The Rise of Centralized Policing Along the Southwest Border: A Social Response to Disorder, Crime, and Violence, 1835‐1935 by Danette L. Turner A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Approved March 2012 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Brooks Simpson, Chair Scott Decker Alan Gomez ARIZONA STATE UNI VERSITY May 2012 ©2012 Danette L. Turner All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Following the tragic events of 9‐11, top Federal policy makers moved to establish the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This massive realignment of federal public safety agencies also loosely centralized all U.S. civilian security organizations under a single umbrella. Designed to respond rapidly to critical security threats, the DHS was vested with superseding authority and broad powers of enforcement. Serving as a cabinet member, the new agency was administered by a secretary who answered directly to the President of the United States or the national chief executive. At its creation, many touted this agency as a new security structure. This thesis argues that the formation of DHS was not innovative in nature. Rather, its formation was simply the next logical step in the tiered development of an increasingly centralized approach to policing in the United States. This development took place during the early settlement period of Texas and began with the formation of the Texas Rangers. As the nation's first border patrol, this organization greatly influenced the development of centralized policing and law enforcement culture in the United States. As such, subsequent agencies following this model frequently shared a startling number of parallel developments and experienced many of the same successes and failures. The history of this development is a contested narrative, one that connects directly to a number of current, critical social issues regarding race ii and police accountability. This thesis raises questions regarding the American homeland. Whose homeland was truly being protected? It also traces the origins of the power to justify the use of gratuitous violence and the casting of particular members of society as the symbolic enemy or outsiders. Lastly, this exploration hopes to bring about a better understanding of the traditional directionality of the use of coercive force towards particular members of society, while at the same time, justifying this use for the protection of the rights and safety of others. It is hoped that the culmination of this work will assist American society in learning to address the task of redressing past wrongs while building more effective and democratic public security structures. This is of the utmost importance as the United States continues to weigh the benefits of centralized security mechanisms and expanding police authority against the erosion of the tradition of states' rights and the personal civil liberties of its citizens. Because police power must continually be monitored and held in check, concerns regarding the increasing militarization of civilian policing may benefit from an objective evaluation of the rise of centralized policing as experienced through the development of the Texas Rangers and rural range policing. iii This work is dedicated to my family in recognition of their unfailing love and support throughout this ordeal. iv ACKNOWLED GMENTS It is through the support and generosity of others that works such as this most often come about. This is one such effort. For this reason, I would like to offer my appreciation to Drs. Brooks D. Simpson, Scott H. Decker, and Alan E. Gomez for their services as my thesis committee. I am also indebted to my former advisor Dr. F. Arturo Rosales, and to Dr. Philip VanderMeer for their comments during the early stages of this work. I also wish to thank several private individuals who have been generous with their time, advice, insight, and information. They are Clark Secrest, Jody Ginn, and Clarence Mortenson. For their financial support, I am grateful to the Max Millet family, the Sun Angel Foundation, and Andrew M. and Florence Brown. A heartfelt thanks also goes to the numberless librarians and archivists who assisted me in my search for materials and data. Lastly, I wish to acknowledge my parents and sister—Floyd and LeOla Leavitt, and Roylee Brown, for their assistance as commentators and proofreaders. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2 CULTURE COLLISION ......................................................................................... 17 3 THE RISE OF THE TEXAS RANGERS AND REGIONAL POLICE POWER 1835‐1850 ..................................................................................... 50 4 THE TEXAS RANGER EFFECT, 1850‐1899 .............................................. 90 5 SOMETHING NEW UNDER THE SUN, 1900‐1935 ............................. 122 6 THE RANGERS OF ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO .............................. 146 7 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 180 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 187 vi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION “Terrorists today can strike at any place, at any time and with virtually any weapon. This is a permanent condition and these new threats require our country to design a new homeland security structure.” George W. Bush, 2002 Following militant Islamic attacks perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush successfully promoted the formation of a mammoth-sized, cabinet-level department he described as a new “homeland security structure.” The subsequent formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took place as part of a massive realignment of government, one that combined dozens of federal public safety agencies and thousands of civilian non-federal law enforcement agencies into a single loosely organized federal entity with superseding police power and authority. Foremost among the aims of this new invention were the mandates to “prevent terrorist attacks within the United States,” and to “reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.”1 As part of his justification for the establishment of DHS, Bush wrote in 2002, “History teaches us that critical security challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the unified effort of the U.S. government. History also teaches us that new challenges require new organizational structures.”2 1 George W. Bush, “Proposal to Create the Department of Homeland Security,” (June 2002) 1; See also, Homeland Security Act, 2002 or Public Law 107‐296—NOV. 25, 2002, Title 1, 6 USC 111 and Department of Homeland Security, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR). 2 George W. Bush, “The Department of Homeland Security,” (June 2002), 6. 1 Riding an unprecedented wave of post 9-11 sympathies, legislation for the establishment of the DHS passed the Senate on November 25, 2002 by a 90 to 9 vote.3 Designed as an agile, highly specialized security structure with direct lines of authority leading to the nation’s chief executive, organizers hoped that DHS would be capable of responding rapidly to threats of danger and acts of violence. As an important component of this development, federal leadership paid particular attention to the acquisition of high tech weaponry and specialized training for its law enforcement agencies. Despite these events, DHS has failed to win universal approval as an effective public security agency.4 Among other things, the department’s exponential growth has raised concern as its Total Budget Authority roughly doubled within its first five years of operation. DHS has also already encountered accusations of political favoritism, abuse of power, and racial profiling— allegations that are socially and politically divisive. This is particularly true regarding those fields that relate to law enforcement or that affect the daily business, political and social operations of populations located along the U.S./Mexico border. 3 Department of Homeland Security, “A Brief Documentary History of the Department of Homeland Security: 2001‐2008,” 7. 4 Aspen Institute Homeland Security Program, “DHS Anniversary with Secretaries Napolitano, Chertoff and Ridge,” Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, accessed March 1, 2011, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/video/dhs‐anniversary‐secs‐ napolitano‐chertoff‐ridge. 2 Historian Samuel Walker wrote in 1976 that a review of literature on urban police history indicates “a theme of continuity amidst change.” This sentiment is equally true regarding rural state policing.5 This is because within the multicultural region of the Southwest, the development of DHS appears to be just that—part of a continuing cycle of the invention and reinvention of civilian police presence—one that has traditionally been lionized by some factions of society while vilified by others. Here DHS bears a striking resemblance to nineteenth and early twentieth century security organizations in a number of ways, ones that can trace their roots back to the formation of the Texas Rangers. Like the DHS, the establishment of the historic Texas Ranger organization represented the formation of a new homeland security structure—one designed to address “terrorist attacks” or threats of violence as well as to “reduce the vulnerability” of their