The nation’s Supreme Court generally opposed the institution of debt peonage, even where it was permissible under state law, and normally supported agricultural workers filing complaints before federal judges against state authorities collaborating with private employers. This paper examines the Court’s published decisions, and discusses both the relevant normative system as well as its social and political context. It reviews primary sources that historians have largely not studied, while briefly reconsidering earlier historiographical debates about the extent of involuntary servitude in Porfirian Mexico. The paper argues that the Supreme Court’s legal, constitutional vision – which liberals and progressives then espoused, and which workers occasionally could also invoke – clashed with the makeshift networks of agricultural businesses established to secure sources of labor. Indeed, contrasting visions of labor institutions were reflective of the fluctuating and opposing interests of different communities, some of which were constitutive of the state; in any case, the contrasts became more pronounced as the Mexican political order faced collapse after 1910-11.
See more of: AHA Sessions