You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Labor Movement’ category.
By William W. Abbott
Barstow and Richmond share a unique connection as the location of two recognized colonies of New Mexico’s Laguna Pueblo, which is found outside of Santa Fe. The story begins in 1880, with the Atlantic & Pacific rail line, laying track west from Albuquerque towards California. In between lay the lands of the Laguna Pueblo. In that year, the A&P and the Pueblo struck an oral agreement: in exchange for right-of-way, the railroad would provide employment and with that, the Laguna residents began a long history of railroad employment. In 1897, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe acquired the A&P, and continued the employment relationship, and developed labor camps in Winslow, Arizona and Barstow, California. The original 1880 agreement was known as the “Flower of Friendship”, and the Pueblo and railroad held an annual event confirming the relationship, known as “Watering the Flower”.
With the backdrop of labor-management conflicts between the ATSF and the union (the Shopmen’s Strike of 1922), the Laguna workers answered the railroad’s call to move to the Richmond railyards as replacement workers. A small residential community for the Laguna was developed onsite, with housing consisting of box cars, expanding again during the 1930s. The settlement maintained its own cultural identity, customs, and in many cases, the daily language of choice was first Laguna, then Spanish, then English. The settlement continued into the early 1980s, when the consequences of the downsizing of railroad work force, employee relocation, and modernization of the Richmond railyard led to the removal of all onsite housing. During this time period, the Laguna were joined by a smaller population of Acoma, also from New Mexico, but they were not covered by the 1880 agreement.
The annual affirmation of Watering the Flower (in many years conducted in Los Angeles) ended sometime in the 1990s, although it was renewed in 2011 by the successor railroad, BNSF, and the Laguna Pueblo.
For an oral history of the Richmond settlement, click here. http://kalw.org/post/revisiting-richmonds-boxcar-village For additional information read: Native Americans and Wage Labor: Ethnohistorical Perspectives.
By William Abbott
Llano del Rio is more than a failed colony on the edge of the Mojave Desert. It is a Raymond Chandler like tale of politics, labor and Harrison Gray Otis, patriarch of the Los Angeles Times. Attorney Job Harriman was active in the natural socialist movement at the end of the 1800’s. He served as Eugene Deb’s vice presidential running mate in 1900. Unsuccessful, he returned to lawyering in Los Angeles, and a decade later, ran for mayor of Los Angeles as a progressive/socialist. During this same time period, efforts to unionize the Los Angeles work force were bitterly opposed, and one of the most outspoken critics was Harrison Gray Otis, editor of the Los Angeles Times. In 1910, a bomb explodes behind the Times building killing twenty people. The McNamara Brothers and Ortie McManigal, labor organizers were arrested. While running for mayor (and having received the most votes in the primary), Harriman served as their defense counsel, although Clarence Darrow eventually appeared as co-counsel and took over the case due to Harriman’s need to campaign for office. Darrow eventually convinced his clients to plead guilty, and some pundits believe that the timing of the pleas, a few days before the mayoral election, was designed to ruin Harriman’s chances of being elected mayor which in fact was what transpired. Convinced that socialism would not succeed politically without the foundation of an economic model, Harriman turned to creating a socialist colony.
In 1913, Harriman and a handful of his acquaintances purchased land and water rights in an area roughly 20 miles east of Palmdale. With this investment, they created the Llano Del Rio Company. To become a member of Llano, members had to acquire 2000 shares of company stock. Harriman used the corporate concept in part as a shield from business critics. The community of Llano was designed by Alice Constance Austin, a socialist, feminist and self-trained architect. She developed a circular plan for the community, and among other innovations, included kitchenless homes and day care facilities. The colony was marketed to workers captured by the limitations of capitalism. The community officially (and appropriately) opened for public membership on May Day in 1914. One tactical error was the use of a stock agent who, in successfully selling the stock, likely oversold the advantages of living in Llano, which in turn lead to internal operating strife as the community grew too quickly with individuals not ideally suited to communal living. Within a few years, the colony soon had 1000 residents.
According to a report published by the Historical Society of Southern California in 1918, the colonists controlled directly or indirectly roughly 9000 acres of land with 2000 acres cultivated in alfalfa (400 acres), orchards (120 acres), gardens (120 acres), corn (100 acres) and the balance in various grains. The colony maintained active crews responsible for community buildings, homes, roads, irrigation works, dam construction, agricultural land preparation, animal husbandry. Reports indicated that Llano, within a relatively short time period, grew 90% of what it needed to support itself. While the colony considered selling agricultural products and modest handicrafts, its location was too remote to successfully implement the vision. The colony included a hotel, community hall, lime kilns, barns, silo, canning plant, lumber mill and steam laundry. (see map) Llano maintained one of the first and largest Montessori schools (over 100 students), and was highly organized in the theater, education and entertainment, including an orchestra.
