force is based, 1877, one hundred and sixty-two people, including the administra- tor, Ram6n Zertuche, and his small family resided on Ventura. There were ninety males and seventy-two females ranging in age from infancy to extreme old age. Pascuala Solomgn, eight-month—old daughter of Sacarias Soloman and his wife, Ventura, was the hacienda‘s youngest resident and an eighty- year-old—widow, Tomasa Arteaga, the oldest.41 Ventura, much like modern—day Mexico, had a noticeably youthful population. Eighty—one people, exactly one-half of the hacienda's residents, were eighteen years of age or younger. Nearly forty percent of the hacienda‘s popula- tion was twelve or younger. Only seven percent of Ventura's residents were more than fifty years old. Ventura's adult population (nineteen and Older) was an almost perfect bal- ance between males (forty—one) and females (forty). Among residents eighteen years or younger, however, males out- numbered females by a wide margin, forty—nine to thirty— two.42 209 Jornaleros (day laborers) were the most numerous mem- bers of Ventura's labor force, followed closely by labradores (sharecroppers), pastores (shepherds), and vaqueros (cow hands). TOgether, these four categories accounted for nearly sixty—five percent of the hacienda's workers. There were a number of skilled tradesmen living on the hacienda, including a tailor, bricklayer, and a shoe- maker. There was no school teacher listed among the hacienda‘s residents although twenty individuals were re— ported to be able to write. Labradores, after jornaleros the second most numerous class of worker reported in the census, were sharecroppers. None of the ten individuals falling into this classifica- tion received a cash salary (sueldo) as did vagueros and pastores, or a day wage (jornal) like jgrnaleros. All, however, were listed as receiving seed (siembra) which was a typical contribution by area hacendados to their share- croppers. In addition, most labradores possessed draft 43 animals to aid in planting and harvesting. Ventura‘s labradores were, almost without exception, middle-aged. Only two of them, Manuel Rivera and Anselmo Solomén, were under thirty-five years old. Of the remain- ing eight labradores, all but one were over forty-five. No other work category displayed this type Of age bias; vagueros for example ranged in age from fifteen to fifty while similar age variances existed for jornaleros and and pastores. 210 An enigmatic category among the hacienda‘s workforce was that of comerciante (merchant/trader). Two individuals, ’ | I . . O Lazaro Valero and Pedro Ruiz, were llsted as comerc1antes. Both men were married and under twenty—five years of age. Their presence on the hacienda raises, again, the question of the prevalence of tiendas de raya in the municipio. Did the hacienda have a tienda'de raya, or were Valero and Ruiz small, independent entrepreneurs permitted (or en- couraged) to sell goods to their fellow residents? The evidence in this case is inconclusive, but strongly sugges- tive of the latter possibility. Neither man was reported to have received a salary as did, for example, the dependientes de la tienda (store clerks) on the Hacienda de Bocas in San Luis Potosi. Moreover, neither would appear to have been related to the administrator, Ramdn Zertuche, as Jan Bazant suggests was a typical requirement for clerks 44 in hacienda tiendas de raya. Perhaps Valero and Ruiz were partners, since Valero passessed draft animals which may have been employed in transporting dry goods from Saltillo to Ventura. The census provides some tantalizing data concerning the literacy Of the hacienda's residents. Twenty indivi— duals, mostly adults, were labeled as sabe escribir (know- ing how to write). Not only was the administrator, as might be expected, in this category, but several labradores 45 and basieros (shepherds) as well. No vaquero or jornalero, 211 however, was included. Five women, including the adminis— trator's wife, were among the residents able to write. It is impossible to determine the level of writing competency, yet the fact that nearly one—eighth Of the hacienda's total population, or almost twenty percent of Ventura's adults, had some command of the basic rudiments of literacy, sug- gests that earlier studies which categorically classified peons as illiterate need refinement.46 Male children of Ventura‘s residents often worked at some task on the hacienda. Twelve was the earliest age at which young boys were put to work. The only two exceptions to this generalization were ten—year—Old Esteban Cordova, who was listed as a carrerero (driver/teamster), and eight- year—old Yldefonso Romero, who was a pastor. When young boys did work, they usually held positions which were less strenuous than those held by older males; pastores and carreteros were often young males.47 NO female worked, apparently, in any formal capacity on Ventura other than that of criada (servant/housemaid). Perhaps the most intriguing section of the census con- cerned the capital possessed by Ventura's residents. Twenty—nine individuals, or seventeen percent of the hacien- da's residents—~twenty—two males and seven females—-were listed as holding capital. More importantly, of the hacienda's male population over nineteen years of age (forty—one individuals), twenty—two, or fifty-four percent, 212 48 Not only did more than one-half of Ventura's had capital. adult males hold capital, but property holding was extreme- ly diversified. Of the twenty—nine individuals who were listed as possessing capital, twenty were members of sepa- rate households; in only two households did two or more family members hold property. In the Eduardo Valero family, both father and son held several head of livestock. The widow ConcepciOn Ortiz and her six sons and daughters were the only other family in which multiple ownership of prop- erty existed. There was a marked correlation between an individual's listed work category (oficio) and capital holdings. Labradores seem to have been the largest group of property holders on the hacienda followed closely by vaqueros, fleteros (teamsters), and cridores (breeders). NO pastor or jgrnalero, however, twenty-one individuals in all, held capital goods. The correlation between oficio and capital ownership would appear to be consistent with the previously discussed age structure of Ventura's labor force. Labradores, the oldest age group of any hacienda oficio, could well be expected, as a matter of course, to have ob- tained a fair amount of capital. Pastores, among the youngest of the hacienda's residents, could be expected to be without capital of notable value. From the census, it is impossible to determine the degree of upward mobility, if any, experienced by the hacienda's residents. 