By: Gene Exiquio Garcia, History major, Class of 2024
Aristeo Garcia Hernandez was born on October 5, 1892, in Villa Union, Mexico. His hometown on the western coast of Mexico in the state of Sinaloa is just 12 miles south of the port of Mazatlán on the Presidio River. It is likely that at a young age Aristeo worked in the rich commercial sea-based economy of the region. From the time of the Spanish, this region had been engaged in importing equipment for the nearby gold and silver mines. However, since the beginning of the Porfiriato in 1876, thanks to government subsidies toward railroads, the local Sinaloan economy shifted to supplying the expansion of the Mexican railroads southward. Little is known about Aristeo’s private life, but it could be expected that his father was engaged in the same type of work. Furthermore, Aristeo is known to have had at least one sister because a 1920 border crossing form refers to a “brother-in-law” that Aristeo was planning to meet stateside.
Aristeo and his sister were raised in Mexico during the Porfiriato, 1876-80 and 1884-1911. The Porfiriato was the period of Porfirio Díaz’s presidencies in Mexico which saw extensive modernization amidst his dictatorial rule and uneven economic progress. As William Beezley writes, “This administration introduced changes that commercialized agriculture, modernized mining, financed industries, initiated railroads, and enticed consumers… [these programs] created substantial profits…but they did so in a dramatically uneven manner.” Thus, during this period, lower- and middle-class workers, like Aristeo, often struggled to find work, which led to domestic and international migration for jobs. Indeed, the uneven manner of Mexico’s profits both created dissent of Mexico by working class Mexicans allowed for the expansion of international and domestic industry and trade, which would also later prove instrumental to the Mexican Revolution). This newfound industrial landscape expanded the existing pathways and networks of Mexicans in the United States, which dates to before the annexation of Northern Mexico to the United States in the reparations of the Mexican American War in 1848.
Among these governmental industrial programs, Díaz introduced many beneficiary concessions to invite railroad companies. As Díaz’s Department of Vacant Lands in the Ministrer of Fomento, Francisco de la Maza, stated in his inaugural speech, “presaged an era of conciliation, peace, and protection for the social conventions…(and) reanimated the spirit of enterprise and with it the desire to acquire land.” That is, de la Maza believed the peace of the Porfiriato would increase the value of land for the investment of railroads and as capital for Mexico and Mexicans. Yet, in practice, much of this land was bought by rail barons of the US. For example, the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) began building rail along the west coast of Mexico. For this line, the isolated area of the region, “necessitated bringing in all construction materials by ship,” into the port of Mazatlán. Thus “under a duty-free arrangement with the government, locomotives and cars were imported from California, ties from Oregon, and streel rails from Europe.” Therein de la Maza was correct in foreseeing economic growth for the Mexican people. However, such growth was different than the land-owning Mexican population that de la Maza foresaw. The beneficiary policies adopted by Díaz attracted foreign capital and resources to construct the railways and relied on the labor of Mexico in supplying and building the rail. The economic effects of these US friendly policies are twofold: one, they developed ties and trained a workforce in Mexico capable of building rail lines in the US, and two, the policies relegated Mexican workers to menial work and created the atmosphere from which migration and revolution followed.
Porfirio Diaz also invested in the construction of domestic rail. His first completed project was a line connecting El Paso, Texas and Mexico City in 1881. This line passed through major commercial hubs including Chihuahua, Durango, Coahuila, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Jalisco, Guanajuato and Queretaro. Therefore, these rails, in effect, help modernize, industrialize, and connect Mexico. In the construction of these lines, Diaz often employed American engineers further connecting the rail and economies of the two countries while also making the transportation compatible between the US and Mexico. As the California Railroad Museum recounts, “the railroads contributed over half of Mexico’s economic growth during the Porfiriato.” It continues, “American railroad companies in northern Mexico underpaid Mexican railroad workers…American railroads unions rejected Mexican participation…American railroad employees in the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Order of Railway Conductors called Mexican workers ‘peons’ and ‘greasers.’” Thus the railroad economy of the Porfiriato both provided opportunity while underpaying Mexican laborers and providing them connection to each other and the United States. It is this connection that Mexican Revolutionaries would utilize during the Mexican Revolution and the connection that Mexican laborers utilized to work seasonally throughout the US.
