SLAVERY.
Texas was the last frontier of slavery in the United States. In fewer than fifty years, from 1821 to 1865, the "Peculiar Institution," as Southerners called it, spread over the eastern two-fifths of the state. The rate
of growth accelerated rapidly during the 1840s and 1850s. The rich soil of Texas
held much of the future of slavery, and Texans knew it. James S. Mayfield undoubtedly spoke for many when he told the
Constitutional Convention of 1845 that "the
true policy and prosperity of this country depend upon the maintenance" of
slavery. Slavery as an institution of significance in Texas began in Stephen F.
Austin's colony. The original empresario commission given Moses Austin by Spanish authorities in 1821 did not mention
slaves, but when Stephen Austin was recognized as heir to his father's contract
later that year, it was agreed that settlers could receive eighty acres of land
for each bondsman brought to Texas. Enough of Austin's original 300 families
brought slaves with them that a census of his colony in 1825 showed 443 in a
total population of 1,800. The independence of Mexico cast doubt on the future
of the institution in Texas. From 1821 until 1836 both the national government
in Mexico City and the state government of Coahuila and Texas threatened to restrict or destroy black servitude.
Neither government adopted any consistent or effective policy to prevent slavery
in Texas; nevertheless, their threats worried slaveholders and possibly retarded
the immigration of planters from the Old South. In 1836 Texas had an estimated
population of 38,470, only 5,000 of whom were slaves. The Texas Revolution assured slaveholders of the future of their
institution. The Constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836) provided that slaves would remain the
property of their owners, that the Texas Congress could not prohibit the
immigration of slaveholders bringing their property, and that slaves could be
imported from the United States (although not from Africa). Given those
protections, slavery expanded rapidly during the period of the republic. By
1845, when Texas joined the United States, the state was home to at least 30,000
bondsmen. After statehood, in antebellum Texas, slavery grew spectacularly. The census of 1850
reported 58,161 slaves, 27.4 percent of the 212,592 people in Texas, and the
census of 1860 enumerated 182,566 bondsmen, 30.2 percent of the total
population. Slaves were increasing more rapidly than the population as a
whole.
The great majority of slaves in Texas came with their owners from the older
slave states. Sizable numbers, however, came through the domestic slave trade.
New Orleans was the center of this trade in the Deep South, but there were slave
dealers in Galveston and Houston, too. A few slaves, perhaps as many as 2,000
between 1835 and 1865, came through the illegal African trade.
Slave prices inflated rapidly as the institution expanded in Texas. The
average price of a bondsman, regardless of age, sex, or condition, rose from
approximately $400 in 1850 to nearly $800 by 1860. During the late 1850s, prime
male field hands aged eighteen to thirty cost on the average $1,200, and skilled
slaves such as blacksmiths often were valued at more than $2,000. In comparison,
good Texas cotton land could be bought for as little as six dollars an acre.
Slavery spread over the eastern two-fifths of Texas by 1860 but flourished most
vigorously along the rivers that provided rich soil and relatively inexpensive
transportation. The greatest concentration of large slave plantations was along
the lower Brazos and Colorado rivers in Brazoria, Matagorda, Fort Bend, and
Wharton counties. Truly giant slaveholders such as Robert and D. G. Mills, who owned more than 300 bondsmen in 1860 (the
largest holding in Texas), had plantations in this area, and the population
resembled that of the Old South's famed Black Belt. Brazoria County, for
example, was 72 percent slave in 1860, while north central Texas, the area from
Hunt County west to Jack and Palo Pinto counties and south to McLennan County,
had fewer slaves than any other settled part of the state, except for Hispanic
areas such as Cameron County. However, the north central region held much
excellent cotton land, and slavery would probably have developed rapidly there
once rail transportation was built. The last frontier of slavery was by no means
closed on the eve of the Civil War.
American slavery was preeminently an economic institution-a system of unfree
labor used to produce cash crops for profit. Questions concerning its
profitability are complex and always open to debate. The evidence is strong,
however, that in Texas slaves were generally profitable as a business investment
for individual slaveholders. Slave labor produced cotton (and sugar on the lower
Brazos River) for profit and also cultivated the foodstuffs necessary for
self-sufficiency. The effect of the institution on the state's general economic
development is less clear. Slavery certainly promoted development of the
agricultural economy; it provided the labor for a 600 percent increase in cotton
production during the 1850s. On the other hand, the institution may well have
contributed in several ways to retarding commercialization and
industrialization. Planters, for example, being generally satisfied with their
lives as slaveholders, were largely unwilling to involve themselves in commerce
and industry, even if there was a chance for greater profits. Slavery may have
thus hindered economic modernization in Texas. Once established as an economic
institution, slavery became a key social institution as well. Only one in every
four families in antebellum Texas owned slaves, but these slaveholders,
especially the planters who held twenty or more bondsmen, generally constituted
the state's wealthiest class. Because of their economic success, these planters
represented the social ideal for many other Texans. Slavery was also vital
socially because it reflected basic racial views. Most whites thought that
blacks were inferior and wanted to be sure that they remained in an inferior
social position. Slavery guaranteed this.