213 In all, 131 mares, forty—seven stallions, twelve mules, 102 cows, ten bulls, fifty—three burros, and 330 goats were owned by Ventura's residents. The peso value of the livestock held by the twenty—nine prOperty holders on Ventura is estimated at between 4,000 and 9,500 pesos.49 The average capital of the hacienda's adult population (eighty—one individuals) was therefore between fifty and one hundred and seventeen pesos. Much more significantly, the value of the capital possessed by the twenty-nine peons reported to have held capital averaged between one hundred and seventeen and three hundred twenty—eight pesos. Obviously, there were large variations in the relative wealth of the hacienda's residents. For example, Jose Arresola, a vaquero, owned three mares worth approximately thirty pesos, while Faustino Maldonado, a criador, owned ten mares, five stallions, and nine cows worth roughly two hundred and forty pesos. It would appear that the richest individual on the hacienda was Concepcidn Ortiz, a fifty- eight—year—old widow; she owned fifteen mares, eighteen cows, twenty donkeys and eight stallions worth five hundred and thirty pesos.50 While individuals may not have possessed extremely large amounts of capital, it is interesting to note that some extended families seemed to control large portions of 51 the total. Domingo Maldonado, Faustino Maldonado, Patrisio Maldonado, and German Maldonado, perhaps cousins 214 and maybe brothers, owned, among them, twenty—nine mares, eight stallions, twenty—two cows, and thirty goats. The other two families who dominated the hacienda's pOpulation, the Valeros and especially the Solomans, also owned significant numbers of livestock. The Valeros owned five stallions and twenty—three mares. The Solomans' holdings, concentrated in Concepcidn Ortiz's family, were twice as large; they owned fifty—three mares, fifty-six cows, fifty-two burros, four mules, and twenty—nine stal— lions.52 Together, the three families (Maldonados, Solomans, and Valeros) owned nearly all the burros, seventy-five per- cent of the cows, eighty percent of the mares, and almost ninety percent of the horses that were listed as belonging to the hacienda‘s residents. It should be noted that two of the families mentioned above, the Valeros and the Maldonados, appear to have in— termarried. Domingo, Faustino, and Patrisio Maldonado all married women with the surname Valero. Consequently, the concentration of capital in the hands of several ex— tended families noted in the preceeding paragraphs would appear to have been even greater than one would assume at first glance. There exists no single source of data regarding Ventura in the post—1876 period which compares with the 1877 census. Available information, however, indicates few substantive changes in the hacienda's labor force. 215 By 1911, the number Of sharecroppers had doubled to eighteen and all were classified as medieros, but the hacienda's pOpulation had also increased more than twofold during the same period, from 162 to 350. In the same year, there was a school on the hacienda, and ten years earlier, in 1901, the Mexican National Railroad had constructed a depot on Ventura. The hacienda's new owner, Clemente Cabello, had opened a tienda de raya, but in 1911, less than twenty—five percent of the hacienda's inhabitants were indebted to Cabello, and the average debt was only twenty pesos. Sixty-five individuals, nearly eighty percent of those indebted to the hacienda (eighty—two), were reportedly repaying their Obligations. Ventura's residents, according to Cabello, tilled ten percent (400 hectares) of the hacien- da's cultivated acreage for their own account.53 In summary, just as the large landed estates in Saltillo were counterbalanced by a system of small land- holdings, so too was the presence of a subserviant labor force offset by a large group of workers who held substan- tial control over their own lives. Whether the scarcity of tiendas de raya, the seemingly benign nature of debt peonage, the prevalance of sharecropping, and high wages were the result of an increasing awareness on the part of hacendados of the value of a modern cash—wage system or a more grudging realization that to do otherwise was to risk financial ruin, is a point that can be debated. What seems 216 certain is that both the hacendado and the peon had shed many of the traditional vestiges which had governed hacienda life in Mexico for centuries. Landowners were not interested in building a labor force based on the coercion of debt peonage.54 Rural laborers, at least those on Ventura, appear to have develOped, before 1876, a penchant for capital accumulation and to have acquired considerable autonomy within the broad but loose Confines of the hacienda. 217 1This viewpoint is expressed most strongly in Friedrich Katz, "Labor Conditions on Haciendas in Porfirian Mexico: Some Trends and Tendencies," HAHR 54, no. 1 (February, 1974), pp. 1— 47. See also Eric Wolf, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York, 1969), pp. 21—22, and Marv1n Bernstein, The Mexican Mining Industry 189011950: A Study of the InteractiOn of Politics, Economics and Technology (Albany, 1964) p. 21. For a discussion of hacienda labor in the north in the eighteenth and nineteenth centures see Frangois Chevalier. "The North Mexican Hacienda: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries," in Archibald R. Lewis and Thomas F. McGann, eds., The New World Looksyat Its History, Proceed- ings of the Second International_Congress of Historians of the United States and Mexico (Austin, 1963), pp. 95—107. 2For a discussion of Monterrey during the Porfiriato see Alexander Saragoza, "The Formation of a Mexican Elite: The Industrialization of Monterrey, Nuevo Leon 1880— 1920, " Ph. D., dissertation, University of California, 1978. 3Valde’s, Saltillo, p. 303. AMS, l39—l, 28-unnumbered exp., 1896. 4AM§, l39-l, 28-unnumbered exp., 1896. Less than twenty-five percent of the industrial concerns in Operation in Saltillo in 1896 had been founded prior to 1876. Of the remaining enterprises, over seventy-five percent were es- tablished between 1886 and 1896, in other words, after the municipio was linked to the outside world by the railroad. 