A similar process of railroad expansion occurred in South Texas during the turn of the 20th century. On July 4, 1904, a 160-mile railway was completed that connected Brownsville (the southernmost city in Texas) to the Corpus Christi (a Texas city on Gulf of Mexico) terminal of the Missouri-Pacific railroad system. Interestingly, this railway was built before the development of these areas. As contemporary resident Dellos Buckner observed, “[the railway] had to create its own traffic and commerce.” Indeed, at the completion of these early Texan railways, these lands were dominated by Mexican cattle ranching settlements which had existed since the mid-eighteenth century. However, as the Brownsville-Corpus Christi connection became increasingly popular and profitable, like what was occurring in Mexico, Midwestern rail barons began to purchase and annex the ranches from Mexicans and Mexican Americans for the completion of the railroad. As the Laredo, Texas newspaper La Crónica reported on April 9, 1910, “The Mexicans have sold the great share of their landholdings and some work as day laborers on what once belonged to them. How sad this truth!”
Indeed, just as American rail baron bought Mexican land for the commission of their railways in Mexico, the same occurred in South Texas and both resulted in the relegation of Mexicans as laborers rather than the landowners that de la Maza predicted.
The Texas railroad further trained Mexicans as railroad workers alongside the expansion of the US-Mexico railroad that transported resources and labor. Thus, the joint completion of the US and Mexican railroads suggests a concerted effort to connect the industrializing Mexico to the industrialized United States in the early 1900s. The resulted connection, in turn, provided the option to travel to the US, now easier than ever, to escape the working condition of the Porfiriato and the social and civil unrest of the Mexican Revolution in 1910.
Retrieved from Digital Public Library of America. Courtesy of The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens. Pictured is the corporate ownership map and operating charts of railroads owned and solely or jointly controlled by the Southern Pacific Company. This map was produced in 1936 and used until 1947. Notice the different hubs of railroads in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, California and Oregon. Think about how workers might’ve traveled along these lines, what might their experience been like on this early 20th century rail highway.
Labor, Migration, and Opportunity
When Aristeo migrated to the United States on January 2, 1920, at the age of 28, his last residency was marked as Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico. Saltillo is the capital of Coahuila and connected by major railroads to other commercial hubs such as Monterrey, Torreón, and Mexico City. Today, Saltillo is home to a major automobile industry, but during the 1920s it was a major commercial and manufacturing society. Aristeo worked as a carpenter in one of these factories. On January 2, 1920, Aristeo migrated to the US through Laredo, Texas with just $6. He planned to meet his brother-in-law Aurelio Padilla in San Antonio, Texas and work for seven months. Thus, Aristeo’s migration to the US was aided by existing familial networks.
Indeed, James Vigil identifies two crucial benefits of the existing networks and settlement patterns of Mexicans: “it insulated and preserved cultural lifeways, and it helped temper the social abuse and discrimination that were everyday realities.” Truly, these networks allowed social and economic ills to become endemic in the US as these laboring communities were often racially restricted from equitable pay. Still, the existence of these networks as well as previous Mexican immigration of the 1800s point to the presence of community and the ingrained Mexican history in US history, which are both demonstrated in the community of the Aristeo as well as others in his crew and their own circles.
Aristeo is identified next in the record in the 1930 census in Oakridge, Oregon, a small town in the Willamette Valley, at the age of 38. While his specific course is unknown, it is likely that he followed seasonal workflows throughout the country which eventually landed him in Oregon.
Furthermore, his employment as head of his SPRR work crew aligns with his prior experience in the rail economy- both sea-based in Villa Union and land-based in Saltillo.
While working for the railroad in Oakridge, Aristeo was the designated head of the Frazier Station Section Crew housed in room 173 A and headed a crew comprised of six single working men all from Mexico and between the ages of 25-45.
However, it is worth noting that this census labels Aristeo’s occupation as “laborer.” Of the 144 Mexicans recorded in Lane County on the 1930 census, 24% (35 people) were marked as the head of their work crew. All of these men were Mexican and rented their units and most were older married men, suggesting that they held other occupations and experiences before working on the railroad in Oregon. Yet, barring four individuals, the rest of the heads are recorded as “laborers” with no distinction from the men in their various crews. The four exceptions are a night watchman, a section worker, a section hand, and a salesman. While these four examples are unique, the profile of their various jobs demonstrates a level of skill, experience, and trust needed to be the head of a crew. Furthermore, 68% of these heads (24 men) were indicated as being able to speak English thereby adding a layer of trust between the work crew heads and their railroad employers in their ability to communicate. Thus, Aristeo’s designation as head of his work crew denoted his skill, trust, and experience in the railroad industry of Mexico and the United States.