Although the law contained some recognition of their humanity, slaves in
Texas generally had the legal status of personal property. They could be bought
and sold, mortgaged, and hired out. They had no legally prescribed way to gain
freedom. They had no property rights themselves and no legal rights of marriage
and family. Slaveowners had broad powers of discipline subject only to
constitutional provisions that slaves be treated "with humanity" and that
punishment not extend to the taking of life and limb. A bondsman had a right to
trial by jury and a court-appointed attorney when charged with a crime greater
than petty larceny. Blacks, however, could not testify against whites in court,
a prohibition that largely negated their constitutional protection. Bondsmen who
did not work satisfactorily or otherwise displeased their owners were commonly
punished by whipping. Many slaves may have escaped such punishment, but every
bondsman lived with the knowledge that he could be whipped at his owner's
discretion.
The majority of adult slaves were field hands, but a sizable minority worked
as skilled craftsmen, house servants, and livestock handlers. Field hands
generally labored "from sun to sun" five days a week and half a day on Saturday.
House servants and craftsmen worked long hours, too, but their labor was not so
burdensome physically. Theirs was apparently a favored position, at least in
this regard. A small minority (about 6 percent) of the slaves in Texas did not
belong to farmers or planters but lived instead in the state's towns, working as
domestic servants, day laborers, and mechanics (see SLAVERY, URBAN).
The material conditions of slave life in Texas could probably best be
described as adequate, in that most bondsmen had the food, shelter, and clothing
necessary to live and work effectively. On the other hand, there was little
comfort and no luxury. Slaves ate primarily corn and pork, foods that contained
enough calories to provide adequate energy but were limited in essential
vitamins and minerals. Most bondsmen, however, supplemented their basic diet
with sweet potatoes, garden vegetables, wild game, and fish and were thus
adequately fed. Slave houses were usually small log cabins with fireplaces for
cooking. Dirt floors were common, and beds attached to the walls were the only
standard furnishings. Slave clothing was made of cheap, coarse materials; shoes
were stiff and rarely fitted. Medical care in antebellum Texas was woefully
inadequate for whites and blacks alike, but slaves had a harder daily life and
were therefore more likely to be injured or develop diseases that doctors could
not treat (see HEALTH AND MEDICINE). Texas slaves had a distinct
family-centered social life and culture that flourished in the slave quarters,
where bondsmen were largely on their own, at least from sundown to sunup.
Although slave marriages and families had no legal protections, the majority of
bondsmen were reared and lived day to day in a family setting. This was in the
slaveowners' self-interest, for marriage encouraged reproduction under socially
acceptable conditions, and slave children were valuable. Moreover, individuals
with family ties were probably more easily controlled than those who had none.
The slaves themselves, however, also insisted on family ties. They often made
matches with bondsmen on neighboring farms and spent as much time as possible
together, even if one owner or the other could not be persuaded to arrange for
husband and wife to live on the same place. They fought bitterly against the
disruption of their families by sale or migration and at times virtually forced
masters to respect family ties. Many slave families, however, were disrupted.
All slaves had to live with the knowledge that their families could be broken
up, and yet the basic social unit survived. Family ties were a source of
strength for people enduring bondage and a mark of their humanity, too. Religion
and music were also key elements of slave culture. Many owners encouraged
worship, primarily on the grounds that it would teach proper subjection and good
behavior. Slaves, however, tended to hear the message of individual equality
before God and salvation for all. The promise of ultimate deliverance helped
many to resist the psychological assault of bondage. Music and song served to
set a pace for work and to express sorrow and hope (see AFRICAN-AMERICAN
CHURCHES).
Slaves adjusted their behavior to the conditions of servitude in a variety of
ways. Some felt well-treated by their owners and generally behaved as loyal
servants. Others hated their masters and their situation and rebelled by running
away or using violence. Texas had many runaways, and thousands escaped to
Mexico. Although no major rebellions occurred, individual acts of violence
against owners were carried out. Most slaves, however, were neither loyal
servants nor rebels. Instead, the majority recognized all the controls such as
slave patrols that existed to keep them in bondage and saw also that runaways
and rebels generally paid heavy prices for overt resistance. They therefore
followed a basic human instinct and sought to survive on the best terms
possible. This did not mean that the majority of slaves were content with their
status. They were not, and even the best-treated bondsmen dreamed of freedom.