5Bernstein, Mexican Mining Industry, p. 40 Ff. 6The trend toward commerce and industry initiated in the Porfiriato continued unabated during the twentieth century. For an economic overview of Coahuila during the past ten ears see Coahuila: Monografia del estado (Direcci n General de Planeacion y Desarrollo, Saltillo, 1978). The APLC contains a copy of this and several other important government publications. 7APLC, 10th legis., 1887-1888, leg. 1, ComisiOn de Hacienda, exp. 41. 8AMS, 148-l, 5-5, 1905. 91bid., 131-1, 51, 1888; 135-1, 121, 1892. 218 1°1bid., 148-l, 5-5, 1905. llIbid. lzlbid., 139—1, 28—unnumbered exp., 1896. 13ggid., 131-1, 51, 1888; 135—1, 121, 1892; 142-2, 12-9, 1899; 139—1, 28-unnumbered exp., 1896; 145-4, l7-5, 1902. -- 14As a rule, women received one—half the wages paid to their male counterparts. Children, although child labor was not widespread, received only one quarter of wages paid to adult males. 15AMS, 139-1, 28—unnumbered exE., 1896. l6Ibid., 142—2, 12—9, 1899. In addition to data on wages, the census provided information regarding hacienda production, irrigated acreage, size, and value. 17Wages for women and children were, like their urban counterparts, lower than those paid to men. Women, pre- sumably working as servants, received a daily wage of be- tween eighteen and twenty—five centavos while children, both boys and girls, received twelve to fifteen centavos per day. ISAgg, 154-1, 33—4, 1911. The census, which deals exclusively with the municipality of Saltillo, is composed of ten subdivisions: agriculture by families (independent sharecroppers), agriculture by families (small landowners working land for themselves), agriculture by families (renters), agriculture by families (communal lands), large- scale agriculture, salaries, day laborers (indebted and not indebted), livestock, livestock mortality, and land ceded to peons to augment wages. An extra bonus for the research- er is the preservation in the same file of the worksheets completed by the area's landholders and municipal officials in their efforts to complete the census. The worksheets, which I utilized heavily in preparing this chapter, contain more specific data pertaining to actual conditions on area landholdings than are found in the census, which represents a synthesis of the contents of the worksheets. Of partic- ular significance are figures for each property in the municipio concerning the area Of cultivated land (and land not cultivated) in 1909—1910, average harvests in the 219 previous five years, average area cultivated by the pro— prietor, average area ceded to peons, property of the landholder (horses, plows, machinery), and names of share- croppers. 19Katz, "Labor Conditions," pp. 31—32. Table 27 also suggests that wages, not indebtedness, were employed to attract and hold laborers. zoéng, 145—4, 17-6, 1902. This document was the only reference to rations I discovered in Saltillo's massive municipal archive. Two major landowners in the region, Damaso Rodriguez and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzélez, helped compile the figures contained in the document, which also contained data on land values, livestock mortality rates, and agricultural data. It is impossible to determine if rations were issued solely on the basis of weight or market value, an important consideration, since if rations were issued on the basis of weight rather than market value, rural laborers might have been insulated against the pattern of rising food costs which historians have noted for the period after 1876. One can only speculate, but it is probable that vaqueros, typically males fifteen years of age or older, received rations based on weight. Pastores, often young males between the ages of eight and twelve, may have received less rations—-that is, rations based on market value-—than vaqueros, reflecting their youth and re- duced value to the hacendado. 21Martin, Mexico, II, p. 22Saragoza, "Monterrey," p. 76. 23El Estado de Coahuila, 7/19/1907. 24Jan Bazant, Cinco Haciendas, pp. 107-108. See also Bazant's two perceptive articles on Mexico's rural labor- ers: "Peones, arrendatarios, y aparceros en Mexico: 1851-1853," Historia Mexicana 23, no. 2 (October-December, 1973) pp. 330-357, and IPeones, arrendatarios, y aparceros: 1868-1904," Historia Mexicana_24, no. 1 (July-September, 1974) pp. 94—121. 25A figure of three to four months' pay presupposes twenty days of employment per month. For a discussion of debt peonage in various regions of Mexico see Moises Gonzdlez Navarro, "El trabajo forzoso en Mexico: 1821- 1921" Historia Mexicana 27, no. 4 (April—June, 1978) PP. 220 588-615. To judge from figures cited by Gonzdlez Navarro, a debt of twenty—five pesos was markedly lower than debts in other parts of Mexico. In the state Of Chiapas, for example, the average debt for rural laborers in 1897 was ninety-six pesos, nearly four times the amount owed by laborers in Saltillo in 1911. 26AMS, 154—1, 33-4, 1911. 27Harris, Mexican Family Empire, pp. 205—230. 28Jail records housed in Saltillo‘s municipal archive contain, typically, the name of the person arrested, name of the person filing charges, and the charge. 29Agg, 147—3, 16-27, 1904. Damaso Rodriguez, a major landowner—industrialist, had one Tomas Seledan arrested for faltas de trabajo during this period. It is im ossible to say, however, whether this involved one of Rodr guez's peons or one of his urban laborers. 3°AMS, 154-1, 33-4, 1911. 31Total population on Rodriguez‘s and Cabello's holdings was just under 2,000 individuals. In 1910 . Saltillo's pOpulation was nearly 54,000, of which at least half were rural residents. See Periodico Oficial, 3/9/1912. 32AMS, 154-l, 33-4, 1911. Encarnacidn Davila reported that he_p§id his peons every eight days in cash. He also stated that his peons owed the hacienda 2,000 pesos but that since they were not paying their debts, he was not granting them further credit. 33For an indication of wages in southern Mexico, see Jan Bazant's article on the Hacienda Atlacomulco in Morelos, "El trabajo y los trabajadores en la Hacienda de Atlacomulco," in Frost, Meyer, Vazques, eds., El Trabajo y los TrabajadoreS'en la Historia de México, pp. 378-390. 34AMS, 154-1, 33—4, 1911. 35Ibid., 144—2, 4—7, 1901; 138—1, 1—3, 1895. Hacienda schools were often supported entirely by the hacendado. For example, in 1895 the owner of the Hacienda Encarnacion 221 de Guzmén provided the funds (twelve pesos per month plus corn rations) to pay a teacher for the hacienda school. In other cases, hacienda residents, primarily those with chil- dren attending classes, contributed small amounts (typic- ally less than fifty centavos monthly) to pay a teacher and purchase classroom supplies. 