{"word_count": 3908, "character_count": 24939}
IntroductionDuring the last two decades of US slavery, enslaved African Americans from Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi increasingly looked upon the boundary between the US Southwest and Mexico (where slavery had officially ceased to exist in the late 1820s) as a line between servitude and freedom. Between the independence of Texas (from Mexico) and its constitution as a thriving slaveholding republic (1836) and the outbreak of the US Civil War (1861), slaves absconded in growing numbers across the national border to what they saw as a promised land of freedom1. When escaping overland to the northern Mexican states of Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas, most fugitive slaves primarily relied on their own skills. Although they usually fled alone or in small groups across the Rio Grande/Bravo, seeking assistance to facilitate their flight was an essential concern for most of them as familiarity with space and people decreased with time and distance2. Support could be material, through food, water, clothes, and shelter. Assistance also took the form of immaterial benefits such as geographical information, intelligence regarding local patrols, as well as purely psychological input such as entertainment. Such help was partly provided by the community of bondspeople that had been scattered throughout the US Southwest by the geographical expansion of the plantation economy, « second slavery »3, and its related intra- and inter-regional slave trade4. Relatives, in particular, were frequent accomplices of runaways, as in the case of the Gordon brothers (Albert, Isaac and Henry) who absconded together during the 1850s. Albert, the elder, described as a « strong, healthy man » by the Western Texan, initially escaped alone to the Mexican borderlands around 1852. Arrested in San Antonio, he absconded from the county jail along with other prisoners after they « made a hole in the wall » and « let themselves down by the aid of blankets ». Once in Mexico, the man joined the mascogos (the denomination Mexican authorities gave to the Black Seminoles who settled in Coahuila in 1850) in their free settlement. Apparently pleased with his new life across the border, the refugee decided two years later to return to Texas to entice Isaac and Henry away. Albert was arrested again, but managed to abscond once more, and the three brothers succeeded in escaping again to Coahuila some months later5.Yet fugitive slaves did not solely rely on fellow enslaved African Americans (and the few free blacks residing on the Texas frontier) for assistance. This article therefore focuses on support provided by non-black people to escaped slaves during their flight from the US Southwest to the Mexican border between 1836 and 1861. Drawing mostly on southwestern press, which is read against the grain, it contends that the relative absence of formal abolitionist networks in the Texas-Mexico borderlands created space for a wide range of actors to facilitate enslaved people’s escape attempts, forging loose, situational and uncertain networks of support. Although tentative and based on inevitably fragmentary evidence, this article suggests that attitudes to slavery did not always correspond with actors’ behaviour towards fugitive slaves, which instead was tempered by case-specific context. Figure 1: Approximate routes of escape for slave refugees in the Texas-Mexico borderlands and through the Gulf of Mexico, c.1836-1861 (© Thomas Mareite)6An Underground Railroad to Mexico? Some « conductors » (free individuals assisting slaves in their escape) do seem to have been active in the Texas-Mexico borderlands after 1836, although to a lesser extent than their counterparts of the Underground Railroad (UGRR) to the north7. Influential slaveowners and editors increasingly complained about the actions of real or imaginary abolitionists. Nacogdoches, in eastern Texas, was already « thrown into some alarm » in 1841 by « lurking scoundrels » supposed to be abolitionists8. By the end of the 1850s, the initial scare of abolitionists had turned into a real witch-hunt. In 1858, a resident of San Antonio abducted a slave close to the border, who had absconded from Anderson County to Chihuahua. The prisoner revealed that he had escaped through the Butterfield Overland Mail Route, and « was assisted and fed at the stations all along the road by the employees of the line ». Once in El Paso, the runaway allegedly became a station keeper for the company in exchange for twenty dollars a month9. Likewise, during the spring of 1859, the Grayson County Court sentenced an employee of the company, New York-born George Humphreys, to exile in California for gambling with a slave and acting as what the Dallas Herald termed « an avowed abolitionist » 10. Similarly, a young white man named Granwell was jailed in 1859 with two slaves near Dallas. Labelled vaguely as a « negro-stealer » and abolitionist by