Acuna, Rodolfo F <rudy.acuna@csun.

edu>

Comment by Rudy Acuña

Below is the account of the hanging of Juanita. I had a lot of other accounts that are missing. The
task of preserving the documents is not only the historians but that of the entire community. They
document our struggles. For instance the hanging of Juanita was wrong, however, it was lodged in
the

The Hanging of Juanita: The Only Woman to Be Lynched in California

• SHERRY HEWINS

• UPDATED:

JUN 28, 2023 12:16 PM EDT

Downieville, the town where these events took place, as it looks today.

Via Wikimedia Commons Public Domain

Downieville During the Gold Rush

Downieville is now a sleepy little town in Sierra County, California. It is located where the Downie

River and the north fork of the Yuba River come together; it was first settled during California's

Gold Rush. When this notorious event happened, Downieville was a thriving, rough and tumble

mining town. It had a population of 5000 and a reputation for lawlessness.

Unfortunately, no photos of the real Juanita exist. This is a vintage photo from the era.

Public Domain Image via Wikimedia Commons

A Booming Mining Camp Celebrates the Fourth of July

It was July 4, 1851, when the incident began. It was the first Independence Day since California had

become a state, and the town was in a particularly festive spirit. All of its many saloons and

gambling halls were packed with patriotic miners, flush with gold, and ready to do some serious

drinking.

A young Mexican woman, barely 20, sat at one of the tables in Jack Craycroft's Gambling Palace.

Her name was Juanita (some say it was Josefa, but for the sake of this story, we'll call her Juanita).

She and her man, Jose, who was a Monte dealer at the establishment, were giving their full

attention to a losing hand of cards. Frederick Cannon, a Scotsman commonly known as Jock came

in. He was in a generous mood, buying drinks all around. In his drunkenness, he grabbed the bare

shoulder of the young woman, and it is said, she whipped a knife from her garter and was out of her

chair in one move, facing Jock in a fury. Jock's friends pulled him away, and the incident was put to

rest, or so they thought at the time.

Sometime later, in the wee hours of the morning, Jock Cannon and his friends were stumbling down

the street banging on doors. When they got to Juanita's house, they broke the door down. The men

later claimed they only knocked on the door, and it fell down. There is some discrepancy in stories
here about what exactly happened, Jock's friends said they pulled him away and that was the end

of it, they set the door back up and left. A Deputy Sheriff, Mike Gray, would later say that the men

had entered the house and created a disturbance, which had infuriated Juanita. Where this

information was during her trial is unknown.

Later that day, Jock returned to Juanita's home, his friends claim his intention was to apologize for

his earlier behavior. Upon seeing Jock, Jose demanded payment for the door, and an argument

ensued. Juanita stepped between the men, and Jock confronted her angrily, calling her a whore. It's

unclear exactly what else happened between them, but he continued to berate her and followed

her into her house. Jock was next seen stumbling out of the house, clutching his chest. He had been

stabbed in the heart and bled out on the ground.

Miner's Justice

The cry of murder went up throughout Downieville, and the formerly happy crowd quickly became

an angry mob out for revenge. Jose and Juanita were taken into custody and placed in an empty

building to be held for a miner's trial.

As often happened in cases like this, which was outside of the legal system, great care was taken

to go through the procedure of an actual trial. There were lawyers for the defense and for the

prosecution, both presenting their case before a judge and jury.

Jock Cannon's friends gave their testimony concerning the events leading to the breaking down of

the door, and the confrontation that ended in Jock's death.

Jose stated that he had heard Cannon call Juanita a whore, and that he continued his verbal abuse

as he entered the house.

Juanita testified that she was afraid of the men in town, including Jock Cannon, and was in the habit

of sleeping with a knife under her pillow. She admitted to killing Cannon with the knife.

Juanita also gave testimony about previous interactions she'd had with Jock. She testified that she

had rebuffed his sexual advances in the past. She also stated that she had received a warning from

some Mexican boys in town. They told her that they had overheard some men discussing breaking

into her house to have sex with her.

Juanita's defense attorney took his role seriously, and he did his best to save her. He got a doctor,

Cyrus D. Aiken, to testify that Juanita was pregnant, and he asserted that her innocent child should

not suffer for the sins of the mother. However, the angry mob demanded that other doctors

examine her. The other doctors disagreed with the diagnosis of pregnancy. The crowd immediately

ran Dr. Aiken out of town.

Perhaps Juanita was pregnant, perhaps not, the residents of Downieville were not in a patient

mood, and did not allow that possibility to delay what they saw as justice.

It seems likely that existing racial tensions in the town contributed to the anger of the crowd. Had

Juanita been a white woman there is a good chance that the hanging would have been postponed, at

least until she could get a legal trial. As it was, the jury quickly found Juanita guilty of murder and

sentenced her to be hanged that very day. They gave her an hour to prepare herself. Jose was freed

but encouraged to leave town.

The Hanging

While Juanita dressed for her hanging, a makeshift gallows was prepared for her on the bridge.

When the time came, they say she walked proudly in her finest red hoop skirt, and a Panama hat,

which she tossed to her beau before placing the noose around her own neck. When asked if she had

anything to say, she responded, "I would do the same thing again if I were treated as I have been."
This is how Juanita died, hanging from the bridge at Downieville that day, July 5, 1851. She was the

first, last, and only woman to be lynched in California.

G 6 16 2005

RODOLFO F. ACUNA Crocodile Tears: Lynching’s of Mexicans HispanicVista.com June 16, 2005
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/Guest_Columns/062005Acuna.htm

The U.S. Senate just the other day issued an apology for its history of inaction on lynchings. It
acknowledged decades of obstruction. The Senate heard testimony from more than 150
descendants of lynching victims. More than 200 anti-lynching bills had been introduced, three
passed the House and seven U.S. presidents lobbied for such laws. Tellingly, Congress has never
apologized for slavery. HISTORIA: El linchamiento de los mexicanos

Rodolfo F. Acuña
La Opinion
19 de junio de 2005

Hace pocos días, el Senado federal se disculpó por su falta de actuación a lo largo de la historia
contra los linchamientos. Admitió décadas de obstrucción. El Senado escuchó el testimonio de
más de 150 descendientes de víctimas de linchamientos. Más de 200 proyectos de ley fueron
presentados contra los linchamientos, tres fueron aprobados en la Cámara de Representantes y
siete presidentes de Estados Unidos hicieron presión para que se aprobaran dichas leyes.