Retrieved from Digital Public Library of America. Courtesy of University of Washington Library, Special Collections Division. This photo displays workers circa 1912-13 laying down rail to Orchards, Washington (on the state border with Oregon). While these individuals might not be Mexicans, the photo displays the type of labor needed to construct railroad lines. Notice that these men, like the ones from Oakridge, Oregon, are grouped in a work crew. What are the different responsibilities of the men and how might one discern the different roles? Perhaps they are apparent in the worker’s jobs, clothing, or maybe elsewhere.
Later in life, Aristeo migrated to Sacramento County in California where he settled in Esparto, California, a small town 45 minutes west of Sacramento. And in 1940, at the age of 49, Aristeo was drafted into the army. His draft card lists his employer as Marie Erica and his address at 207 L St. in Sacramento, California. Given that this address is in the historic Old Sacramento neighborhood and that the building itself is a hotel, it is likely that Aristeo lived in Sacramento during the work week before traveling back home to Esparto each weekend. Thus, Aristeo’s journey of employment took him through Mexico, to Texas, to Oregon, and then finally, to California. This trend is reflective of contemporary immigration and labor migration patterns born in Mexico and expanded upon in the US. Aristeo’s journey demonstrates the interconnected industrialization of North America through the extension of the American rail system. The railroads played a key role in the movement of resources, labor, and people throughout Mexico and only grew its role in the vast US rail system.
Conclusion
While Aristeo’s journey was certainly unique and came as a result of his own agency to find work and better living conditions, it also reflects general trends of Mexican migration to Lane County during the 1920s and 30s. For example, the seasonal labor migrations that brought Aristeo from Texas to Oregon brought countless other Mexicans from Texas to Oregon and throughout the United States. Additionally, the conditions in Mexico and the US that created an incentive for Aristeo to immigrate, such as uneven economic progress, job opportunities, existing networks, and connection to the US via rail, were the same conditions that motivated other Mexicans to immigrate. Furthermore, Aristeo, like some other Mexicans, became skilled laborers in Mexico and employed their skills in Lane County on the railroad. Individuals like Aristeo reveal the diverse labor pool that came from Mexico to the US from unskilled laborers to skilled workers. Yet, on the other side the systematic erasure of these skills under the blanket term of “laborer” in the census reveals a reinforcement of white nationalist and anti-Mexican sentiments in Lane County.
Still, while Aristeo’s story follows the general trends of the era, his unique journey reveals different avenues for the history of a Mexican/ Mexican American experience in the United States- both in Lane County specifically and the country as a whole. Firstly, his upbringing in Sinaloa during the Porfiriato placed him directly at the center of trade and the expansion of rail. Aristeo would never leave this proximity to the rail throughout his life.
In spite of personal motivations and connections in the US, his story demonstrates not only the material and human resources that railways transport but also the opportunities that it provides to the lands it connects.
Furthermore, his unique story highlights the international forces and companies that created the rail in Mexico from different points in the completion of a rail line. Specifically, in regard to Lane County, Aristeo’s experience reveals the nature in which Mexicans employed their skills in the US for better work and better opportunities. As has been previously discussed, Aristeo became a highly skilled worker in Mexico before coming to the US and being relegated to simply a “laborer.” And through the practice of his skilled crafts Aristeo may have utilized his skills to be promoted to head of his crew. Thus, demarcations as “heads” on the census may reveal greater skills or trust of these individuals in the eyes of the rail company. These unique circumstances highlight a different way in which Mexicans employed their skills to continue to be employed in the US in spite of varying quotas and segregations. The legacy of individuals like Aristeo are seen in the Mexican Americans of today, in the railways built by their work, and in their participations in US history and society. This legacy can be properly articulated merely by the inclusion of these workers in the work of creating America that is discussed and taught.
Bibliography
Beezley, W. H., & MacLachlan, C. M. (2009). Mexicans in revolution, 1910-1946 : an introduction. University of Nebraska Press.
California Railroad Museum. Revolution on the Railroads: How the railroads fueled the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920. Sacramento, California: Digital Exhibit. https://express.adobe.com/page/EZberU5iy1oNE/
Coatsworth, John. “Railroads, Landholding, and Agrarian Protest in the Early Porfiriato.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 54, no. 1 (1974): 48–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/2512839.
Montejano, D. (1987). Anglos and Mexicans in the making of Texas, 1836-1986 (1st ed.). University of Texas Press.
Trennert, Robert A. “The Southern Pacific Railroad of Mexico.” Pacific Historical Review 35, no. 3 (1966): 265–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3636788.
Vigil, J. D. (1998). From Indians to Chicanos : the dynamics of Mexican-American culture (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.