the press, he had supposedly enticed slaves to follow him « upon the pretext of taking them to Mexico, and the promise of freeing them ». It turned out that just before this incident, another man had unsuccessfully offered the same slaves to flee with him to Santa Fe (New Mexico)11. Likewise, citizens of Williamson county wrote to the Austin Gazette complaining about « avowed abolitionists » in their jurisdiction supposedly responsible for a recent increase in flights, as six slaves had been « missing from their owner’s farms lately ». The related article « Freesoilers and Runaways » asserted that « we do not know who they are, or what connection they may have with running off negroes, but the loss of slaves is occurring in our upper counties »12. Correspondingly, German (and assimilated as such) free-thinkers and « forty-eighters » established for instance in San Antonio, Fredericksburg and New Braunsfels were seen with resentment by local slaveowners, as their liberal leanings contradicted the pro-slavery consensus and plausibly led some of them to assist fugitives13. Grounded and ungrounded accusations in the press against abolitionists became increasingly frequent by the eve of the US Civil War. They translated how anxious slaveowners came to feel about runaways and any sign of opposition to institutionalized slavery at all, especially given that Mexican authorities repeatedly refused to conclude any agreement with US governments on the extradition of fugitive slaves14. However, when compared to the UGRR, little evidence exists of similarly (semi)-organized networks of assistance for slave refugees in the Texas-Mexico borderlands. Support networks for flight in the US Southwest were especially precarious, when compared to (relatively) more stable northern routes for escape. As underlined by Randolph Campbell, an overwhelming consensus reigned over slavery among slaveholders and non-slaveholders in the US Southwest. Moreover, presumed abolitionists and transgressors of the code of loyalty to southern identity (which included respect for slavery) were harshly punished both by the law, as well as by vigilantism and mob violence. Finally, the community of free blacks in Texas after 1836 never counted more than a few hundred people. By contrast with other regions of the US South where temporary and permanent concealment within groups of urban free African Americans was fairly available for slave refugees, fugitive slaves in the Texas-Mexico borderlands could not rely on such an option, and no abolitionist committee existed on the other side of the border to receive them. All these factors meant that networks of support for slave refugees were weak, contingent and constantly evolving15. These observations prompt the question of whether the metaphor of underground railroad traditionally used by the historiography on fugitive slaves in 19th-century North America is relevant in this particular case. In the specific context of the Texas-Mexico borderlands, assistance came as much from mobile people in frequent contact with slave refugees, or interested financially in such action, as from ideologically committed individuals striking against institutionalized slavery. To an even greater extent than for the UGRR, social proximity and opportunity were conducive to support in the borderlands, apart from anti-slavery ideals. The overlap of ideological and socioeconomic reasons for assisting escaped slaves applied particularly to the Mexican population of the US Southwest. As slave flight across the Rio Grande/Bravo increased after 1836 (and rose even more dramatically during the 1850s), low-skilled Mexican workers in Texas often assisted fugitives16. Soon after his arrival in Texas during the spring of 1839, journalist Charles W. Webber noticed that « the Mexican population of Texas had always exhibited a warm sympathy for them, and never failed to assist them in getting off by every means in their power ». Webber recalled in particular the story of a Mexican blacksmith convicted for having assisted a slave in his escape from San Antonio’s city jail out of « human sympathy for the boy ». The craftsman confessed that he had « advised him to the utmost as to the manner of his escape, and guided and accompanied him in his flight to the thicket »17. The word « Mexican », in most runaway slave advertisements, press articles and jail notices, did not necessarily imply legal nationality, but rather referred to a perceived ethnicity (by Anglo-Americans), usually without distinction between Mexican Texans (Tejanos) and Mexican nationals. Non-qualified labourers from Mexico were especially targeted by slaveowners and editors for spreading « false notions of freedom », according to residents of Austin in October 185418. Columnists often recommended expelling Mexican peons with the alleged motive that, according to an editor from Indianola, they « have no domicile, but hang around the plantations, taking the likeliest negro girls for