36Often the birthplaces of the children attending classes are recorded. In addition, the names Of parents, their occupations, and number of children per family are provided. 37AMS, 138—l, 1—3, 1895. Aside from those students whose bifthplaces were reported as "Ventura," I was unable to identify the location of more than five the remaining students' birthplaces. Four families appear to have mi- grated to Ventura from northern Zacatecas and San Luis Pot051. 38AMS, 143—2, 13—1, 1900. 39Ibid. 40This section of the chapter is based on a 1877 padron (census) of the Hacienda Ventura. See AMS, 120—1, 66, 1877. 41At the time Of the census, Ventura was owned by Ysidro Trevino, who had acquired the hacienda after its confiscation by state and national leaders from the Sanchez Navarro family in retribution for their support of Emperor Maximilian. After Treviflb's death, the hacien- da was sold by his children, in 1885, to Clemente Cabello. 42The census lists the habitantes (inhabitants) of the hacienda. I do not believe that the names include temporary laborers who might have been employed at various times of the year. 43Several labradores owned carts. The census did not record the ownership of plows or harrows. 44Bazant, Cinco Haciendas, p. 105; "Peones: 1868- 1904," p. 95. 222 45Basieros are defined by Friedrich Katz, "Labor Conditions," p. 34, as shepherds who watched flocks of sheep or goats of up to 2,000 head at night. This is in contrast to pastores, who tended herds of similar size during the day. 46The idea that rural laborers were unschooled is in- herent in a number of studies. See for example H. B. Parkes, A History of Mexico (Boston, 1938) pp. 305—308, and Harris, Famin Empire, p. 218. 47It is assumed that children of young ages helped their fathers in their duties on the hacienda. Yet young males also held income—producing positions on Ventura and thus contributed to family income. Older offspring perform- ed a variety of tasks on the hacienda. For example, Mariano Arteaga, thirty—year—old son of Diosisio Arteaga, was a jornalero. Eduardo Valero's twenty-eight-year-old son was a vaquero, and Patrisio Maldonado's sixteen-year— old son, Basilio, worked as a pastor. Jan Bazant describes the existence of large numbers of young inhabitants ’ (muchachos) on the Hacienda de Bocas in San Luis Pot051. See Bazant, "Peones: 1851—1853," pp. 340-341. These muchachos often lived apart from their parents on de Bocas, but such does not seem to have been the case on Ventura. The organization of the census, by households, leads one to believe that unmarried Offspring usually lived with their parents, thereby contributing significantly to family in- come. 48Capital was in the form of livestock. 49The value of livestock depended on age, condition, and more importantly, factors of supply and demand. The peso values assigned to the livestock owned by Ventura's residents are based on livestock prices in the municipio in 1884. The time span between the actual census (1877) and the figures provided below further contributes to the tentative nature of the value assigned to livestock on Ventura. See AMS, 127-1, 40, 1884. 223 Value (in pesos) of livestock in Saltillo,'1884 ‘Maximum Minimum Average Mules 60 25 40 Burros 15 6 10 Sheep 5 3 3.45 Goats 2.50 1.50 1.75 Oxen/Bulls 20 15 18 Cows 16 10 14 . Horses .30 . .10 25 50To determine these figures, I employed the average price for livestock contained in the above table. 51The term "extended families" refers only to indi- viduals with identical surnames. Data in the census did not permit the determination of exact family relationships. The possibility that unrelated individuals with the same last name resided on the hacienda should not be ignored. :2Concepc16n Ortiz was married to a member of the Soloman family. Her children, six in number, bore the sur- name Solomdn. Apparently, after the death of her spouse, Concepcidn Ortiz reverted to using her maiden name. 53AMS, 154-1, 33~4, 1911. 54For a perceptive and controversial view of debt peonage see Arnold J. Bauer, "Rural Workers in Spanish America: Problems of Peonage and Oppression," HAHR 59, no. 1 (February, 1979), pp. 34-63. EPILOGUE The Porfirian hacendado in Saltillo did not correspond to stereotypes develOped by earlier historians and critics of Mexico's pre-Revolutionary landholding structure. They were businessmen and not a rural aristocracy. Absenteeism was as rare as concentration. Landed estates were part, but not the sum total, of investment portfolios. Invest- ments were diversified. Mining, banking, commerce, and es- pecially industry, were areas which witnessed significant hacendado involvement. In short, hacendados were far more than mere landowners. They were entrepreneurs who supplied both the capital and the expertise to begin the transforma- tion of Saltillo from a traditional, agricultural society to a modern, urban-industrialized society. Haciendas were productive units which for their time efficiently utilized, within the constraints imposed by geography and climate, the land they encompassed. Profits, although probably not as dependable or as constant as those accruing to hacendados engaged in producing export crops such as sugar or henequen, were substantial, often more than ten percent per annum. In Saltillo, throughout the Porfiriato, land was a readily transferable commodity and every major hacienda in the municipio changed owners on 224 225 at least one occasion. Concentration of land in the hands of a few did not occur. Small landowners prospered and flourished in Saltillo during the supposed heyday of the hacienda. The hacendado—cum—entrepreneur was successful, in large part, due to his apparent determination not to become totally dependent upon his landed holdings. Financial em— pires rested on several pillars. Agriculture, an important but hardly dominant element, was supplemented by massive investments in other areas. Social status appears not to have been necessarily related to land tenure; a realistic assessment of available opportunities and profit margins was more significant than status in determining the attrac- tiveness of land ownership. The fact that leading luminaries of Saltillo's com- mercial—industrial sectors were also major landowners sug- gests, at least to the degree that Saltillo may have been representative of the hundreds of other regions that still await scholarly investigation, an alteration