Utopian in concept but not necessarily in practice, internal strife plagued the community as it learned to govern itself. Llano’s system of governance relied upon 60 different committees reporting to a government board, a system which did not always work smoothly. An equal challenge was that of a reliable water supply. The colonists were unable to secure a state permit to construct the amount of storage it needed to maintain a sufficient water supply. Like many colonies, a lack of capital always operated as a brake on what could be accomplished. With the outbreak of World War I, the colony lost part of its workforce to the Army and to new-found industries in Los Angeles. Undaunted, the colonists sought out a new location in California’s Central Valley, but eventually acquired an abandoned forest plantation and mill town of 20,000 acres and buildings in Stables, Louisiana. In 1918, a group chartered a train and moved east, and named the colony Newllano. This colony existed for many years and included two satellite communities (cattle raising in New Mexico and rice farming in Texas).
The early demise (1918) of Llano was a function of the “Too’s”; too remote, too rapid growth, too little capital and too little water. Unlike other California colonies however, its progeny continued for many years, with Newllano lasting until 1939.
For American Utopia Photo Archives visit http://www.lpb.org/programs/utopia/photos.html
Federal intervention in community development is nothing new. During the 1930’s, the federal Resettlement Administration (“RA”) actively assisted rural families to relocate to communities planned by the federal government. The resettlement administration existed from April 1935 to December 1936, and in 1937, in response to public criticism and implementation challenges, the program was folded into the Farm Security Administration. Along with the community planning, the Administration was active in agricultural cooperative lending, farm loans, building migrant farm camps, the Photography Project, famous for its photographs by Dorothea Lange, film documentaries, and recordings of folk music.
The RA concentrated on three categories of settlements: part-time farmers near industrial centers, all-rural colonies for farmers, and villages with decentralized industry. The federal government formed the Federal Subsistence Homesteads Corporation as a non-profit entity for the purpose of buying, developing and leasing the property. Local corporations were used as well. With over 200 communities nationwide, the Administration developed two subsistence settlements in California: El Monte (100 units) and Reseda (40 units) (in some publications referred to as the San Fernando Homesteads). Unlike the exclusive agricultural State of California colonies of Durham and Delhi, these subsistence colonies were designed to support personal farming as a supplement to nearby industrial employment. Elwood Mead, a key strategist in California’s doomed earlier program and who had also been active in the South developing agricultural colonies, also served as a federal advisor for the national program, perhaps serving to modify the program to work in conjunction with industrial employment. The plots were small (one acre) and were designed to provide housing a modest income support through part-time farming. The El Monte project also included a sewer treatment plant. Little has been written of the Reseda settlement, although reportedly Dorothea Lange took photographs in both communities.
The Resettlement Administration was hampered by the fundamental fact that subsistence colonies in the past had largely failed, and a successful operating model did not exist. The federal program was politically controversial, and predictably short-lived. Efforts include east coast colonies focused on Jewish garment workers (Jersey Settlement, later called Roosevelt,) as well as Afro-American centric communities (Aberdeen Gardens, near Newport News, Virginia). Charges were leveled that the RA program had communistic leanings. Many of the sites failed due to poor agricultural capability or lack of meaningful employment opportunities for those developed as re-employment centers. The two California settlements fared better than most for a couple of key reasons. First, they were geographically located near meaningful employment opportunities. Second, they were planned and supported by local business interests and local planning interests, and not master planned and administered by the RA. As the national economy labors through another recession, will the federal government do any better this time around? Want to read more, try “Tomorrow a New World: The New Deal Community Program” available at http://www.archive.org/details/tomorrownewworld00conkrich.
By William W. Abbott
Begun as a ministry in the 1850’s to help the poorest of poor in East London, the Salvation Army came to the United States in 1880. As a small part of its overall mission of the salvation of souls ,the Salvation Army developed three farm colonies in the United States: Fort Romie (California), Fort Amity (Colorado) and Fort Herrick (Ohio). Fort Romie, located two miles south-southwest from Soledad, Monterey County, was the first of these colonies. The objective was to relocate impoverished city dwelling to rural locations where they could enjoy a healthy physical and spiritual lifestyle as farmers. The Army’s battle cry was to return the landless man to the manless land.