wives », before stealing horses and running to Mexico19. Legally free, peons nonetheless shared with African American slaves a similar socioeconomic condition as marginalized manual workers, which prompted mutual sympathy. Such physical and socio-economic proximity proved to be a decisive motive for empathy and assistance. In the cotton, sugarcane and tobacco plantations of the US Southwest, both groups laboured alongside, developing personal ties. Besides, mobility was an essential component of peons’ lives, as indebted workers in Mexico usually crossed the border. Peons from Mexico were especially useful in transmitting social, geographical and linguistic skills and knowledge, while tales of runaway peons crossing borders inspired would-be escapees. Mexicans also acted as intermediaries to get provisions and information, and as guides along the way20. The symbiosis between both groups seemed so clear to slaveowners that the Texas State Times asserted that Mexicans and slaves maintained a deeply-rooted « fellow-feeling » and pessimistically stressed that « no precautionary movements, no committees of vigilance, will ever prevent negroes from running away or Mexicans from helping them off21 ». In a few instances, runaways passed themselves off as Mexicans while others were reported as looking like Mexicans, which, in the eyes of slaveowners, only strengthened the incriminatory link between the two groups22. At Seguin, a public meeting organized in August 1854 denounced Mexican peons as « fugitives from justice », « highway robbers, horse and cattle thieves, and idle vagabonds », and according to the attendees, « they scruple at nothing, and a few dollars from a negro, is sufficient to secure their services23 ». Pro-slavery journalist John S. Ford wrote that « sometimes [slaves] come in bands of ten or twelve, escorted and guarded by a Mexican, who has guided them above the settlements and through the upper prairies of Texas24 ». The slaveowners’ exasperation gradually increased. Several Texas towns and counties passed measures discriminating and/or expelling Mexican labourers from their jurisdictions. Violence against Mexicans spread, including extrajudicial punishments. For instance, in 1842, a peon « attempting to run away with a negro girl » from Texana was captured near Lavaca and swiftly « hung in a tree », while near San Felipe, a Mexican was whipped and had his ears cut off by a planter who accused him of enticing his slaves « to run away with him to Mexico25 ». To a lesser extent, German immigrants faced resentment from local slaveowners. The new settlers’ frequently liberal views on slavery as well as the scarcity of German slaveholders in Texas put them at odds with local pro-slavery culture. Journalist and antislavery advocate Frederick L. Olmsted in his Journey through Texas (1857) recalled that a poor German immigrant « happening to find a half-starved fugitive, when looking after his cattle, melted in compassion ». Once back to his place, the man « bound up his wounds, clothed him, gave him food and whisky, and set him rejoicing on his way again26 ». Olmsted’s comments were indicative of a larger trend. Some fugitives were for instance arrested in February 1855 « in a German settlement near Texana27 ». The usual suspectsNonetheless, though at times based on objective facts, accusations against Mexicans or Germans were also indicative of slaveholders’ rising frustration (for which they were easy scapegoats) in the context of an increasing loss of their workforce into Mexico. Slaveowners arguably exaggerated the extent to which escaped slaves received assistance and frequently accused (without evidence) perceived defaulters from the pro-slavery consensus. In a patronizing denial of slaves’ will and capacity to abscond by themselves, the finger-pointing at Mexicans or Germans contributed to downplay the intrinsic violence of slavery while assuming that only external interference by foreign troublemakers could corrupt slaves’ minds. The chronic scapegoating of Mexicans and Germans as alleged accomplices actually reflected rising concerns among the Anglo-American community about the loyalty of new immigrants to white supremacy, patriarchal honour, southern identity, of which pro-slavery was the main expression. On similar grounds, religious communities and evangelical movements (especially Methodists and Mormons) spreading into Texas in the wake of the Second Great Awakening were occasionally accused of anti-slavery subversion and assistance to fugitives28. Yet harbouring anti-slavery sentiments did not necessarily imply engaging in active support of fugitives. Sean M. Kelley noted for instance that Germans who held such views « rarely articulated them publicly », for fear of being prosecuted. Albeit underlining their general empathy towards fugitives, Frederick L. Olmsted also argued that « most of the Germans », considering the risks involved in assisting enslaved asylum-seekers, « would refuse to