Increíblemente, el Congreso nunca ha pedido disculpas por la esclavitud. Se ha documentado que

un total de 4,742 estadounidenses fueron linchados entre 1882 y 1968, de los cuales 3,452 eran
afroamericanos. La senadora Mary L. Landrieu (demócrata, de Louisiana) apoyó el proyecto de ley
luego de leer la obra de James Allen, Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America (Sin
refugio: fotografías de linchamientos en Estados Unidos). Superando la ironía, algunos
conductores de programas radiales de derecha han aclamado este acto, comparándolo con las
maniobras dilatorias que los demócratas emplean actualmente para evitar el nombramiento
vitalicio de jueces de derecha.

Con relación a este hecho, esta semana he recibido varias llamadas interesantes de periodistas.
Un escritor de Los Angeles Times me llamó acerca de la información en El Clamor Público, un
periódico en español publicado en Los Ángeles de 1855 a 1859. Es el 150 aniversario del periódico y
el Times quería recordar su existencia.
El 15 de junio, recibí un correo electrónico de Armando Mígueles, uno de los principales peritos en
periódicos en español del siglo XIX. Armando hizo comentarios acerca de un artículo publicado por
el Washington Post, señalando la ironía de las acciones del Senado. Indicó que en un período de
cuatro años en El Clamor Público solamente, contó 80 linchamientos de mexicanos, chileno,
peruanos, indígenas y negros en California. No está claro si el libro de Allen incluye esta fuente y si
las cifras no contemplan aquellas de los periódicos en español de Texas, Nuevo México y Arizona.
Por ejemplo, los archivos del Instituto Tuskegee, considerados los registros más completos acerca
de las víctimas de linchamientos, enumeran los linchamientos de 50 mexicanos en los estados de
Arizona, California, Nuevo México y Texas.

En The Lynching of Persons of Mexican Origin or Descent in the United States, 1848 to 1938 (El
linchamiento de personas de origen o ascendencia mexicana en Estados Unidos, de 1848 a 1938)
de William D. Carrigan y Clive Webb, aparecen cifras diferentes: entre 1848 y 1928, según Carrigan
y Webb, la muchedumbre linchó por lo menos a 597 mexicanos. Esta cifra no incluye muchos
incidentes de otras formas de violencia masiva. Esto es significativo, considerando que la
población mexicana era pequeña en comparación a la población negra.

Webb y Carrigan describen la forma en que cuatro hombres enmascarados entraron el 16 de

noviembre de 1928 a un hospital en Farmington, Nuevo México. Capturaron a Rafael Benavides que
agonizaba por las heridas de los disparos recibidos y lo ahorcaron en una acacia. Benavides fue el
último caso de linchamiento conocido, pero no la última víctima de violencia masiva.

Como mencionamos, muchos de los casos de linchamiento de los mexicanos se han perdido en las
páginas de los periódicos en español, como El Clamor Público. Su editor, Francisco Ramírez apoyó
el movimiento para regresar a México.

Según Ramírez, no había justicia para los mexicanos en Estados Unidos. El 10 de mayo de 1856,
Ramírez escribió: “California ha caído en las manos de los ambiciosos hijos de Norteamérica,
quienes no se detendrán hasta haber satisfecho sus pasiones, echando a los primeros habitantes
de estas tierras fuera del país, difamando su religión y desfigurando sus costumbres”.

El Clamor describió la forma en que los texanos de El Monte lanzaron alquitrán caliente sobre la
casa de la familia de Diego Navarro, invadieron la casa, lo capturaron y ejecutaron, junto con otros
dos mexicanos a quienes acusaron de pertenecer a una pandilla de rebeldes.

También está el caso de la familia Berreyesa, cuyos problemas comenzaron con los Bear Flaggers.
En 1848, asesinaron a un miembro anciano de la familia Berreyesa y a dos de sus sobrinos. En julio
de 1854 una banda de euroamericanos arrastró a Encarnación Berreyesa fuera de su casa, mientras
su esposa e hijos observaban este hecho y lo ahorcaron de un árbol. Cuando Berreyesa no confesó
haber sido el autor de las matanzas, los miembros de este escuadrón de la muerte lo dejaron medio
moribundo y ahorcaron a Nemesio, hermano de Berreyesa.

El acto más obvio de violencia paramilitar ocurrió en Downieville en 1851. Un tribunal irregular y
arbitrario condenó a una mujer mexicana llamada Juanita, que estaba embarazada, y la linchó en
presencia de dos mil mineros. Fue la primera mujer ahorcada en California. El consenso popular
fue que Juanita era una prostituta (deduciendo que el linchamiento era lamentable, pero que
después de todo Juanita era un elemento antisocial). Años más tarde su esposo entabló una
demanda judicial, pero los tribunales ignoraron su causa.

Más allá del reconocimiento de que estos hechos ocurrieron, la historia tiene sus lecciones. Por
ejemplo, hay una diferencia entre una maniobra de dilatación en el Senado para evitar el
nombramiento de un juez racista y otra para prevenir la aprobación de una ley para procesar contra
el linchamiento.

También existe un contexto histórico. Uno pensaría que las personas considerarían las
consecuencias como las guerras injustas. Clark Clifford y Robert McNamarra han admitido que la
guerra de Vietnam fue una equivocación. Dentro de 50 años, ¿hará alguna diferencia si el Congreso
admite que los estadounidenses estaban equivocados acerca las guerras imperialistas de Estados
Unidos en el Medio Oriente? Los linchamientos fueron una gran equivocación en su momento y hoy
el odio y el terrorismo de la milicia en la frontera se originan en esta raíz. El racismo y la violencia
en cualquier momento y en cualquier lugar.

Rodolfo F. Acuña es profesor de Estudios Chicanos en la Universidad del Estado de California en

Northridge. Es autor de 17 libros.

It has been documented that a total of 4,742 Americans were lynched between 1882 and

1968, of these 3,452 were African Americans.

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) sponsored the bill after she read James Allen’s "Without

Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America." Opportunistically some right wing radio hosts have

been comparing the filibuster of anti-lynching laws by Democrats to threatened filibuster to

prevent the life appointment of right wing judges.

Related to this, I have received several interesting calls from reporters. A Los Angeles

Times writer called me about El Clamor Publico, a Spanish-language newspaper published in Los

Angeles from 1855-1859. It is the 150 anniversary of the founding of the paper and the Times

wanted to acknowledge that it had existed.

On June 15, I received an Email from Armando Miguelez, one of the foremost experts on 19th

Century Spanish language newspapers. Armando commented on an article published by the

Washington Post, pointing to the irony of the Senate=s actions. He observed that in a four-year

period in the El Clamor Publico alone, he counted 80 linchamientos of Mexicans, Chileans,

Peruvians, Indians and Blacks in California. It is doubtful whether the Allen book included this

source and the figures generally do not include those of Spanish-language newspapers in Texas,

New Mexico, Arizona and California. For example, the files at Tuskegee Institute, considered the

most comprehensive count of lynching victims, lists the lynching of fifty Mexicans in those states.
 William D. Carrigan and Clive Webb=s The Lynching of Persons of Mexican Origin or

Descent in the United States, 1848 too 1928," has different figures. Between 1848 and 1928, mobs

lynched at least 597 Mexicans. This does not include many incidents of other forms mob violence.