In 1897, former Monterey county supervisor Charles Romie sold 520 acres of land to the Salvation Army for $26,000.00. Money was raised nationally to support the development of the farms, and the ministry went to work to organize the future colonists and complete the groundwork for a successful experiment. Future colonists were required to sign a number of pledges, including one to not bring “opium, morphine, wine, spirits or objectionable drugs” to the colony (explaining perhaps the absence of attorneys as colonists.) Adherence to a particular faith or religious practice was not however, a requirement.
The land was surveyed and divided into 10 acre plots, and the Army sponsored improvements included 30 homes (at a cost of $110 to $250 and built by the owners), a clubhouse, library, and social hall. Business improvements included a creamery and two-story cooperative store. One of the colony supporters was Claus Spreckels, German immigrant and founder of the Spreckels Sugar Company who donated $1,000.00 and looked to the future farmers as suppliers for his sugar factory. Significant capital, equipment and farming expertise were donated by others.
Eighteen families were selected from the Bay Area. In exchange for a turn key agricultural operation, the colonists were expected to remain until the plot was paid for. The Salvation Army, provided oversight and guidance. As many other colonies, city dwellers adapted poorly, and faced with an incredible drought which decimated the crop potential, many returned to the Bay Area leaving the Salvation Army in debt. The Salvation Army pressed on however. The Army resurveyed the area as a town-site, and arranged for and installed significant irrigation works drawing from the Arroyo Seco River. The ministry then recruited experienced farmers, and offered liberal terms to encourage settlement. The second wave of colonists included Scandinavian, Finn, German, Swiss, Dutch and Italian settlers, a classic early California paella. By 1910, the settlers had paid off their debts, and the Salvation Army concluded its oversight and exited the colony. To replace the Salvation Army as the community social and economic core, the residents went on to form Grange #358.
Over time, the Army’s “dry” clauses in the deeds proved problematic for lenders who were prohibited from making loans on property subject to revisionary clauses. Eventually, the Army caved in, and without repealing the original limitation, agreed to subordinate the restriction to a bonafide mortgage.
Compared to other Salvation Army colonies, Fort Romie faired better, and when compared to other California colonies, has to be measured a success largely because it did not end in object failure. While the Army did not develop more colonies in the United States, it actively promoted colonies in India, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
For additional information including photographs of Fort Romie, try http://www.mchsmuseum.com/fortromie.html, The Poor and the Land: Being a Report on the Salvation Army Colonies in the United States and at Hadleigh, England by H. Rider Haggard and The Salvation Army Farm Colonies by Clark C. Spence.
By William W. Abbott
Readers may remember our earlier account of the first State of California planned community, Durham, in Butte County, started in 1913. Apparently pleased with the perceived success in Durham, the State Land Settlement Board embraced a more ambitious goal, this time an 8,000 acre community to be located in the community of Delhi, in Merced County. On the heels of World War I, the legislature expanded the program to specifically serve returning veterans.
The soil quality at Delhi did not match that of Durham. Like Durham, the State installed critical improvements such as roads and water systems. On average the State paid $96.00 per acre, and after adding the improvement costs, and sold the land for $296.00 per acre. Delhi included a variety of parcels, from the Delhi townsite of small lots to working 2 acre parcels, designed as a parcel for a laborer to build a house and maintain a garden while working for others, on up to larger parcels. The community soon included homes, a lumberyard, a concrete pipe factory, (a building which still stands today), a community building and a plant nursery for planting new crops. As with Durham, the State financed the acquisition for the buyers and played a significant oversight role in advising and training the purchasers in agricultural practices. Although soils were less then ideal, improved agricultural practices over time improved yields. A number of the Delhi parcels were acquired by veterans, however, the settlement did not sell out as originally planned.
By 1931, the State of California decided to exit the settlement business. Falling agricultural prices had adversely affected the residents of Durham and Delhi. As is common with many developers, the State shifted strategies during the downturn, and sold many parcels without the restrictions that would otherwise be in place. Without the State backup, the farmers were left on their own and over time, the more successful farmers prevailed. By the end of World War II, agriculture in Delhi and Durham was similar to surrounding areas.
California’s land settlement experiment resulted in a loss of around $2,500,000 to the State taxpayers.
For more information, see the following resources:
- Helping Men Own Farms: A practical discussion of governmental aid in land settlement; Elwood Mead
- What has happened to Durham and Delhi?: Adon Poli, Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1946)
- Photographs of Delhi can be viewed at http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf4k4007qw