take in a negro whom they knew to be running awa29 ». Nonetheless, slaveholders often interpreted signs of disagreement with institutionalized slavery (or simply an origin) as evidence of assistance. In particular, runaway slave advertisements often suggested the collusion of Mexicans even when tangible grounds for outright accusations could not be found. When four slaves named Jim, Stephen, Alfred and Arthur absconded together from Fort Bend County in July 1852, their master Patrick Perry hastily suggested that, as « a Mexican by the name of Phillippi [was] also missing », the latter very likely bore responsibility for the flight, though he did not provide any proof to support his claim30. Contrary to what such accusations suggest, support for fugitives in the borderlands did not necessarily stem from moral, religious or ideological convictions against slavery. Pragmatic considerations and monetary interests also prompted assistance, as illustrated by the escape of Miguel Arcienega and his slaves across the border in 1855. A tejano resident of San Antonio, Arcienega was indebted to a certain John Riddle. « Lots and parcels of land adjacent to San Antonio » along with « three negro slaves » were kept as securities that were to be reconveyed as soon as the sum was paid. To avoid an impending foreclosure, Arcienaga apparently encouraged the slaves to escape from their new master to join him across the Mexican border, and then sued Riddle. His intention certainly was not grounded in philanthropy, yet once in Mexico the three men became (in theory) free by law31. Similar financial motivations also account for Georgia-born John Short’s alleged assistance to slave refugees in Fayette County in the early 1840s. Short became notorious in his locality (despite being a veteran of the Texas Revolution) for apparently personally abetting slaves escaping to Mexico. The scheme was believed to be as follows. Short sold slaves who subsequently fled from their new owners and joined him again. The trick would later be repeated further south until reaching Mexico, where the slaves would be free. In the meantime, Short secured substantial benefits, which seemed to be his prime motivation, until he was eventually hanged in February 1847 for cattle theft and counterfeiting32. In the fall of 1854, similar accusations were made in Navarro County against two transient workers named Wells and Morgan, suspected of performing the very same trick to earn some money while conducting slaves down to Mexico. After Morgan’s « forced confession » at the hands of an angry mob, Wells’ body was found several days later, « thrown in a creek », with evidence that he had been tortured, mutilated and summarily executed33. As with abolitionists, the veracity of accusations against suspected slave smugglers like Short, Wells and Morgan, remains hard to establish, and some of these claims were entirely fabricated. Yet some contemporaries’ observations seem to suggest that such suspicion was not always ungrounded. In his Excursion through the Slave States, geographer and geologist George W. Featherstonhaugh for instance underscored that smuggling slaves (including to free states) through the borderlands was one of many « modes of getting a livelihood34 ». The boundaries between assistance and exploitation often proved to be ambiguous, as support of fugitives could stem from the prospect of economic gain. Instances of « slave stealing » also frequently occurred. When soliciting external help, slave refugees always ran the risk of being fooled by individuals promising protection and support yet turning out to be frontier outlaws planning to re-enslave or sell them in a remote territory. In the vicinity of Austin, John and Benjamin Perry Grumbles were convicted of slave-stealing in December 1852. An inquiry ascertained their intention to settle « beyond the limits of the state » and to exploit a fourteen-year-old girl « to their own use », after keeping her « in secrecy » for about ten months35. Similarly, the New Orleans Daily Crescent reported in August 1854 the arrest of a man between Lockhurt and San Marcos « traveling not exactly in company with a negro, but just behind him ». The smuggler confessed to the local police being « one of a party of ten or fifteen men, engaged in carrying negroes from Texas to Mexico ». According to him, for a two-hundred-dollar sale to hacendados (large landowners) in Mexico, fugitives were to be converted into indebted workers across the border until they could pay the sum back to their new owner36. Smuggling slaves across the border seem to have been a widespread practice in the US Southwest. Already in the early 1830s in the Mississippi delta region, the famous bandit John Murrell together with his brother enticed away an « old negro man and his wife and three sons » from the Choctaw nation with « many fine stories ». Among these lies (the smugglers actually planned to sell the family near New Orleans), the two men had