This is considerable taking into account that the Mexican population was small in comparison to

the Black population.

Webb and Carrigan described how on November 16, 1928, four masked men broke into a

hospital in Farmington, New Mexico. They seized Rafael Benavides who was dying of gunshot

wounds and hanged him from a locust tree. Benavides was the last known lynching; not the last

victim of mob violence.

As mentioned, many of the lynchings of Mexicans have been lost in the pages of Spanish-

language newspapers such as El Clamor Publico. Its publisher, Francisco Ramirez espoused the

return to Mexico movement. According to Ramirez, Mexicans could not find justice in the United

States. On May 10, 1856, Ramírez wrote California has fallen into the hands of the ambitious sons

of North America who will not stop until they have satisfied their passions, by driving the first

occupants of the land out of the country, vilifying their religion and disfiguring their customs.

The Clamor described how Texans from El Monte threw hot tar on Diego Navarro=s family

home and broke into the house, dragged him out, and executed him, along with two other Mexicans

whom they accused of being members of a rebel gang.

There was also the case of the Berreyesa family. Its problems began with Bear Flaggers.

They assassinated an elder Berreyesa and his two nephews in 1848. In July 1854 a band of

Euroamericans dragged Encarnacion Berreyesa from his house while his wife and children looked

on, and suspended him from a tree. When Berreyesa did not confess to the killings, vigilantes left

him half dead and hanged Berreyesa=s brother Nemesio.

The most flagrant act of vigilantism was at Downieville in 1851. A kangaroo court convicted

a Mexican woman called Juanita who was pregnant and lynched her as 2000 miners looked on. She

was the first woman hanged in California. Popular lore rationalized that Juanita was a prostitute
(inferring that the lynching was lamentable but, after all, Juanita was antisocial). Years later her

husband sued but was ignored by the courts.

Beyond the acknowledgment that these incidents happened, history has its lessons. For

example, there is a difference between a senate filibuster to prevent the appointment of a racist

judge and a filibuster to prevent the passage of a law to prosecute lynching.

There is also historical context. You would think that people would think about

consequences of unjust wars. Clark Clifford and Robert McNamarra have admitted that the

Vietnam War was wrong. Fifty years from now, will it make a difference if Congress admits that

Americans were wrong for the U.S. imperial wars in the Middle East?

The lynchings were wrong then, and today the hatred and the terrorism of minutemen on the

border draw from American root. Racism and violence at anytime or anywhere.

G 6 16 2005

RODOLFO F. ACUNA Crocodile Tears: Lynching’s of Mexicans HispanicVista.com June 16, 2005
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/Guest_Columns/062005Acuna.htm

The U.S. Senate just the other day issued an apology for its history of inaction on lynchings. It
acknowledged decades of obstruction. The Senate heard testimony from more than 150
descendants of lynching victims. More than 200 anti-lynching bills had been introduced, three
passed the House and seven U.S. presidents lobbied for such laws. Tellingly, Congress has never
apologized for slavery. HISTORIA: El linchamiento de los mexicanos

Rodolfo F. Acuña
La Opinion
19 de junio de 2005

Hace pocos días, el Senado federal se disculpó por su falta de actuación a lo largo de la historia
contra los linchamientos. Admitió décadas de obstrucción. El Senado escuchó el testimonio de
más de 150 descendientes de víctimas de linchamientos. Más de 200 proyectos de ley fueron
presentados contra los linchamientos, tres fueron aprobados en la Cámara de Representantes y
siete presidentes de Estados Unidos hicieron presión para que se aprobaran dichas leyes.

Increíblemente, el Congreso nunca ha pedido disculpas por la esclavitud. Se ha documentado que

un total de 4,742 estadounidenses fueron linchados entre 1882 y 1968, de los cuales 3,452 eran
afroamericanos. La senadora Mary L. Landrieu (demócrata, de Louisiana) apoyó el proyecto de ley
luego de leer la obra de James Allen, Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America (Sin
refugio: fotografías de linchamientos en Estados Unidos). Superando la ironía, algunos
conductores de programas radiales de derecha han aclamado este acto, comparándolo con las
maniobras dilatorias que los demócratas emplean actualmente para evitar el nombramiento
vitalicio de jueces de derecha.
Con relación a este hecho, esta semana he recibido varias llamadas interesantes de periodistas.
Un escritor de Los Angeles Times me llamó acerca de la información en El Clamor Público, un
periódico en español publicado en Los Ángeles de 1855 a 1859. Es el 150 aniversario del periódico y
el Times quería recordar su existencia.

El 15 de junio, recibí un correo electrónico de Armando Mígueles, uno de los principales peritos en
periódicos en español del siglo XIX. Armando hizo comentarios acerca de un artículo publicado por
el Washington Post, señalando la ironía de las acciones del Senado. Indicó que en un período de
cuatro años en El Clamor Público solamente, contó 80 linchamientos de mexicanos, chileno,
peruanos, indígenas y negros en California. No está claro si el libro de Allen incluye esta fuente y si
las cifras no contemplan aquellas de los periódicos en español de Texas, Nuevo México y Arizona.
Por ejemplo, los archivos del Instituto Tuskegee, considerados los registros más completos acerca
de las víctimas de linchamientos, enumeran los linchamientos de 50 mexicanos en los estados de
Arizona, California, Nuevo México y Texas.

En The Lynching of Persons of Mexican Origin or Descent in the United States, 1848 to 1938 (El
linchamiento de personas de origen o ascendencia mexicana en Estados Unidos, de 1848 a 1938)
de William D. Carrigan y Clive Webb, aparecen cifras diferentes: entre 1848 y 1928, según Carrigan
y Webb, la muchedumbre linchó por lo menos a 597 mexicanos. Esta cifra no incluye muchos
incidentes de otras formas de violencia masiva. Esto es significativo, considerando que la
población mexicana era pequeña en comparación a la población negra.

Webb y Carrigan describen la forma en que cuatro hombres enmascarados entraron el 16 de

noviembre de 1928 a un hospital en Farmington, Nuevo México. Capturaron a Rafael Benavides que
agonizaba por las heridas de los disparos recibidos y lo ahorcaron en una acacia. Benavides fue el
último caso de linchamiento conocido, pero no la última víctima de violencia masiva.