Slavery in Texas was not a matter of content, well-cared for servants as
idealized in some views of the Old South. On the other hand, the institution was
not absolutely brutal or degrading. Slaves were not reduced to the level of
animals, and they did not live every day in sullen rage. Instead, bondsmen had
enough "room"-time of their own and control of their own lives-within the slave
system to maintain physical, psychological, and spiritual strength. In part this
limited autonomy was given by the masters, who generally wanted loyal and
cheerful servants. Slaves increased their minimal self-determination by taking
what they could get from their owners and then pressing for additional latitude.
For example, slaves worked hard, but they tried to work at their own pace and
offered many forms of nonviolent resistance if pushed too hard. Slaves in
general were not revolutionaries who overcame all the limits placed on them, but
they did not surrender totally to the system, either. One way or another they
had enough room to endure. This fact is not a tribute to the benevolence of
slavery, but a testimony to the human spirit of the enslaved blacks.
Though slaves obviously freed their owners from the drudgery of manual labor
and daily chores, they were a troublesome property in many ways. Masters had to
discipline their bondsmen, get the labor they wanted, and yet avoid too many
problems of resistance such as running away and feigning illness. Many owners
wished to appear as benevolent "fathers," and yet most knew that there would be
times when they would treat members of their "families" as property pure and
simple. Most lived with a certain amount of fear of their supposedly happy
servants, for the slightest threat of a slave rebellion could touch off a
violent reaction. Slavery was thus a constant source of tension in the lives of
slaveholders.
White society as a whole in antebellum Texas was dominated by its
slaveholding minority. Economically, slaveowners had a disproportionately large
share of the state's wealth and produced virtually all of the cash crops.
Politically, slaveholders dominated public officeholding at all levels.
Socially, slaveholders, at least the large planters, embodied an ideal to most
Texans.
The progress of the Civil War did not drastically affect slavery in Texas
because no major slaveholding area was invaded. In general, Texas slaves
continued to work and live as they had before the war. A great many did,
however, get the idea that they would be free if the South lost. They listened
as best they could for any war news and passed it around among themselves.
Slavery formally ended in Texas after June 19, 1865 (Juneteenthqv), when Gen. Gordon Granger
.arrived at Galveston with occupying federal forces
and announced emancipation. A few owners angrily told their slaves to leave
immediately, but most expressed sorrow at the end of the institution and asked
their bondsmen to stay and work for wages. The emancipated slaves celebrated
joyously (if whites allowed it). But then they had to find out just what freedom
meant. They knew that they would not be forced to labor anymore and that they
could move about as they chose. But how would they make their way in the world
after 1865? Blacks had maintained a degree of human dignity even in bondage
(most owners had allowed them to do so), and Texas could not have grown as it
had before 1865 without the slaves' contributions. Nevertheless, slavery was a
curse to Texans, white and black alike.
See also AGRICULTURE, AFRICAN AMERICANS, CIVIL WAR, RECONSTRUCTION,
and SLAVE INSURRECTIONS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lester G. Bugbee, "Slavery in Early Texas," Political
Science Quarterly 13 (September, December 1898). Randolph B. Campbell, An
Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865 (Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989). Abigail Curlee, A Study of Texas
Slave Plantations, 1822-1865 (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 1932).
George P. Rawick, ed., The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography,
Supplement, Series 2 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1979). George
Ruble Woolfolk, "Cotton Capitalism and Slave Labor in Texas," Southwestern
Social Science Quarterly 37 (June 1956).
Randolph B. Campbell
IRISH: THE FORGOTTEN WHITE SLAVES
They
came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the
Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included
men, women, and even the youngest of children.
Whenever
they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the
harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their
hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment.
Some were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the
marketplace as a warning to other captives.
We
don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know
all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.
But
are we talking about African slavery? King James VI and Charles I also
led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s Oliver Cromwell
furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbour.
The
Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as
slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish
political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the
West Indies.
By
the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and
Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were
Irish slaves.
Ireland
quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English
merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were
actually white.
From 1641 to
1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000
were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to
600,000 in one single decade.
Families
were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their
wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a
helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution
was to auction them off as well.
During
the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14
were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies,
Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and
children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
Another
30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the
highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be
taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
Many
people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were:
Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to
describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the
17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human
cattle.
As an example, the
African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is
well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the
hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often
treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African
slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (£50 Sterling). Irish
slaves came cheap (no more than £5 Sterling). If a planter whipped,
branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death
was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive
African.