promised freedom in Mexican Texas to the fugitives in exchange for a year of their work once settled across the Sabine River37. In the summer of 1853, a presumed « extensive gang of negro thieves, operating on the Nueces and Rio Grande » made the headlines. Other « gangs of desesperados », such as the one led by a certain Kuykendall near Galveston, were accused of falsely promising to set slaves free in Mexico, instead selling them elsewhere. As underscored by James D. Nichols, a « domesticating » agenda usually underlay such rumours. Stories of ruthless bandits were counter-narratives to freedom, intended to deter would-be fugitives from attempting to escape38. Nonetheless, slave refugees were not merely the passive victims of slave-stealers, as they frequently manipulated the « moral economy of smuggling39 » to their own advantage as well, adapting their escape strategy to the peculiar social landscape of the Texas-Mexico borderlands. Guides and intermediaries were contracted through bribes, and smuggling slave refugees for financial benefit (just as was the opposite practice of « slave-catching ») seem to have been a common activity. For instance, about ten slaves near Brazoria were accused in May 1844 of having engaged two men (Jesse Blades and Robert Redding) to escort them to Mexico, with each of them offering one hundred dollars to their guides40. Similarly, in the town of San Antonio, a Mexican was accused in 1851 of having accepted a bribe from a fugitive slave to provide information about the route leading to Mexico41. As the latter case illustrates, material and monetary incentives could turn otherwise neutral actors into good Samaritans. Yet, these very same incentives could also swell the ranks of arresters and mercenaries eager to receive a reward for capturing fugitive slaves42. ConclusionIn the summer of 1858, newspapers in Texas extensively narrated the story of « Jack Thompson » (as he called himself), a slave who had absconded from Coryell County. The man was well provisioned in money, arms, ammunitions and « all other requisite appendages », including a map, a compass and a watch. As it turned out eventually, the fugitive « had on a wig which disguised him so that he was not at first recognized by any one ». According to a witness, this « ingenious contrivance » allowed Thompson to pass himself off as a free « Spaniard » travelling westward to New Mexico to visit his brother « Don Cuchillo Negro ». Near the Pecos River, the runaway joined a group of gold-hunters, pretending that his provisions had run out. Although Jack « ate supper with the gold-hunters and conversed familiarly on all the subjects that were introduced », the men soon became suspicious and challenged Jack’s identity as a free man, who finally confessed to be a runaway. Near the town of Cora, as he was conducted back by the gold-hunters to his master, Jack Thompson escaped again to the border and disappeared from the historical record43. As this last example reveals, escaping to the Mexican border often proved to be a complex and deceiving game of illusions for both enslaved asylum-seekers and their arresters. Mercenaries, mobile Mexican peons, convinced abolitionists and « conductors » thus all co-existed in the Texas-Mexico borderlands. The coalescence of such varied individuals into precarious and loose networks of assistance depended on an alignment of their diverse interests, which in turn rendered the boundaries between assistance and exploitation uncertain and permeable. The literature on the UGRR to the northern states and Canada has increasingly depicted the latter as a fairly informal structure, yet arguably assistance along escape routes to Mexico was even more informal: almost no networks of assistance existed, or at best ad hoc ones that were established as slaves were fleeing. Consequently, these sporadic instances of assistance hardly qualify as an UGRR to the south. The multifaceted and fluid nature of assistance to fugitive slaves in the Texas-Mexico borderlands (even more than for the UGRR) partly accounts for the need felt by some southern slaveholders to search for scapegoats amongst the usual suspects of anti-slavery sympathies: Mexicans and Germans (among other minorities). Despite the consolidation of pro-slavery social, legal and political power in the US Southwest in general, and specifically Texas, the numbers of slaves seeking freedom in Mexico rose significantly between 1836-1861. As underlined by Nichols, such process illustrates the incompleteness of any transition from « borderlands » to « bordered lands » along the Rio Grande/Bravo following the US-Mexico war (1846-1848) and the persistent mobility of people at the margins of both expanding and conflicting nation-states. Yet slave refugees’ freedom in Mexico remained precarious, as the very porosity of national boundaries that eased their flight also empowered mercenaries crossing the border to abduct and re-enslave them in the US Southwest44. 