in historical thinking about Porfirian socio—economic structure. An elite, rather than separate elites, occupied the upper echelons of Porfirian society in Saltillo. Given the interrelationship in Saltillo between land- owners and merchant-industrialists, the effect Of post-1910 agrarian reforms on area hacendados was minimal. Land re- form undoubtedly meant inconvenience and at times temporary 226 hardship, but hardly catastrOphe. The empires inherited by the heirs of Clemente Cabello, Guillermo Purcell, Damaso Rodriguez, and Cresencio Rodriguez Gonzalez were not destroyed by the Revolution's agrarian reform measures. The expropriation of landed holdings could not destroy their economic influence; far from it, the Revolution's ultimate aim of fostering modernization and industrializa- tion only benefited individuals such as these. More striking is the realization that land reforms, at least those devoted to destroying or dividing great es- tates, could do little to help either the region's small landowners or landless laborers. The majority of well irrigated land in the municipio was already controlled by small proprietors and the Revolution's legislative reforms could not supply what Saltillo needed most, water. Indeed, it is likely that the Revolution did more to hinder the economic tranformation which seemed to be taking place in Saltillo during the period from 1880 to 1910 than it did to hasten the modernization of the region. Saltillo and the Central District were the scene of heavy fighting and massive destruction, especially in 1913 and 1914. For example, the largest industrial—manufacturing complex in the District, the Compagia Industrial Saltillera's plant in Arteaga, was destroyed during the conflagration and did 227 not reopen until the 1920's. In fact, only in the 1960's did Saltillo regain the pace Of economic growth and devel— opment which marked its life under the Porfiriato. NOTES ON SOURCES Archives in Saltillo, eSpecially those seldom fre- quented by researchers, were crucial in preparing this study. The Archivo del Municipio de Saltillo, containing data dealing with Saltillo‘s socio—economic develOpment from the time of the municipio's settlement, was heavily utilized. Equally instrumental was Saltillo's Registro de Propiedades. The archive housed records Of property transactions, mortgages, and business partnerships. The Archivo Poder Legislativo de Coahuila provided a major source of letters from Saltillo's hacendados and in- dustrialists to government officials on a variety of eco- nomic issues, especially taxation, competition, and govern- ment assistance to entrepreneurs. The Archivo de Justica was employed to examine the legal entanglements Of in- dividuals who figured prominently in Saltillo's develop- ment. The Archivo General del Estado de Coahuila contains documentation pertaining to the entire state. Political data predominate, but socio—economic data are available. Documents concerning the municipio of Saltillo are decided- ly lean when compared to the excellent collection housed in the Archivo del Municipio. A complete run of the state's official newspaper is held in the Archivo General. 228 229 Archive collections in Mexico City were less informa— tive than those in Saltillo. The Hermeoteca Nacional's collection of Saltillo-Coahuila newspapers is confined to limited runs (one or two years) Of no more than a half dozen publications. Data in the Archivo General de la NaciOn, overall, were not especially helpful in preparing this study. Ramos consulted included ggbernacidn, Fomento, C I, .O,’, I. . A . . I O O O Tierras, and Comision Nac1onal Agraria. Libraries in Mexico City and Saltillo, particularly the Biblioteca Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, provided access to volumes not generally available in the United States. Post Records from United States Consular Officers in Saltillo, held in Washington's National Archives, were a worthwhile source. Letters from consular Officers were helpful in develOping an understanding of Saltillo's eco- nomic structure during the Porfiriato as well as the de- gree of American participation in the region's growth. The numerical and Minor Files of the Department of State (1906-1910) which contain material from American Officials in Coahuila were consulted as were the published reports of consular officers available in the National Archive complex. GLOSSARY ejido - Land held under communal tenure; since the Revolu- tion, communities which are endowed with communal lands. ganado mayor - Cattle and horses. ganado menor - Sheep and goats. hectare - Equals 2.471 acres. hectoliter - Equals 2.838 bushels. latifundio - Large, landed holding, usually two or more haciendas. mediero - Sharecropper; receives one-half of harvest. municipio - Political subdivision and geographic area. obraje - Textile workshop. patron - Landholder hacendado. peon - Rural laborer. Porfiriato/paZ'porfiriana - Period from 1876 to 1910. Named after the man who dominated Mexican political life during that time, Porfirio Diaz. terciero - Sharecropper; receives one-third of harvest. 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY ARCHIVAL MATERIAL: Saltillo Archivo del Municipio de Saltillo Archivo General del Estado de Coahuila Archivo de Justicia del Estado de Coahuila Registro de Propiedades, Saltillo Archivo Poder Legislativo de Coahuila Washington,‘D.C. National Archives Mexico_City Archivo General de la NaciOn Hermeoteca Nacional de México LIBRARIES: Saltillo Biblioteca Publica del Estado MexiCO'City Biblioteca Nacional de Antropologia e Historia DISSERTATIONS: Adams, David B. "The Tlaxcalan Colonies of Spanish Coahuila and Nuevo Ledn: An Aspect of the Settlement of Northern Mexico." Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Texas, 1971. Couturier, Edith Boorstein. "Hacienda of Hueyapan: The History of a Mexican Social and Economic Institution, 1550-1940." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965. 231 232 Saragoza, Alexander M. "The Formation of a Mexican Elite: The Industrialization of Monterrey, Nuevo LeOn, 1880—1920." Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1978. Richmond, Douglas W. "The First Chief and Revolution- ary Mexico: The Presidency of Venustiano Carranza, 1915-1920." Ph.D. dissertation, Uni— versity of Washington, 1976. PUBLISHED MATERIAL: Alessio Robles, Miguel. La Ciudad del Saltillo. Mexico City: Editorial Cultura, 1932. . Perfiles del;Saltillo. Mexico City: Editorial Cultura, 1937. Alessio Robles, Vito.