Texas Labor History

Chapter 3. The Cowboy Strike of 1883 Its Causes and Meaning

65 In the two decades that followed the Civil War, the open-range cattle industry dominated the Great Plains, then died and was replaced by enclosed range ranching and stock farming. In Texas the movement to enclose the range began in earnest in the early 1880s and was completed by 1890. During this transitional period there was also a great upsurge in European and Eastern investment in cattle, bringing owners who viewed ranching primarily as a profit-making enterprise rather than as a way of life. Cattle raising, like other businesses in the Gilded Age, was becoming a corporate affair.1 Growing corporate activity resulted in problems for the cowboy similar to those faced by workers in other industries during the same period.2 In addition to having problems in common with other workers, the cowboy, in some rare instances, reacted by forming cooperatives to protect himself from the capricious whims of employers, and on occasion, he went out on strike.3 One such incident was an 1883 cowboy strike in the Texas Panhandle. A group of dissatisfied hands demanded wage increases and launched a protest that lasted two-and-a-half months before ending in failure. The strike has been treated by other scholars who mention that ownership changes occurring in the Panhandle region helped to bring on the conflict. However, these scholars do not consider the causes of the strike or its failure in detail. It is the purpose of this chapter to examine these factors in the hope that such an examination will help to put the cowhand in better prospective as a workingman.4 Such a study does substantiate Kenneth Porter’s recent assertion that the infrequency of cowboy strikes cannot be solely attributed to the independent, carefree, and free-spirited nature of the cowhand.5 Indeed, a realistic examination of the various determinants leading to the outbreak of the Panhandle walkout creates serious doubts about the validity of any romanticized picture of the cowboy.6 There were five ranches involved in the 1883 strike—the LIT, T-Anchor, The Cowboy Strike of 1883 Its Causes and Meaning robert e. zeigler 66 Robert E. Zeigler LE, LS, and the LX.7 All were controlled by large corporations or by individuals whose actions indicate an interest in ranching largely as a speculative venture for quick profit. The LIT was owned by a Scottish syndicate, the Prairie Cattle Company.8 The T-Anchor was controlled by the Gunter-Munson Company , which was involved in land speculation as well as ranching.9 The LE was owned by the American-based Reynolds Land and Cattle Company. This firm had some financial backing from John M. Bond of the Alliance Trust, a Scottish company.10 The Lee Scott Company owned the LS.11 The LX brand was brought to the Panhandle in 1877 by two Boston men, W. H. Bates and David T. Beals, who sold out in 1884 to the American Pastorial Company. All these ranches grew rapidly. Typical of the growth was the LX. After an initial concentration on cattle buying, LX representatives in 1882 began to accumulate land and by 1885 had purchased 123,680 acres.12 The large ranches had, by 1883, also established the practice of fencing as a means of safeguarding their lands and protecting their cattle. This trend in the Panhandle ranch industry in the 1880s toward corporate activity and large landholdings had a tremendous effect on the status of the cowboy . The man engaged in working cattle had traditionally viewed a brand mark as the demonstration that property concentrated itself in herds. The cowboy had been devoted to his job of protecting the cattle, and among the hands there had developed a high sense of group solidarity. Also, the owners had usually been in constant touch with their employees, thereby establishing the feeling of a common interest between workers and boss. As holdings became larger it proved much more difficult for a cowboy to feel personal fealty to the new symbol of property concentration, the fenced range and the corporation.13 As Tascosa Sheriff Jim East explained in 1884, loyalty was breaking down because “the cow business is not what it used to be. You take such men as John Chisum or Charley Goodnight. They were real people. . . . Their cowboys would have died in the saddle rather than have complained. See what we have now; a bunch of organized companies. Some of them are foreign and have costly managers and bookkeepers who live...