Skip to main content

The Canales Hearings, the Loyal Rangers in the Era of the Mexican Revolution


                During World War I, but more relevantly, the era of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) the state of Texas authorized the expansion of the Texas Rangers by establishing special commissions for what became known as the Loyalty Rangers.  These Rangers were not within the established Rangers chain of command and often were locally hired and paid by agricultural planters, railroad corporations and mining interests to provide security on the US-Mexico border.  Despite state authorization of these Rangers, they were more or less deputized vigilantes engaged in policing Mexican American communities during times of political turbulence.  Generally, despite the increasingly frequent episodes of violence on the frontier, these Loyalty Rangers also offered effective and often violent support in the maintenance of labor relations between the Mexican American laboring class and Anglo American managerial and employing class.  Not unsurprisingly, the laboring class found themselves frequent targets of indiscriminate and extralegal violence by these Rangers.
Ranger Henry Ransom (seated, far left) and Company D


                In 1919 after more than a dozen episodes of ethnic and racially motivated violence by Rangers killed hundreds of Mexican American community members (who often had no ties to any cross border revolutionary activity) the state’s only Mexican American legislator Jose Tomas Canales sponsored a reform bill that would eliminate the practice of governor’s authorizing the use of special Rangers.  Canales proposed reducing and reforming the regular Ranger units, demanded that those hired have law enforcement experience, that the noxious veterans of the Loyal Ranger be barred from serving, and that the governors be restrained from appointing people to Ranger commissions in the form of political patronage in reward for campaign or electoral help (as Governors Ferguson and Hobby both had done).  Canales also proposed that Rangers be capable of posting $1000 bonds for their service, a fairly common expectation for elected county office holders such as sheriffs and JPs.  The intention was to ensure that gentlemen held these positions, or at least that men of modest means would need the financial backing of local elites in their quest for office.  What Canales hoped, of course, was that the governors would stop expanding the Ranger force with special dispensations to reward their friends, and that those politically connected friends would no longer fill the force with prejudiced and often vicious or violent men of small means who were accustomed to using violence against Mexican and Mexican American farm and mine workers.
Canales, 1937


                The Canales bill sparked an enormous outcry by the Rangers in their own defense as well as growing anxiety that the issues which motivated Canales would stain the history of the Rangers and the state.  A series of Canales Hearings on the bill occurred in the later 1910s until ultimately the bill failed to pass the state legislature.  The hearings make some fascinating, if frustrating reading and can be found here but the growing efforts of Refusing to Forget have recently brought attention to issue as historians seeks to illuminate Texas’s experience of both World War I and the Mexican Revolution one hundred years afterward.  As this piece in Slate notes, both the Bullock Museum and local historical commission authorized markers are beginning to talk plainly about the extraordinary use of extralegal violence by vigilantes and militias backed by private extractive companies.


                At the invitation of the Fort Bend County library system I will be talking about the broader history of the Texas Rangers from the colonial founding of the Brazos colonies through the American Civil War and into the modern 20th century.  This story of the Loyal Rangers in the 1910s is just one of many stories—some heroic, others decidedly not heroic—and I’d love to see you there.  If you aren’t nearby, take time to browse the Refusing to Forget blog, or if you had a chance to visit the Bullock Museum this past Spring and saw the exhibit, tell me what you thought about it.  If you really want some homework, ask your library to call those Canales hearing transcripts in to your local branch and sit down with the microfilm reader…..

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

14th Amendment

Today is the anniversary of the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 which guarantees birthright citizenship in the United States.


Passed in both houses of Congress by June 1866 it took more than two years to be ratified by the states.  Every former Confederate state opposed its ratification until Congress made it a condition for readmission to the Union and the seating of southern Congressmen.  Citizenship for freedmen and women in the South opened the possibility of African American men voting and holding office, something anticipated eagerly by the Republican party, depicted here on the cover of Harper's Weekly as the amendment gained support throughout 1867.

Not everyone, of course, welcomed African American votes, particularly California Democrats who would soon push for the closure of Asian immigration to the state out of fear that the 14th Amendment would make citizens of the children of immigrants.  Below is a typical anti-Republican cartoon trading on anxieties about the 1…

Weekend Reading? Trump as Jackson Think Pieces Galore

The Countess, Clara Bow, and Women Boxers of the 1920s

I've long admired the Depression era reporting of Joseph Mitchell, as well as his later essays for the New Yorker.  The book to read, I suppose, is his Up in the Old Hotel.  I have been working my way through a late 1930s collection of pieces entitled My Ears Are Bent which collects his various- probably many unprinted- reports on Prohibition era NYC's underworld.

In a section on sports, Mitchell's clear admiration and affection for the plucky 1920s women boxers is matched only perhaps by his discussion of the performance pushed into burlesque as vaudeville audiences declined during the depression.

In an endearing profile he describes the 1930s career of The Countess, Jeanne Vina La Marr, the first woman in America licensed to fight in New Jersey in the mid1920s.  Unable to fight contests without a license in NYC, she instead did exhibition in the city, often fighting other women and men, usually in some vaguely legal connection with the burlesque shows and speakeasies.