‘ BosquejOS'HistOricos. Mexico City: Editorial Polis, 1938. . Bibliografia de Coahuila, histdrica y eO rafica. Mexico City: Imprenta de la Secretar1a de Relaciones Exteriores, 1927. . Saltillo en la historia y en la leyenda. Mexico City: A. del Bosque, I934. Altman, Ida. "A Family and Region in the Northern Fringe Lands: The Marqueses de Aguayo of Nuevo Le6n and Coahuila." Provinces of Early Mexico, Variants of Spanish American RegiOnal Evolution. Edited by Ida Altman and James Lockhart. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, 1976. Anderson, William Marshall. An American in Maximil- ian's Mexico, 1865-1866: The Diaries of William Marshall Anderson. Edited by Ramon Eduardo Ruiz. San Marino, CaIif.: Huntington Library, 1959. Bailey, David C. "Revisionism and the Recent His- toriography Of the Mexican Revolution." Hispanic American Historical Review, 58, no. 1 (February l978),i62-79.‘ ‘Pi‘ 'IIII“ Bailey, David C., and Beezley, William H. A Guide to Historical Sources in Saltiilo, Coahuila. East Lansing: LaEin American Studies Center, 1975. 233 Baker, Rollin H. "El Futuro de la Fauna Silvestre en el Norte de Mexico." Sobretiro de los Anales del Instituto de Biologia, Volume 28, Nos. 1 and 2.—IMexico City,‘I957. . Mammals of Coahuila, Mexico. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Na- tural History, 1956. Bancroft, H. H. History of the North Mexican States and Texas; 1801—1889, Vol. 11. San Francisco: The HiStory Company, 1889. Barrett, Ward. The Sugar Hacienda of the Marqueses Del Valle. Minneapolis: University of Mifinesota Press, 1970. Bauer, Arnold. "The Church and Spanish American Agrarian Structure." The Americas, 28, No. 2 (July, 1971), 78—99. . "Rural Workers in Spanish America: Prob— lems of Peonage and Oppression." Hispanic American Historical Review, 59, No. I (February, 19797, 34:63. 'fi— Bazant, Jan. A Concise History of Mexico: From Hidalgo to Cardenas, 1805-I940. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977. . Cinco Haciendas MexicanasLL Tres Siglos de Vida RuraI’en San Luis Potosi (1600:I910). Mexico City: E1 Colegio de Mexico, 1975. . "The Division of Some Mexican Haciendas During the Liberal Revolution, 1856-1862." Journal of Latin American Studies, 3, no. 1 TMay, 1971T, 25-37. . "Peones, Arrendatarios y Aparceros en Maxico: 1851-1853." ’Historia Mexicana 23, no. 2 (October—December, 1973), 330—357. . "Peones, Arrendatarios y Aparceros: 1868- 1904." Historia Mexicana 24, no. 1 (July-Septem- . "Quatro libros sobre la historia de las haciendas." Historia Mexicana, 27, no. 1 (July- September, 1977), 153-159. 234 . "El trabajo y los trabajadores en la Hacienda de Atlacomulco." E1 Trabajo y los TrabajadOres en la Historia de MéXicO: Ponencias y comentarios presentados en la V Reunidn de Historiadores Mexicanos y Norteamericanos. Edited By Elsa C. Frost, Michael Meyer, and Josefina Vasquez. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1979. Beezley, William H. 'Insurgent Governor: Abraham. 'Gonzalez and the Mexicaanevolution in Chihuahua. Lincoln: University Of Nebraska Press, 1973. Benedict, Bradley. "The Sale of the Hacienda of Tabaloapa: A Case Study of Jesuit PrOperty Redistribution in Mexico; 1771-1781." The Americas, 32 no. 2 (October, 1975), 190:221. Bernstein, Marvin. ‘The Mexican Mining Industry, 1890- 1950: A Study Of the Interaction of Politics, Economics, and Technology. AIbany: The State University of New York, 1964. Billington, Ray Allen. The Far Western Frontier, '1830-1860. New York: Harper and Row, 1956. Bonilla, Manuel. E1 Regimen Maderista. Mexico City: Biblioteca de Historia Mexicana, Editorial Arana, 1922. Brading, David. Haciendas and Ranchos in the Mexican Bajio; Leon, 1700-1860. London: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, I978. Berlanga, Tomds. Monografia Histdrica de la Cuidag. de Saltillo. Monterrey: Imprenta y Litografia Americana, 1922. Bryan, Anthony. Porfirian Mexico: A Research Review. Bloomington: Latin American Studies Program, Indiana University, 1973. Bulnes, Francisco. The Whple Truth About Mexico. Translated by Dora Scott. New York: M. E. Book Company, 1916. Carr, Barry. "Las Peculiaridades Del Norte Mexicanao, 1880—1927: Ensayo de Interpretacidn." Historia Mexicana, 22, no. 3 (January-March, 1973), 321- 341. 235 Céliz, Francisco. ‘Diary‘of the‘Alcarcdn Expedition into Texas, 1718—1719. Translated by Fritz Hoffman. New York: Arno Press, 1967. Chamberlain, Samuel. ‘My;ConfessiOn. New York: Harper and Row, 1956. Chevalier, Franqois. Land and Society in Colonial Mexico:' The Great Hacienda. Edited by Lesley Byfd Simpson, transIated by Alvin Eustis. Berk- eley: University Of California Press, 1963. . "The North Mexican Hacienda: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries." The New World Looks at Its HistoryLProggedings of the Second Inter- naEiOnal Congress of Historians of the United ‘States and Mexido. Edited by Archibald R. Lewis and THOmas F. McGann, pp. 95—107. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1963. Coatsworth, John. "Obstacles to Economic Growth in Nineteenth Century Mexico." The American His- torical'Review, 83, no. 1 (February, 1978), 85-105. . "Anotaciones sobre la produccidn de al1mentos Durante el Porfiriato." Historia Mexicana, 26, no. 2 (October—December, 1976), 167—187. Cole, William, and Sanders, Richard. 'Growth and Change in Mexican Agriculture. Knoxville, Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Tennessee, 1970. Cosio Villegas, Daniel, ed. Historia Moderna de México, 9 vols. Mexico City and Buenos Aires: Editorial Hermes, 1955-1972. Couturier, Edith. The Hacienda de Hueyapan, 1550— 1936. Mexico City: Secretaria de Educacion Publica, 1976. . "Modernizacion y Tradicidn en una Hacienda, San Juan Hueyapan, 1902—1911." ‘Historia Mexi- cana, 18, no. 1 (July—September, 1968), 35—55. Cozneau, Mrs. William. 'Eagle Pass or Life on the ' Border. Edited by Robert Cotner. Austin: The Pemberton Press, 1966. 236 Cuellar Valdes, Pablo.‘ Historia de la Cuidad de 1975. Saltillo. Saltillo: "The United States-Mexican Cumberland, Charles. Border: A Selective Guide to the Literature of the Region." ‘Supplement to Rural SociOlOgy, 25, no. 2 (June, 1960). _. Mexico: The Struggle for Modernity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. .‘ Mexican‘RevolutiOnj Genesis Under Madero. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1952? Dobkins, Betty. Th§y§panish Element in Texas Water Law. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1959. Flores Salinas, Berta. Mexico‘VistO‘Por'Algunos de sus ViajerOS‘(siglos XVI and XVII). Mexico City: EdiCiOnes Botas, 1964. Florescano, Enrique. ‘Haciendas, Latifundiosy Plantaciones en LatinAmerica. Mexido City: Siglo Veintifino editores, 1975. Gdlvez, Bernardo de. ‘Instructions for Governing the Interior Provinces of New Spain, 1786. Edited and translated by Donald E. Worcester. Berkeley: The Quivira Society, 1951. Garcia Cubas, Antonio. ‘Cuadro Geogrdfico, Estadistico, Descriptivo e HistOrico de las Estados Unidos ’ Mexicanas. Mexico City: Oficina de la Secretar1a de Fomento, 1884. Memoria Para Servir 5 1a Carta General de Mexico City: Imprenta la Repfibiica Meiicana. de Andrade y Escalante, 1861. A ‘The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: Gibson, Charles. History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964. New Tlaxcala in the Sixteenth Century. Yale University Press, 1952. Haven: Gonzalez Sanchez, Isabel, ed. 'Haciendas an 'Ranchos Mexico City: Instituto de Tlaxcala en 1712. Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1969. 237 Gonzalez y Gonzdlez, Luis.‘ San José de Gracia: Mexican Village in Transition. Translated by John Upton. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1974. Gonzdlez Navarro, Moises. "Tenencia de la Tierra y PoblaciOn Agricola (1877—l960)."’ Historia Mexicana, 19, no. 1 (July—September, 1969), 62~86. . "Mexico: La Revolucion Desequilibrada." Obstaculos para la transformacidn de América Lafina. Edited by Claudio Velez. . "El Trabajo forzoso en Mexico, 1821-1921." Historia Mexicana, 27, no. 4 (April-June, 1978), 580-607. . La Colonizacidn en Mexico, 1877—1910. Mexico City: 1960. Gonzélez Roa, Fernando. Chapters on the Agrarian Question in Mexico. Translated by Gustavo E. ArdHilla. New York: State Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Social Science, Columbia University, 1927. Gonzélez Santos,’Armando. La Agricultura: Estructura y utilizacion de los_recursos. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econdmica, 1957. Gooch, Fanny. Face to Face With the Mexicans. Edited by Harvey Gardiner. Carbondale: Souther Illinois University Press, 1966. Greenleaf, Richard. "Land and Water in Mexico and New Mexico: 1700-1821." New Mexico Historical Review, 47, no. 2 (April, 1972Y7'85-112. Griffen, William B. Culture Change and Shifting Popu- lations in Central Northern Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1969. Gruening, Ernest. Mexico and Its Heritage. New York: The Century Company, 1928. Hamilton, Leonidas. Border States of Mexico. San Francisco: 1881. 238 Harris, Charles. The Sanchez Navarros:' A Socio- economic Study Of'a5CoahuiIian Latifundio, 1846- 1853. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964. . A Mexican Family Empire: The Latifundio of the Sdnchez Navarros,fil765-l867. Austin: UniVersity of Texas Press, 1975. Haven, Gilbert. Our‘Next—Door Neighbor: A Winter In Mexico. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1875. Henrickson, James and Straw, Richard. "A Gazetteer of the Chihuahua'Desert‘Region. Los Angeles: California University Press, 1976. Holms, Percy. The Directorio de Agencias, Minas y Haciendas,‘l90551906. Mexico City: American Book and Pfintifig Co., 1905. Horgan, Paul. Great River: 'The Rio Grande in North American History. New Yofk: HoIt, Rinehart and Winston, I970. Kane, Thomas. Coahuila. Louisville: Lost Cause Press, 1877. Keith, Robert. Conquest and Agrarian Change: The Emergence of the Hacienda System on the Peruvian Coast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Katz, Friedrich. "Labor Conditions on Haciendas in Porfirian Mexico: Some Trends and Tendencies." Hispanic American Historical Review, 54, no. 1 (February, 1974), 1-47. Kirk, Betty. Covering the Mexican Front: The Battle of Europe Versus America. Norman: UniversiEy of Oklahoma Press, 1942. Lemert, Ben and Rose. "An Hacienda in Mexico." The Journal Of Geography, 35, (December, 1936), 343-350. Lewis, Oscar. Life in A Mexican'Villagg. Champaign: University of I1Iinois Press, 1963. Lister, Robert and Florence. Chihuahua: Storehouse of Storms. Santa Fe: University of New Mexico Press, 1966. 239 Lockhart, James. "Encomienda and Hacienda: The Evolution of the Great Estate in the Spanish Indies." His anic American HistOrigal Review, 49, no. 3 (August, 1969), 41I:429. Martin, Percy. Mexico of the Twentieth Century. Two volumes. New York: DOdd, Mead and Co., 1907. McBride, George. Land Systems Of Mexico. New York: American Geographical Society, 1923. . I . . . Mendieta y Nufiez, Luc1o. ’El Problema Agrario de Mex1co. Mexico City: Editorial Porrua, I954. ‘_i Meyers, William. "Politics, Vested Rights, and Economic Growth in Porfirian Mexico: The Company Tlahuallo in the Comarca Lagunera, 1885—1911." Hispanic Amer- ican Historical Review, 57, no. 3 (August, 1977), 425—455. Molina Enriquez, Andrés, Los grandes problemas nacionales. Edited by Arnaldo Cordova. Mexico City: Ediciones Era, 1978. Montemayor Hernandez, Andres.' Histgria de Monterrey. Monterrey: Associacidn de Editdres y Libreros de Monterrey, 1971. Moreno, Pablo. Torredn: BiOgrafigdelos mas joven de los Cuidades Mexicanas. De MigueI’HidalgO a Miguel Alemdfi. Ia Camarca Lagunera. SalEillo, 1951.— Morfi, Juan Agustin de. Diario y Derrotero (1777-1781). Edited by Eugenio del Hoyo and Malcolm D. McLean. Monterrey: Instituto Tecnoldgico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, 1967. Mgrner, Mangus. "The Spanish American Hacienda: A Survey of Recent Research and Debate." Hispanic American Historical Review, 53, no. 2 (May, 1973), 183—216. Mullerried, Federico. "Exploraciones geoldgicas en el centro de la regidn oriental del Estado de Coahuila y en 1as porciones limitrofes del de Nuevo Ledn." Boletin de la Societad'Mexicana de Geografia_y Estadistica, 65, (January-June, I948T. Navarrete, Ifigenia. 'Bienestar'Campesin04y'Desarrollo Econdmico. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econdmica, 1971. 240 Noggle, Burt. "Anglo Observers of the Southwest Border- lands, 1825—1890: A Rise of a Concept." 'Arizona and the West, 1, no. 2 (Summer, 1959), 85—100. Noriega, Jose. E1 problema agrario analizado en sus diversos aspectos y con referencia especial a la frontera de Mex1co. 1931. Ober, Frederick. Travels in Mexico and Life Among the ‘Mexicans. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1887. Ortiz Caballero, Gilberto. 