The Bum Blockade – Stopping the Invasion of Depression Refugees
The year is 1936. The United States, still reeling from the Great Depression, faced another crisis – the mass migration of families fleeing the ravaged landscapes of the Dust Bowl. In response to this influx, Los Angeles Police Chief James E. Davis implemented a controversial strategy: the "Bum Blockade." This initiative, intended to stem the tide of impoverished migrants, offers a stark illustration of the desperation and prejudice that marked this era.
The Genesis of the Crisis: The Dust Bowl
The seeds of this mass migration were sown years earlier, with the onset of a devastating drought in 1931. The Southern and Midwestern plains, already weakened by years of unsustainable farming practices, became a wasteland. Over-cultivation, combined with the relentless drought, transformed fertile land into dust. Fierce winds whipped across the plains, creating monstrous "black blizzards" that choked the land and blotted out the sun. By 1934, an estimated 75% of the United States was suffering from the drought’s effects. The heart of the Dust Bowl encompassed over 100 million acres, primarily located in Oklahoma, the Texas Panhandle, Kansas, and parts of Colorado and New Mexico. Farmland became unusable, livelihoods were destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced to abandon their homes in search of survival.
The Westward Trek: Hope and Hardship
Driven by desperation, families packed their meager belongings into dilapidated vehicles and headed west, drawn by the promise of work and a better life in California. Of those displaced, an estimated 200,000 people were California-bound. However, the reality they encountered was far from the "Golden State" dream. California, itself struggling under the weight of the Depression, faced a severe labor surplus. The influx of migrants far outstripped the available job opportunities.
Those who did find work in agriculture quickly discovered that the abundance of available workers drove down wages, often to levels insufficient to support a family, even with every member working. Makeshift camps, derisively called "ditchbank" camps, sprung up along irrigation canals in farmers’ fields. These settlements lacked proper sanitation, creating a public health hazard. The pursuit of steady income forced many into a life of constant transience, following the harvests from one region to another.
California Overwhelmed: Strain on Resources
California found itself overwhelmed by the sheer number of migrants crossing its borders, sometimes as many as 6,000 per day. The state’s infrastructure, already strained by the Depression, struggled to cope with the increased demand for social services, healthcare, and education.
These refugees, regardless of their state of origin, were often stereotyped and branded with derogatory terms such as "Okies" and "Arkies." These labels became synonymous with poverty, shiftlessness, and a perceived threat to the economic well-being of native Californians. Migrants were unfairly blamed for rising crime rates, overcrowded schools, and the theft of jobs from established residents.
The "Bum Blockade": A Desperate Measure
In the face of this perceived crisis, Los Angeles officials, led by Police Chief James E. Davis, implemented the "Bum Blockade" in February 1936. Davis, with the backing of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, various public officials, railroad companies, and overstretched state relief agencies, dispatched 136 police officers to 16 key entry points along the borders with Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. The officers were instructed to turn back any migrants deemed to have "no visible means of support."
Chief Davis justified the blockade by loosely interpreting California’s Indigent Act of 1933, which criminalized the act of bringing indigent individuals into the state. He argued that his officers possessed the authority to enforce this law without any special approval. While some border-county sheriffs cooperated by deputizing the Los Angeles officers, others refused, viewing the blockade as an overreach of authority.
The "Bum Blockade" generated significant public debate. Proponents, including many newspapers like The Los Angeles Times, framed the blockade as a necessary measure to protect taxpayers’ money and prevent the influx of criminals, radicals, and troublemakers. The Los Angeles Times even compared Chief Davis to Queen Elizabeth I, who they claimed "launched the first war on bums". However, The Los Angeles Evening News was a vocal opponent, arguing that the blockade violated the fundamental American principle of freedom of movement.
The Reality of the Blockade: Turning Away the Desperate
Despite the controversy, the "Bum Blockade" proceeded, resulting in the interception and expulsion of countless individuals and families. Railroad-fare evaders, hitchhikers, and families in overloaded vehicles were turned away at the state’s borders. Migrants were often presented with a grim choice: return to where they came from or face a 180-day jail sentence with hard labor. The railroads, complicit in the effort, halted freight trains near police outposts, facilitating the capture and expulsion of migrants.
The Los Angeles Times defended the blockade, editorializing "Let’s Have More Outrages" and praising the effort as a way to keep out "imported criminals…radicals and troublemakers." While California’s Deputy Attorney General, Jess Hession, declared Davis’s methods illegal, Governor Frank Merriam tacitly approved the action, stating that it was "up to them [Los Angeles officials] if they can get away with it."
Aftermath of the "Bum Blockade": Legal Challenges and Federal Intervention
After a couple of months, Davis’s "Bum Blockade" was brought to an end when the legality of using city funds for the project was questioned, and a number of lawsuits were threatened. In early April, he called his officers home, but claimed his blockade a success, saying that the 11,000 people who had been turned away caused an "absence of a seasonal crime wave in Los Angeles."
In 1937, the Resettlement Administration program was passed on to the newly created Farm Security Administration, who would build 13 migrant camps to temporarily house many of the indigents entering the state.
Each camp would temporarily house 300 families in tents built on wooden platforms. Designed to foster a sense of self-respect, the camps were self-governing communities, and families had to work for their room and board.
However, it wasn’t enough, and even when many of those, who arrived impoverished, could find jobs, their wages forced them to live in filth and squalor in tents and shanty towns, dubbed Hoovervilles because residents blamed President Herbert Hoover for their plight. These shantytowns sprouted up all over in areas such as the Arroyo Seco, San Gabriel Canyon and Terminal Island.
Even after the official end of the "Bum Blockade," efforts to restrict the entry of impoverished migrants into California continued. In 1939, district attorneys in several counties affected by the Dust Bowl influx began enforcing California’s Indigent Act of 1933, indicting and convicting individuals who assisted their relatives in moving to California from the Midwest.
These prosecutions were challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who argued that the Indigent Act violated the constitutional right to interstate travel. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1941 that states could not restrict interstate migration based on poverty or any other status.
The Long-Term Impact: From Migrant Camps to Economic Recovery
The Farm Security Administration continued its temporary housing program throughout World War II, addressing the challenge of mobilizing sufficient farm labor. By 1942, the agency operated ninety-five camps, providing housing for approximately seventy-five thousand people.
The war effort also dramatically improved the economic situation in California and across the nation. As the defense industry expanded, job opportunities became plentiful, drawing many migrants into shipbuilding and defense plants on the West Coast. This newfound economic stability allowed many Dust Bowl refugees to establish permanent roots in California, where their descendants reside to this day.
The Legacy of the "Bum Blockade"
The "Bum Blockade," while ultimately unsuccessful in stemming the tide of migration, remains a significant historical event. It serves as a reminder of the desperation and prejudice that characterized the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl era. The story of the "Bum Blockade" illustrates the complex challenges faced by both the migrants seeking a better life and the communities struggling to cope with the influx of desperate people. It highlights the ethical dilemmas of restricting movement and the importance of upholding the rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their economic circumstances. The "Bum Blockade" is a dark chapter in American history, one that prompts reflection on how societies respond to crises and treat their most vulnerable members. The very term "Bum Blockade" evokes the inhumanity of the era. The "Bum Blockade" remains a case study in the complexities of economic hardship, migration, and social justice.