Como mencionamos, muchos de los casos de linchamiento de los mexicanos se han perdido en las
páginas de los periódicos en español, como El Clamor Público. Su editor, Francisco Ramírez apoyó
el movimiento para regresar a México.

Según Ramírez, no había justicia para los mexicanos en Estados Unidos. El 10 de mayo de 1856,
Ramírez escribió: “California ha caído en las manos de los ambiciosos hijos de Norteamérica,
quienes no se detendrán hasta haber satisfecho sus pasiones, echando a los primeros habitantes
de estas tierras fuera del país, difamando su religión y desfigurando sus costumbres”.

El Clamor describió la forma en que los texanos de El Monte lanzaron alquitrán caliente sobre la
casa de la familia de Diego Navarro, invadieron la casa, lo capturaron y ejecutaron, junto con otros
dos mexicanos a quienes acusaron de pertenecer a una pandilla de rebeldes.

También está el caso de la familia Berreyesa, cuyos problemas comenzaron con los Bear Flaggers.
En 1848, asesinaron a un miembro anciano de la familia Berreyesa y a dos de sus sobrinos. En julio
de 1854 una banda de euroamericanos arrastró a Encarnación Berreyesa fuera de su casa, mientras
su esposa e hijos observaban este hecho y lo ahorcaron de un árbol. Cuando Berreyesa no confesó
haber sido el autor de las matanzas, los miembros de este escuadrón de la muerte lo dejaron medio
moribundo y ahorcaron a Nemesio, hermano de Berreyesa.

El acto más obvio de violencia paramilitar ocurrió en Downieville en 1851. Un tribunal irregular y
arbitrario condenó a una mujer mexicana llamada Juanita, que estaba embarazada, y la linchó en
presencia de dos mil mineros. Fue la primera mujer ahorcada en California. El consenso popular
fue que Juanita era una prostituta (deduciendo que el linchamiento era lamentable, pero que
después de todo Juanita era un elemento antisocial). Años más tarde su esposo entabló una
demanda judicial, pero los tribunales ignoraron su causa.

Más allá del reconocimiento de que estos hechos ocurrieron, la historia tiene sus lecciones. Por
ejemplo, hay una diferencia entre una maniobra de dilatación en el Senado para evitar el
nombramiento de un juez racista y otra para prevenir la aprobación de una ley para procesar contra
el linchamiento.

También existe un contexto histórico. Uno pensaría que las personas considerarían las
consecuencias como las guerras injustas. Clark Clifford y Robert McNamarra han admitido que la
guerra de Vietnam fue una equivocación. Dentro de 50 años, ¿hará alguna diferencia si el Congreso
admite que los estadounidenses estaban equivocados acerca las guerras imperialistas de Estados
Unidos en el Medio Oriente? Los linchamientos fueron una gran equivocación en su momento y hoy
el odio y el terrorismo de la milicia en la frontera se originan en esta raíz. El racismo y la violencia
en cualquier momento y en cualquier lugar.

Rodolfo F. Acuña es profesor de Estudios Chicanos en la Universidad del Estado de California en

Northridge. Es autor de 17 libros.

It has been documented that a total of 4,742 Americans were lynched between 1882 and

1968, of these 3,452 were African Americans.

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) sponsored the bill after she read James Allen’s "Without

Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America." Opportunistically some right wing radio hosts have

been comparing the filibuster of anti-lynching laws by Democrats to threatened filibuster to

prevent the life appointment of right wing judges.

Related to this, I have received several interesting calls from reporters. A Los Angeles

Times writer called me about El Clamor Publico, a Spanish-language newspaper published in Los

Angeles from 1855-1859. It is the 150 anniversary of the founding of the paper and the Times

wanted to acknowledge that it had existed.

On June 15, I received an Email from Armando Miguelez, one of the foremost experts on 19th

Century Spanish language newspapers. Armando commented on an article published by the

Washington Post, pointing to the irony of the Senate=s actions. He observed that in a four-year

period in the El Clamor Publico alone, he counted 80 linchamientos of Mexicans, Chileans,

Peruvians, Indians and Blacks in California. It is doubtful whether the Allen book included this

source and the figures generally do not include those of Spanish-language newspapers in Texas,
New Mexico, Arizona and California. For example, the files at Tuskegee Institute, considered the

most comprehensive count of lynching victims, lists the lynching of fifty Mexicans in those states.

William D. Carrigan and Clive Webb=s The Lynching of Persons of Mexican Origin or

Descent in the United States, 1848 too 1928," has different figures. Between 1848 and 1928, mobs

lynched at least 597 Mexicans. This does not include many incidents of other forms mob violence.

This is considerable taking into account that the Mexican population was small in comparison to

the Black population.

Webb and Carrigan described how on November 16, 1928, four masked men broke into a

hospital in Farmington, New Mexico. They seized Rafael Benavides who was dying of gunshot

wounds and hanged him from a locust tree. Benavides was the last known lynching; not the last

victim of mob violence.

As mentioned, many of the lynchings of Mexicans have been lost in the pages of Spanish-

language newspapers such as El Clamor Publico. Its publisher, Francisco Ramirez espoused the

return to Mexico movement. According to Ramirez, Mexicans could not find justice in the United

States. On May 10, 1856, Ramírez wrote California has fallen into the hands of the ambitious sons

of North America who will not stop until they have satisfied their passions, by driving the first

occupants of the land out of the country, vilifying their religion and disfiguring their customs.

The Clamor describes Texans from El Monte threw hot tar on Diego Navarro=s family home

and broke into the house, dragged him out, and executed him, along with two other Mexicans whom

they accused of being members of a rebel gang.

There was also the case of the Berreyesa family. Its problems began with Bear Flaggers.

They assassinated an elder Berreyesa and his two nephews in 1848. In July 1854 a band of

Euroamericans dragged Encarnacion Berreyesa from his house while his wife and children looked

on, and suspended him from a tree. When Berreyesa did not confess to the killings, vigilantes left

him half dead and hanged Berreyesa=s brother Nemesio.

 The most flagrant act of vigilantism was at Downieville in 1851. A kangaroo court convicted

a Mexican woman called Juanita who was pregnant and lynched her as 2000 miners looked on. She

was the first woman hanged in California. Popular lore rationalized that Juanita was a prostitute

(inferring that the lynching was lamentable but, after all, Juanita was antisocial). Years later her

husband sued but was ignored by the courts.

Beyond the acknowledgment that these incidents happened, history has its lessons. For

example, there is a difference between a senate filibuster to prevent the appointment of a racist

judge and a filibuster to prevent the passage of a law to prosecute lynching.