'Geograffa de Coahuila. Saltillo: Talleres de B. Casta-Amia[—l976. O'Connor, Hugo de. Informe de Hugo De Q‘Conor Sobre el Estado de las Provincias Internas_de1 Norte, 1771- 1776. Edited by Francisco R. Almada and Enrique Gonzalez Flores. Mexico City: Editorial Cultura, 1952. Pena y Pefia, Alvaro. Estado de Coahuila. Mexico City: ’ Cuadernas de Lectura Popular, Secretar1a de Educacion Publica, 1969. Phipps, Helen. Some Aspects of the Agrarian Question in Mexico: A Historical Study. Austin: University of Texas Bulletin, Studies in History, no. 2, 1925. Pletcher, David M. Rails, Mines, and Progress: Seven American Promoters in Mexico, 1367-1911. Ithaca: Cornell UniVersity Press, 1958. Portillo, Esteban. Catecismo Geografia, Politico e Historico del Estado de Coahuilaéde Zaragoza. Saltillo: Tipografia del Gobierno en Placio, 1897. Purcell, Anita, ed. Frontier Mexico, 1875-1894: Letters of William L. Purcell. San Antonio: The Naylor Company, 1963. Ramos Arizpe, Miguel. Report That Dr. Miguel RamoS de Arizpe, Priest of BOrboh and Deputy in the Present General and SpeCial Cortes of Spain for the Province of Coahuilla, One of the Four Eastern Interior Prov- inces of the Kingdom of MeXico, PreSents to the August Congress on the Natural, Political, ‘and Civil Condi- tions of the Provinces of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Nuevo Santander, and Texas of the Four Eastern Interior Provinces of the K1ngdom of Mex1co. Translated and Edited By Nettie Lee Benson. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1950. 241 Reynolds, Clark. The Mexican Economy, TWentieth Century Structure and Growth. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970. Richmond, Douglas. "Factional Political Strife in Coahuila, 1910-1920.” Hispanic American Historical Review, 60, no. 1 (February, 1980i, 49-68. Riley, James Denison. Haciendas jesuitas en Mexico: La administracidn de los biene§_inmueb1es del Colegio MiiimO'de San Pedro y San Pueblo de la cuidad de Mexico, 1685-1767. Mexico City: Secretaria de Educac13n PuEI1ca, 1976. Riley, G. Michael.’ Fernando Cortes and the Marquesado in Morelos, 1522—1547} Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1973. Romero, Matias. Mexico and the United States: A Study of Subjects Affecting Their Political, Commercial, and Social Relations, Made with a View to Their Promotion. New York: G.P. Putman‘s Sons, 1898. Ross, Stanley. Francisco Madero; Apostle of Mexican Demo- cracy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Santisteban, J. B. De. Indicador Particular Del Administrador de Hacienda: Breve manuel basado sobre reglas de economia‘rural, inherentes a1 sistema agricola en la repfiinCa mexiEana. Puebla: Imprenta Aristica, 19_§. Schiff, Warren. "The Germans in Mexican Trade and Industry During the Diaz Period." The Americas, 23, no. 3 (January, 1967), 279-296. Schmidt, Robert H. A Geographical Survey of Chihuahua. El Paso: Texas Western Press, 1973. Schryer, Frans. "A Ranchero Economy in Northwestern Hidalgo, 1880-1920." Hispanic American Historical Review, 59, no. 3 (August, 1979), 418-443. Santos Mendez, Carlos, and Ayala Espinosa, Carlos M. La Economfa gel Estado de Coahuila. Mexico Cit : Investigaciofi del SiStema Bancos de Comercio Mexico, 1970. Scribner, Benjamin F. Camp Life of a Volunteer: 'A Cam- paign in Mexico. Austin: Jenkins Publishing Com- pany, 1975. 242 Semo, Enrique, ed. 'Siete'Ensaygs §9bregLa‘Hacienda Mexicana, 1780-1880. Meiico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia, 1977. Senior, Clarence. Land Reform and Democracy. Gainesville: University of Fiorida Press,ii958. Silva Herzog, Jesus. "La Concentracion Agraria en Mexico." Cuadernas Americanos, 62 (March-April, 1952), 175- 190. Simpson, Eyler. 'The Ejido: gMexico‘s Way Out. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroiina Press, 1937. Spicer, Edward H. Cycles of Conquest: ”The Impact of Spain Mexico, and the United States on the Indians of the Southwest, 1533-1960. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1962. Stein, Stanley and Barbara. The Colonial Heritage of Latin America. New York: Oxford UniVersity Press, 1970. Stein, Stanley. Vassouras, A Brazilian Coffee County, 1850-1900. Cambfidge, Harvard UnIVersity Press, 1957. Taracena, Alfonso. Madero: 'Vida Del Hombre y Del Politico. Mexico City: Ediciones Botas, 1937. Taylor, William. Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972. Tello, Carlos. La'tenencia de la tierra enMéxico. Mexico City: Instituto ae Investigaciones Sociales, 1968. Tischendorf, Alfred. "Great Britain's Disastrous Adven- ture in Mexican Real Estate and Rubber, 1885-1911." Inter American Economic Affairs, 13, no. 3 (1950), 72-86. Tutino, John M. "Hacienda Social Relations in Mexico: The Chalco Region in the Era of Independence." Hispanic American Historical Review, 55, no. 3 (August, 1975), 496-525. . "Life and Labor on North Mexican Haciendas: The Querétaro-Sam Luis Potosi Region, 1775~1810. E1 Trabajo y los Trabajadores en la Historia de Mexic0g4_Ponencias y comentarios presentados en la V Reunion de Historiadores MeiicanOS'y Norteameri- canos. Edited by Elsa CT‘Erost, Michael Meyer, and Josefina Vasquez. Mexico City: E1 Colegio de Mexico, 1979. 243 Tyler, R. C. "Santiago Vidaurri and the Confederacy." The Americas, 26, no. 1 (July, 1969) 201-235. Venezian, Eduardo and Gamble, William. The Agricultural Develgpment of Mexico, Its Structure and Growth Since 1950. New York: F. A. Praeger,ii969. Villarello, Ildefonso. Monclova. Saltillo: Ediciones de la Universidad de Coahuila, 1957. . Historia de Coahuila. Saltillo: Escuela Normal de Coahuila, 1970. Wasserman, Mark. "Foreign Investment in Mexico, 1876-1910: A Case Study of the Role of Regional Elites." The Americas, 36, no. 1 ( July, 1979), 3-21. . "Oligarquia e Intereses Extranjeros en Chihuahua Durante El Porfiriato." Historia Mexicana, 22, no. 3 (January-March, 1973), 279-319. Weddle, Robert S. San Juan Bautista: Gateway to Spanish Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968. Whetten, Nathan. Rural Mexico. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Wilkie, James W. The Mexican Revolution: Federal Ex- penditure and Social Change Since 1910. Berkeley: University of Caiifornia Press, 1970. Wilkie, Raymond. San Miguel: A Mexican Collective Ejido. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. Wolf, Eric. Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. . Sons of the Shaking_Earth. Chicago: Univer- sity of CHiCago Press, i959. Wolf, Eric, and Mintz, Sidney. "Haciendas and Plantations in Middle America and the Antilles." Social and Economic Studies, 6, no. 3 (1957), 380-411. Young, Karl. "Brief Sanctuary: The Mormon Colonies of Northern Mexico." The American West, 4, no. 2 (May, 1967) 50-75.