Labor and Servitude

The popular notion that northern Mexican labor escaped peonage did not reflect the reality in Sonora. Likewise, the traditional view of the independent northern vaquero does not conform to the historical experience of most Sonorans. That free labor existed in the some parts of the north is indisputable, but in Sonora it coexisted side by side with indentured labor. The Mexican north consists of many distinct regions with different forms of production and varying labor systems.^[86] Between the extremes of free labor and slavery, as Moisés González Navarro pointed out, other institutions, such as peonage, survived throughout Mexico in the nineteenth century.^[87]

On Sonoran haciendas and ranchos the predominant form of labor remained debt peonage. Employers vied for control of a limited labor force. With a relatively small population and the inability to come to terms with the Yaquis, they regularly complained about the lack of a stable work force. On the surface, these conditions would seem to augur well for hired hands, allowing them greater opportunities to sell

their labor. The reality proved to be quite different. In the weak Sonoran economy, most notables remained constantly strapped for capital, surviving largely on credit. They leveraged their ability to acquire goods on credit and passed this indebtedness on to their laborers. Under these conditions, "market pressures," if they can genuinely be so labeled, drove most elites to become dependent on credit and most laborers to place themselves in peonage to survive. Confronting this predicament, peonage relations cannot be viewed as fully consensual nor should they always be equated with ill treatment.^[88]

On the isolated frontier, many Sonorans, especially Yaquis, had no other alternative but to become indebted. In addition, the state of war with the Apaches and Yaquis drove many northerners from the land, forcing them to become indebted to Larger hacendados or groups of ranchers who could absorb the cost of defense. As the circumspect Hall noted, "a man who has no more to depend upon than his manual labor, hires himself or his sons to some person who will advance some money on account of his or their wages. . . . But, as soon as the peon becomes indebted he is a slave."^[89] To ensure employment and a suitable dwelling and to acquire goods, many Sonorans, with no physical coercion, willingly offered themselves as peones and became indebted. Most laborers, Mexican or Yaqui, received payment in kind. Remuneration for the laborers which C. Combier observed at various sites throughout the state, consisted of "goods and food like sugar, beef, liquor, cloth, or whatever else the foreman wishes."^[90] For mine owners and hacendados, agricultural products and cheap cloth could be easily obtained on credit. Foreign and Mexican merchants offered other notables goods on credit in return for mineral products or a wide array of agricultural goods. This practice allowed land owners and miners to bind large numbers of laborers with little capital outlay. To ensure the indebtedness of the peones, the mine owner charged as much as three times the original value of most goods,^[91] so the people seldom managed to pay off their original debts, and the operators could be assured of a relatively stable labor force.

Sonoran mining and agriculture became synonymous with the exploitation of Yaqui labor. Except for a few permanent employees, most labor in agricultural enterprises invariably included Yaquis. After visiting the Minas Prietas mines in 1829, the gallivanting Calvo noted that the labor force consisted of Yaquis, "for whom labor was hard and pay low."^[92] This exploitation also set the tone for acrimonious relations between Sonorans and the indigenous population. Manuel Mascareñas,

one of the state's largest hacendados, summarized the view which landed elites held of the Yaqui. He portrayed Yaquis as excellent laborers either for mining or agriculture, believing them to be "intelligent in their work and humble and docile as servants."^[93] These traits, Mascareñas worried, would also make Yaquis the preferred labor in the Arizona Territory. The issue of flight, especially over the border to the United States, an early problem for landowners in Coahuila and elsewhere in the north, did not become an option for runaway peons in Sonora until the mid-1870s.^[94] Even after the American acquisition of the Mesilla in 1853, peonage continued to be practiced by early miners throughout southern Arizona. In addition, the Apache domination of northern Sonoran and southern Arizona made this area inhospitable.

Under the Sonoran state constitution, individuals classified as "servants" did not enjoy full citizenship rights.^[95] The Ley de Sirvientes (law of servants) permitted persons to "voluntarily" enter into a contractual agreement with the amo (employer) to supply labor in return for a cash advance, shelter, or other agreed-upon remuneration.^[96] State authorities strictly enforced all laws regarding servitude. Magistrates commonly issued judgments and officials tracked down individuals who fled from their "masters" employ. Captured servants were required to pay whatever expenses had been incurred in their apprehension. As one British commentator observed, "nothing is pardoned."^[97] Despite attempts by local officials to keep exact civil registries in order to dissuade servants from fleeing, escapes occurred regularly. Those who managed to flee changed their names to avoid apprehension. As competition for workers increased, many hacendados, short on labor, gladly took in the runaways. Not all, however, were so fortunate. Despite the existence of these laws, the treatment of peones varied widely.