There is also historical context. You would think that people would think about

consequences of unjust wars. Clark Clifford and Robert McNamarra have admitted that the

Vietnam War was wrong. Fifty years from now, will it make a difference if Congress admits that

Americans were wrong for the U.S. imperial wars in the Middle East?

The lynchings were wrong then, and today the hatred and the terrorism of minutemen on the

border draw from American root. Racism and violence at anytime or anywhere is wrong.

Making of the Bubble

It was not accidental
2005-2008

( ) “February 2, 1848: A Forgotten Legacy,” Jan 25 2005. “POLÍTICA; TRATADO DE GUADALUPE

HIDALGO: EL AYER ES HOY,” La Opinion. Jan 31, 2005. Vol. 79, Iss. 138; p. 3E.
The purpose of this presentation is not to dig up old grievances. History should never be
used to divide but to help us understand the past and improve the future. It reminds me of a story
that a well known Chicano activist used to tell of a true incident that happened in Boyle Heights in
the Eastside of Los Angeles. Ed Quevedo was talking to an audience of Chicanos telling them about
the Mexican American War and the atrocities committed by the American troops. In the back of the
room, a vato loco sat with a stoic look. Almost mad dogging Quevedo with an y que look. After the
speech the vatito leaves the room and goes out into the street. He sees a bolillo and decks him. The
white dude looks up and asks, “What was that for?” “That was for what you gringos did in 1848!”
“But that was over a hundred years ago?” “I just found out about it.”
More often than not we celebrate important historical dates without really thinking about
them. Like a ship in the night, we sail past them with seeing them. We only really appreciate a
historical date when it is important enough to merit a holiday. We can all appreciate that. In most
cases, a holiday is chosen by those in power, use the holiday as proof of the legitimacy of the
United States. Even the ancient Maya would use glyphs and establish dates to mark the importance
of events in the lives kings or queens. But, not all important dates are chosen as holidays.
 Many important dates are disqualified because they are considered to be anti-American. For
example, all over the world May 1 is celebrated as Labor Day. However, in the United States we
ignore May 1 because workers were killed attempting to secure worker rights. May 1st was born in
1886 when police clubbed the locked out workers of the McCormick Harvester Works who
protested the arrival of 300 scabs. The workers waited for the scabs to leave that evening. As they
left the police opened fire on the fleeing men and boys killing six. The next evening they workers
held a protest rally at the Haymarket Square. The police ordered the peaceful crowd to disperse
and an agent provocateur set off a bomb, which killed a policeman. The police retaliated and killed
several demonstrators. This led to a general hysteria in which the state sought out the “terrorist”
and it used the occasion to attempt to break labor. State officials arrested the labor leaders, tried
them and hanged them. Important dates are used by historians and politicos to give people the
illusion of inclusion, which is not the case with May 1.
May 1 is not unique. The truth be told, we ignore many dates that have influenced our lives
much more positively than let’s say Armistice or Memorial Day or Columbus’ birthday. Today we
are commemorating February 2 which is celebrated in very few places in the United States or
Mexico. Try quizzing your parents or your peers. Ask them, what happened on February 2, 1848.
They’ll probably answer, how should I know, I wasn’t around. Or like the bolillo, that happened
over a hundred years ago. I’ll bet you that 90 percent of the high school teachers in Tucson don’t
know the answer
So what is February 2. In short, it was the day when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was
signed and the borders shifted south. It marked the beginning of a new order in intense conflicts
over the status of slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico in the war. It was a war that was
not popular. In the United States, Abraham Lincoln didn’t approve of it and in Mexico Benito Juarez
opposed the signing of the treaty. Years later, Mexican President Porfirio Díaz would lament, Pobre
México tan Lejos de Díos y tan cerca a Los Estados Unidos!
Most books and articles dealing with the Treaty have dwelled on the promises that have not
been kept. The truth be told, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has joined hundreds of such treaties
which have never been enforced. From my vantage point, the Treaty reflects a history which most
U.S. historians have conveniently and purposely forgotten.
I would like to discuss February 2 in the context of Arizona’s recently passed Proposition
200 which initiative requires state and local employees to verify the immigration status of people
applying for public benefits and report undocumented immigrants or face possible criminal
prosecution. In other words, it makes snitches out of teachers.
As in the case of the vato loco at the beginning of this speech, I realize that the clock cannot
be set back. Like my sainted mother used to say, Palo dado ni Díos lo quita. But, what if the United
States had not illegally and unjustly invaded Mexico? What would the world look like? Would
Mexicans and Central Americans be clamoring to cross the border?
The fact is that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo handed more than 50 percent of Mexico’s
land to the United States; 80 percent of its arable land. At the point of a gun Mexico ceded vast
mineral deposits to the United States. If Mexico today had California and Texas, it would own more
oil than Saudi Arabia. Mexico would today be one of the richest nations in the world. This wealth
would have allowed Mexico to build an infrastructure to give employment to its citizens.
This is relevant to Proposition 200 because Mexicans do not migrate to the United States for
democracy, free medical services or handouts. They migrate to the United States because of a lack
of jobs. It is part of the global economy that moves poorer countries to richer ones. Mexico has a
population of more than a 100 million people. It is larger than Spain and most European countries.
Because of its vulnerability, farming has been declining. The last time I looked 30 percent of
Mexicans lived in rural areas. But, because Americans want cheap fruits and vegetables, Mexican
farmers don’t grow as much for local production. U.S. companies pay more for strawberries so they
produce berries and not beans or corn. The commercialization of farm land means that machines
have replaced the small farmer. The result is that in the next twenty-five years the rural population
of Mexico will decline from 30 to 5 percent. So where will the 25 to 35 million displaced Mexicans
go?
 It is logical to ask, what role February 2 play in these phenomena and whether Proposition
200 will stop Mexicans from coming over. Once they are over here, do we as compassionate human
beings have an duty to undocumented workers? The Catholic Bishops have said that it was a mortal
sin to discriminate against immigrants. Unfortunately, the Church has not enforced this dictum. For
example, to my knowledge it has not withheld the sacraments to any politico supporting
Proposition 200.
All right the United States was wrong on February 2, 1848. So what do we do, go out and slug
the first bolillo that we see. The truth be told, very few people believe that the United States is
going to hand back the Southwest. As educated people, in lieu of this transference we should look
for solutions. Thirty years ago, Spain was the principal exporter of workers in Europe. Today, it is
one of the main importers of labor. Why? Because it has jobs. The European Union taxes the richer
countries and gives subsidies to poorer European nations that have used that money to
industrialize. In contrast, the United States has a policy of keeping Latin American dependent. It
gives money to the military of Latin America who in turn keep the poor poorer. In 2000, Mexico
received $15 million in aid from the US. Egypt received a billion and a half and Israel $6billion. Both
of these countries have much smaller populations than Mexico.
Another fact is that Mexico’s economy would have collapsed without the migration to the
United States. This would have meant turmoil which the United States would have reacted to. A
case in point is the Central American revolutions of the 1980s in which the US supported death
squads. The money that Mexican workers send back to Mexico are called remittances. Mexicans
today send over $14 billion in 2004, second only to oil and El Salvador 2.5 billion, a record for that
nation and people as well. Unlike the cases of Egypt and Israel, these remittances do not cost the
American taxpayer a cent. However, without the remittances millions more undocumented
workers would be forced to come to the United States.
In conclusion, it is important to look at dates such as February 2, 1848. They often have more
meaning than the holidays. The past governs the present.

( ) “Ward Churchill and Michael Jackson’s Pajamas,” March 29, 2005

The hoopla over Ward Churchill reminds one why Europeans laugh at Americans. I guess it is a
valuable thing.

In the 1950s Americans were so obsessed with keeping the country pure that they passed laws
excluding homosexuals, communists and others guilty of Acrimes of moral turpitude@ as they
allowed more than three hundred former Nazis to immigrate to the United States. Keeping people
like Garcia Marquez and Pablo Neruda from visiting because they were radicals; later it tried to
keep John Lennon out for getting caught with a joint.

But, I guess Americans have improved because they are now obsessed with Michael Jackson's
pajamas.

Critics say that Churchill should be fired for describing the victims of the World Trade Center
attack as "little Eichmanns" who basically deserved what they got. How could he compare the 9/11
martyrs to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi war criminal who masterminded the Holocaust, history's most
horrible crime?

Actually Chruchill's use of the Eichmann metaphor was unfortunate; it took the focus away from
Churchill=s contributions and sidetracked the purpose of intellectual discourse. Even in the
Middle Ages when the universities were based on faith, learning involved a dialectic and scholars
tested truth.
It diverted attention from Churchill=s published works on the FBI=s suppression of the Black
Panthers or the Native American Movement.

The metaphor has allowed right wing spin doctors from taking attention away from Churchill's call
for citizens taking responsibility for their society.

The standard for internal behavior was set at the Nuremberg Trials (1945 1949). It tried Nazi
survivors as war criminals. The trials, however, did not indict the average German citizen or low
ranking members of the party. I guess not German was a Little Eichmann, but a heck of a lot of
people voted for Hitler and benefitted from his policies.

Churchill and other critics of the American actions like those at Nurembury say that humans have
the ability to change their institutions and therefore have the obligation to examine and criticize
the actions of their elected officials. Churchill uses the holocaust as a standard to measure
whether the British and then the United States committed crimes as heinous as those of Eichmann.

Ward has hypothesized that horrible deaths of millions of Africans en route to the Americas. The
treatment of slaves. And the genocide of millions of Native Americans who were not only
massacred but enslaved. Do these crimes rise to the level of the holocaust? Is Churchill telling the
truth about these events? Or, is it more important to contemplate Michael=s pajamas?

While we are at it, let=s test Churchill=s hypothesis that the United States has committed acts that
contributed to a general hatred that made the attack on the Twin Tower Building probable. Taking
the standard of Nuremberg, many of our leaders could be tried for war crimes. Not all of the
German Generals were tried for complicity in the horrible crimes of the holocaust. Some were tried
as war criminals, i.e., Karl Dönitz was the initiator of the U boat campaign.

Are the U.S. wars just or unjust? Taking the very complex principle of a just war that AA just war can
only be waged as a last resort. All non violent options must be exhausted before the use of force
can be justified and that civilians are never permissible.@ I believe that many U.S. leaders could be
tried as war criminals.

With the Vietnam War still fresh in our minds, two of its architects war, Clark Clifford and Robert
McNamara, have said that we were wrong. Anyone watching the documentary AHearts and Minds@
could come to the same conclusion.

Does Chruchill exaggerate? I heard the media and elected officials refer to Saddam Hussein as evil
as Hitler anda danger that had to be eliminated. In the context of history I would posit that
Churchill=s ALittle Eichmann@ statement does not rise to the same level. However, I do not want
to get bogged down even though our Middle East policies have a bearing on 9/11 and deserve
scrutiny.

Aside from Jackson=s pajamas, what irritates the rest of the world so much is the lack of
introspection on the part of Americans. They have ability to look at events through their own prism,
denying that other viewpoints have validity.

For example, they will criticize Fidel Castro but forget U.S. policies that made the leveling of that
society necessary. They forget about the 1980s when the U.S. backed military governments in
Central America and were directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of more than 200,000
Guatemalans and 50,000 Salvadorans. Or that major players in the Reagan and first George Bush=s
administration were indicted for crimes in Iran/Contra.
In raising the ALittle Eichmann@ metaphor, Churchill was not showing disrespect for the
holocaust, quite the contrary. He is saying that we should not point the finger at others and look at
our own history. We have to question whether other historical events have risen to that level.

Take the fact that we criticize those denying the holocaust. But, because we want good relations
with Turkey, we deny the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians.

What is so disturbing to me is the double standard. The right can compare Saddam to Hitler, but
Churchill should be fired for comparing the action of American leaders to Eichmann. This makes a
mockery of the search for the truth which is the crux of our obsession with Michael Jackson=s
pajamas.

( ) “Ward Churchill and Michael Jackson’s Pajamas,” March 29, 2005

The hoopla over Ward Churchill reminds one why Europeans laugh at Americans. I guess it is a
valuable thing.

In the 1950s Americans were so obsessed with keeping the country pure that they passed laws
excluding homosexuals, communists and others guilty of Acrimes of moral turpitude@ as they
allowed more than three hundred former Nazis to immigrate to the United States. Keeping people
like Garcia Marquez and Pablo Neruda from visiting because they were radicals; later it tried to
keep John Lennon out for getting caught with a joint.

But, I guess Americans have improved because they are now obsessed with Michael Jackson's
pajamas.

Critics say that Churchill should be fired for describing the victims of the World Trade Center
attack as "little Eichmanns" who basically deserved what they got. How could he compare the 9/11
martyrs to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi war criminal who masterminded the Holocaust, history's most
horrible crime?

Actually Chruchill's use of the Eichmann metaphor was unfortunate; it took the focus away from
Churchill=s contributions and sidetracked the purpose of intellectual discourse. Even in the
Middle Ages when the universities were based on faith, learning involved a dialectic and scholars
tested truth.

It diverted attention from Churchill=s published works on the FBI=s suppression of the Black
Panthers or the Native American Movement.

The metaphor has allowed right wing spin doctors from taking attention away from Churchill's call
for citizens taking responsibility for their society.