In larger cattle- or wheat-producing enterprises, where hacendados regularly needed labor, the relations proved advantageous to both groups. The land owners acquired a dependable work force, and the laborers, shelter and basic goods. After several generations, some hacendado-laborer relations acquired a degree of familiarity and mutual trust, decreasing the use of coercion. Paternalism appeared to be a factor in some Sonoran master and servant relations. Wealthy hacendados and merchants, such as the Camou family, maintained a permanent number of indebted peons. Letters from José Camou to some "servants" on his hacienda reflected a knowledge of their families and a concern for their well being.^[98] During the California bonanza, businessmen such as Antonio Uruchurtu and Juan P. Camou dispatched trusted

servants to the gold fields, paying for equipment and supplies to search for gold. As an incentive, servants who went to the California diggings could keep whatever gold they found on designated free days.^[99] When the servants returned from California, these merchants made a handsome profit. In these cases the relationship necessarily implied a degree of loyalty which extended beyond a simple contractual obligation.

On outlying smaller ranches, where labor remained scarce, coercion became the rule, especially where indigenous labor was involved. Though laws existed which delineated the treatment of servants, seldom did officials in rural areas have the capacity or will to enforce these regulations. In the northern countryside of Altar and Arizpe, ranchers resorted to brutality to maintain a stable labor force and hunted down escaping workers like runaway slaves. When confronted by flight, other northern Mexican states also adopted coercive tactics to intimidate peons. During the early 1850s, for example, the Coahuilan legislature ignored the governor's objections and temporarily approved public whippings for runaways peons.^[100] Sonoran land owners also enforced their own brand of justice. In 1873 in the district of Altar, a Yaqui laborer employed at La Boquilla an hacienda owned by Juan R. Orcí, an influential landowner, escaped. Orcí and a group of men gave chase and, after a few days, captured the runaway. Upon returning with the man, Orcí beat the prisoner in front of other servants in order to dissuade them from escaping. The Yaqui man later died from his wounds. The local Yaqui governor complained to the district prefect regarding the abuses by Orcí.^[101] The Yaquis testified against Orcí and informed the judge where the victim had been buried. Given such overwhelming evidence and fearful of Yaqui reaction, the prefect of Altar ordered Orcí arrested; however, he disregarded the order and continued to operate his ranch with impunity. Similar cases of abuse occurred elsewhere in the region.

Beside using indigenous labor for agricultural work, notables "contracted" servants, mostly women, to perform household tasks.^[102] In the larger urban areas the upper and even the middle classes relied on Indian servants. For Indian women, this service implied the double burden posed by servitude and separation from their families. During 1861 the prefect of Hermosillo reported having received 160 Yaqui women en route to the district of Altar to be resettled. Before he had the opportunity to dispatch them, however, residents of Hermosillo claimed many of the women as their "runaway servants . . . who had escaped with Yaquis from nearby Villa de Seris."^[103] Though he questioned the

legitimacy of their petitions, the prefect complained that he had been forced "to turn over the women to their amos because of their claims."^[104] The warlike atmosphere that persisted against the Yaquis justified the taking of females and children as servants. Female servitude, driven by access to captured Indian women, persisted well into the twentieth century. ^[105]

Where escape did not appear as an option, servants, especially those employed in urban areas, made use of the judiciary system to extricate themselves from oppressive conditions of employment. In 1860 Manuela Celedonia filed a formal complaint against Jesús Fimbres for "maintaining her as a slave." Celedonia complained that she had agreed to work for Fimbres as a free woman, not as an indentured servant, and that now he refused to allow her to leave. The judge, Francisco Salido, sided with Fimbres, and Celedonia was forced to continue in his employ.^[106]

For many Sonorans, indebtedness continued to be the principal means to participate in the labor market. Despite their willingness to practice peonage, many elites did not appear satisfied. In 1861, as cases of flight to the new Arizona Territory became noticeable, some notables introduced a bill to the legislature which would have further constrained servants. Cognizant that Arizona had become an alternative to indebtedness, some landowners did not wish to antagonize relations with their peones. Manuel Escalante, prefect of Hermosillo, wrote a scathing report to the governor, insisting that the "petitioners simply sought to reclaim their domination, near slavery, over the laboring class."^[107] Attempts to enact a new law reflected the values of those who still called themselves "amos, (masters) a despicable inheritance that was left us by our ancient oppressors [Spaniards]."^[108] Facing strong opposition, the new servant law died in the assembly.

In 1883 the state legislature once again took up the issue of indebtedness. In that year the Sonoran chamber limited debt to the equivalent of six months labor. Other states in the Mexican north pursued similar policies with varying degrees of success.^[109] These changes reflected the wider range of options that laborers now had to pursue employment on the American side or in large foreign-owned mining enterprises within Sonora. Mascareñas earlier fears concerning the migration of Yaqui labor to Arizona slowly came to pass and formal peonage gradually lost ground. Despite options in the United States, servitude continued to be a key method of labor acquisition in Sonora into the early decades of the twentieth century.^[110]