The standard for internal behavior was set at the Nuremberg Trials (1945 1949). It tried Nazi
survivors as war criminals. The trials, however, did not indict the average German citizen or low
ranking members of the party. I guess not German was a Little Eichmann, but a heck of a lot of
people voted for Hitler and benefitted from his policies.

Churchill and other critics of the American actions like those at Nurembury say that humans have
the ability to change their institutions and therefore have the obligation to examine and criticize
the actions of their elected officials. Churchill uses the holocaust as a standard to measure
whether the British and then the United States committed crimes as heinous as those of Eichmann.
Ward has hypothesized that horrible deaths of millions of Africans en route to the Americas. The
treatment of slaves. And the genocide of millions of Native Americans who were not only
massacred but enslaved. Do these crimes rise to the level of the holocaust? Is Churchill telling the
truth about these events? Or, is it more important to contemplate Michael=s pajamas?

While we are at it, let=s test Churchill=s hypothesis that the United States has committed acts that
contributed to a general hatred that made the attack on the Twin Tower Building probable. Taking
the standard of Nuremberg, many of our leaders could be tried for war crimes. Not all of the
German Generals were tried for complicity in the horrible crimes of the holocaust. Some were tried
as war criminals, i.e., Karl Dönitz was the initiator of the U boat campaign.

Are the U.S. wars just or unjust? Taking the very complex principle of a just war that AA just war can
only be waged as a last resort. All non violent options must be exhausted before the use of force
can be justified and that civilians are never permissible.@ I believe that many U.S. leaders could be
tried as war criminals.

With the Vietnam War is still fresh in our minds, two of its architects war, Clark Clifford and Robert
McNamara, have said that we were wrong. Anyone watching the documentary AHearts and Minds@
could come to the same conclusion.

Does Chruchill exaggerate? I heard the media and elected officials refer to Saddam Hussein as evil
as Hitler anda danger that had to be eliminated. In the context of history I would posit that
Churchill=s ALittle Eichmann@ statement does not rise to the same level. However, I do not want
to get bogged down even though our Middle East policies have a bearing on 9/11 and deserve
scrutiny.

Aside from Jackson=s pajamas what irritates the rest of the world so much is the lack of
introspection on the part of Americans. They have ability to look at events through their own prism,
denying that other viewpoints have validity.

For example, they will criticize Fidel Castro but forget U.S. policies that made the leveling of that
society necessary. They forget about the 1980s when the U.S. backed military governments in
Central America and were directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of more than 200,000
Guatemalans and 50,000 Salvadorans. Or that major players in the Reagan and first George Bush=s
administration were indicted for crimes in Iran/Contra.

In raising the ALittle Eichmann@ metaphor, Churchill was not showing disrespect for the
holocaust, quite the contrary. He is saying that we should not point the finger at others and look at
our own history. We have to question whether other historical events have risen to that level.

Take the fact that we criticize those denying the holocaust. But, because we want good relations
with Turkey, we deny the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians.

What is so disturbing to me is the double standard. The right can compare Saddam to Hitler, but
Churchill should be fired for comparing the action of American leaders to Eichmann. This makes a
mockery of the search for the truth which is the crux of our obsession with Michael Jackson=s
pajamas.

( ) Crocodile Tears: Lynchings of Mexicans, June 18, 2005 “LATINOS; El linchamiento de los
mexicanos,” La Opinion. Jun 19, 2005. Vol. 79, Iss. 277; p. 1E. Crocodile Tears: Lynchings of
Mexicans HispanicVista.com June 16, 2005
A: El linchamiento de los mexicanos La Opinion, 19 de junio de 2005
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/Guest_Columns/062005Acuna.htm
 The U.S. Senate just issued an apology for its history of inaction in regards to lynchings. The
Senate heard testimony from more than 150 descendants of lynching victims and acknowledged
decades of obstruction of laws aiding the prosecution of vigilantes. More than 200 anti-lynching
bills had been introduced, three passed the House and seven U.S. presidents lobbied for such
laws. Despite the mea culpa Congress has never apologized for slavery.
Between 1882 and 1968, a total of 4,742 Americans were lynched. Of these 3,452 were
African Americans.
Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) sponsored the bill after reading James Allen’s "Without
Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America." Incredibly some right wing radio hosts have been
hailing this action, comparing the abuse of the filibuster to derail anti-lynching legislation to
today’s use of the filibuster by Democrats to prevent the life appointment of right wing judges.
I have received several interesting calls from reporters this week. A Los Angeles Times
writer called me about information on El Clamor Publico, a Spanish-language newspaper,
published in Los Angeles from 1855-1859. It is the 150 anniversary of the paper’s founding and the
Times wanted to acknowledge its historical contribution.
On June 15, I received an Email from Armando Miguelez, one of the foremost experts on 19th
Century Spanish language newspapers. Armando commented on an article published by the
Washington Post, pointing to the irony of the Senate’s mea culpas. He observed that in a four-year
period in the El Clamor Publico alone, he counted 80 linchamientos of Mexicans, Chileans,
Peruvians, Indians and Blacks in California. It is doubtful whether the Allen book included this
source and the figures do not include those of Spanish-language newspapers in Texas, New Mexico
and Arizona. For example, the files at Tuskegee Institute, considered the most comprehensive
count of lynching victims, lists the lynching of fifty Mexicans in the states of Arizona, California,
New Mexico, and Texas.
William D. Carrigan and Clive Webb’s “The Lynching of Persons of Mexican Origin or
Descent in the United States, 1848 too 1928," has different figures. Between 1848 and 1928,
according to Carrigan and Webb, mobs lynched at least 597 Mexicans. This does not include many
other forms mob violence. The number of Mexicans lynched is significant considering that the
Mexican population was small in comparison to the Black population, for example.
Webb and Carrigan described how on November 16, 1928, four masked men broke into a
hospital in Farmington, New Mexico. They seized Rafael Benavides who was dying of gunshot
wounds and hanged him from a locust tree. Benavides was the last known lynching; not the last
victim of mob violence.
As mentioned, many of the lynchings of Mexicans have been lost in the pages of Spanish-
language newspapers such as El Clamor Publico. Because of the violence toward Mexicans, its
publisher, Francisco Ramirez espoused the return to Mexico movement. According to Ramirez,
Mexicans could not find justice in the United States. On May 10, 1856, Ramírez wrote “California
has fallen into the hands of the ambitious sons of North America who will not stop until they have
satisfied their passions, by driving the first occupants of the land out of the country, vilifying their
religion and disfiguring their customs.”
On another occasion, the Clamor described how Texans from El Monte threw hot tar on
Diego Navarro’s family home and broke into the house, dragged him out, and executed him, along
with two other Mexicans whom they accused of being members of a rebel gang.
There was also the case of the Berreyesa family’s who’s problems began when Bear Flaggers
assassinated an elder Berreyesa and his two nephews. In July 1854 a band of Euroamericans
dragged Encarnacion Berreyesa from his house while his wife and children looked on, and
suspended him from a tree. When Berreyesa did not confess to alleged killings, vigilantes left him
half dead and hanged Berreyesa’s brother Nemesio.
The most flagrant act of vigilantism was at Downieville in 1851. A kangaroo court convicted a
Mexican woman called Juanita who was pregnant and lynched her as 2000 miners looked on. She
was the first woman hanged in California. Popular lore rationalized that Juanita was a prostitute
(inferring that the lynching was lamentable but, after all, Juanita was a whore, which she was not).
Years later her husband sued but was ignored by the courts.
Beyond the acknowledgment that these incidents happened, history has its lessons. For
example, there is a difference between a senate filibuster to prevent the appointment of a racist
judge and a filibuster to prevent the passage of a law to prosecute lynching.
There is also historical context. You would think that people would think about
consequences of acts such as unjust wars, for instance. Clark Clifford and Robert McNamara have
admitted that the Vietnam War was wrong. Fifty years from now, will it make a difference if
Congress admits that Americans were wrong for the U.S. imperial wars in the Middle East?
The lynchings were wrong then, and today the hatred and the terrorism of minutemen on the
border draw from the same American root. Racism and violence are wrong anytime or anywhere

( ) “A Tolerance of Violence On the Border,” June 19, 2005

In trying to make sense as to why most Americans and even a large number of Latinos are so
complacent about so-called minutemen running amok on the border, searching for undocumented
people, I recently re-read Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay on “Repressive Tolerance.”

Marcuse wrote that “[t]olerance is an end in itself”and necessary for the preservation of the status
quo and the strengthening of “the tyranny of the majority...” When tolerance is turned into a
passive state it promotes laissez-fairez, entrenching the established attitudes and ideas of the
right wing. The result is that we passively tolerant ideas and actions that are damaging to man and
nature.

The University of California professor argued that there was a difference between true and false
tolerance and it was an abuse of tolerance to ignore unjust attitudes and ideas because the truth
may antagonize sympathizers.

According to Marcuse, a liberating tolerance was intolerance toward unjust ideas and movements.
Marcuse was later to posit that it was the intolerance of students on campuses that removed Dow
Chemical and the recruiters off the university campuses.

Marcuse distinguishes the Right from the Left and movements that help people versus those that
keep them in their place. These movements are difficult to distinguish because of the historical
amnesia of Americans. They believe that the Right and the Left have contributed equally to social
legislation that protects the average citizen.

The truth be told, as a historian, I cannot remember a single piece of progressive social legislation
sponsored by right wing senators or representatives. Indeed, they opposed the end of slavery, the
protection of children’s rights, social security, and civil and human rights, for starters.

Society’s lack of historical awareness of these facts and the reluctance of liberals to call the Trent
Lotts of this world liars perpetuates this false consciousness.

In respect to undocumented workers and immigrants this repressive tolerance has allowed racist
nativist to blur reason and sanction border violence. It has allowed the historically illiterate like
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to praise Arizona vigilantes. "They've done a terrific
job. And they have cut down the crossing of illegal immigrants by a huge percentage." We are
conditioned to tolerate this undemocratic behavior and forget that in another time these vigilantes
would be wearing white hoods.
Border violence is not an aberration and is as American as apple pie. At least, 597 Mexicans were
lynched near or on the border. The majority were not bandits; they were lynched because they were
Mexicans. Witness that there has been no similar history on the Canadian border. Why?

What will be the cost of tolerating these vigilantes?

In the summer of 1976, George Hannigan, a Douglas, Arizona, rancher and Dairy Queen owner, and
his two sons, Patrick, 22, and Thomas, 17, kidnaped three undocumented workers looking for work.
They “stripped, stabbed, burned [them] with hot pokers and dragged [them] across the desert.”
The Hannigans held a mock hanging for one of the Mexicans and shot another with buckshot. Judge
Anthony Deddens, a friend of the Hannigans, refused to issue arrest warrants. Finally, an all-white
jury acquitted the Hannigans. Activists on both sides of the border protested the verdict and
pressured U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell to indict them. A federal grand jury, in 1979 indicted
the Hannigans for violating the Hobbs Act. Interference in interstate commerce. After deadlocks
and s retrial a jury found the Hannigans guilty.

Since the Hannigan case, the hate groups have expanded. Historically, extremist groups have
preyed on the fears and xenophobia of the American majority. Klansman David Duke organized
“border patrols in the late 1970's.” In the early 1980s Louis Beam and his Texas Knights harassed
an immigrant Vietnamese fishermen in Texas.

During the 1980s, these hate groups grew as a product of the Internet where pornography and hate
became profitable enterprises.

The idea of sending organized para-military groups to the border remained a right wing affair. The
cry of “Close our Borders!”was the creation of white supremacist groups that are integrated in the
ranks of the so-called “Minutemen” and spearhead their activities.

The agenda of many of these self described patriots goes well beyond “the protection of the
border, however. The ADL reports that Glenn Spencer of Voices of Citizens Together and the
American Patrol has “departed sharply from that of legitimate immigration reform groups.” Much
Spencer’s rhetoric and writing “did not target immigration so much as he targeted Hispanics,
particularly those of Mexican origin, regardless of whether they were immigrants or not.” The Anti-
Defamation League ADL cites a 1996 letter to the Los Angles Times in which he wrote “the Mexican
culture is based on deceit.”

Spencer’s pal Roger Barnett, a rancher from Cochise Country, Arizona, attracted national attention
by running around with pistols and assault rifles capturing undocumented brown people and
holding them against their will.

Meanwhile, other kooks like Jack Foote, based in Arlington, Texas, have been inspired by Roger
Barnett. He formed Ranch Rescue, like the other hate groups, has a Web Site, spreading fear and
collecting money.

In March 2003 two of Ranch Rescue’s “Minutemen” were arrested for allegedly detaining two
Salvadorans and pistol whipping one of them.

On July 23, 2003, Claudine LoMonaco of the Tucson Citizen reported that "from the start of the
fiscal year in October 2002 through Sunday, as many as 171 people have died in Arizona -- 43
percent more than the official Border Patrol figure of 119."
Where is this history of tolerance going end? The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reports that in
October 2002, New Jersey white supremacist radio talk show host Hal Turner told listeners to “kill
every single one of these invaders.”

The violence is not an aberration. It is not going to go away. It is directed at Mexicans and by
extension anyone who looks like them.

Hanging Mexicans
courtesy Foxfire