The
English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their
own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were
themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free
workforce.
Even
if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain
slaves of her master. Thus, Irish mothers, even with this new found
emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in
servitude.
In time, the
English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their
market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as
young as 12) with African men to produce slaves with a distinct
complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish
livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than
purchase new African slaves.
This
practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for
several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was
passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African
slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it
was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave
transport company.
England
continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a
century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands
of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were
horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship
even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would
have plenty of food to eat.
There
is little question the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much
(if not more, in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is also
little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your
travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and
Irish ancestry.
In
1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end its participation in
Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their
decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law
slowly concluded this chapter of Irish misery.
But,
if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African
experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong. Irish slavery is a
subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
But,
why is it so seldom discussed? Do the memories of hundreds of thousands
of Irish victims not merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?
Or is their story to be the one that their English masters intended: To completely disappear as if it never happened.
None
of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe
their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased
history books conveniently forgot.
Underground Railroad
The
National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Program defines the Underground Railroad as the resistance to slavery through escape and flight.
While
different meanings have been attached to the term Underground Railroad in different times and places, when the National Park Service's National
Underground Railroad Network to Freedom uses the term, it to references
escape from slavery in the United States through flight and/or assistance in that escape. These escapes lasted from the beginning until
the end of legal slavery here, and happened in the north, south, east, and west. The Underground Railroad represents one of the earliest grass roots movements in the United States in which people united across racial, gender, religious, and class lines in hopes of promoting social change. While allies assisted in journeys to freedom, those who sought freedom are at the center of this story, because there is no Underground
Railroad without freedom seekers.
Many
labels for escaping African Americans were constructs of enslaving society or by paternalistic abolitionists. As such, terms discussing slavery and freedom from the period tend to reflect how the dominant society viewed African Americans and their efforts toward freedom. Instead, the National Park Service and its partners strive to use language that more accurately reflects both the inherent humanity of enslaved people and historical accuracy.
There
is not universal consensus on what words are most appropriate to use when talking about slavery. In one example, some historians prefer to use words like “fugitive” to emphasize that when freedom seekers liberated themselves, they simultaneously broke state and/or federal laws. Others object to the criminal sound of the term, feeling that it unfairly maligns those seeking freedom through escape, or argue that it legitimizes the perspective of the society that upheld the legality of slavery.
Terminology;
Abolitionist
A
person opposed to slavery. Abolitionists were typically politically active and worked to eradicate the legal framework of slavery. They may or may not have acted on their antislavery principles by helping individuals escape from slavery.
Chattel
Portable
personal property. Chattel slavery equated human beings with livestock, furniture, and any other portable personal property. Chattel could be inherited, sold, or transferred without permission, in the case
of the enslaved person.
Conductor
This
refers to an individual who escorted or directed freedom seekers between stations or safe houses. A conductor need not have been a member
of an organized section of the Underground Railroad, only someone who provided an element of guidance to the freedom seeker.
Emancipation
This
term is often used to refer to either individual or group freedom. For example, those enslaved in the District of Columbia were freed by an act
of Congress in 1862, the Compensated Emancipation Act. The word is familiar because of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation
issued in January 1863 which declared an end to slavery in states that were in rebellion against the United States . Individuals also attempted to emancipate themselves through escape or legal decisions.
Enslaved Person
This term is used in place of slave. It more accurately describes someone who was forced to perform labor or services against their will under threat of physical mistreatment, separation from family or loved ones, or death. For the general purposes of this website, the term refers to one of the tens of millions of kidnapped Africans transported to the Americas and their descendants held in bondage through the American Civil War.
Enslaved
person emphasizes the humanity of an individual within a slaveholding society over their condition of involuntary servitude. While slavery was a defining aspect of this individual’s life experience, this term, in which enslaved describes but person is central, clarifies that humanity was at the center of identity while also recognizing that this person was forcibly placed into the condition of slavery by another person or group.
Enslaver versus Master, Owner, or Slaveholder
An
enslaver exerted power over those they kept in bondage. They referred to themself as a master or owner - hierarchical language which reinforced a sense of natural authority. Today, the terms “master” or “owner” can continue to suggest a naturalness to the system while also distancing us from the fact that enslavers actively enslaved other human
beings who were entitled to the same natural rights as themselves.
The
terms slave master and slave owner refer to those individuals who enslaved others when slavery was part of American culture. These terms can imply that enslaved people were less capable or worthy than those who enslaved them. Using the word master or owner can limit understanding of enslaved people to property. These terms also support a
social construct that there are people who should naturally hold power (i.e. slave owners, slave masters) and those who should naturally not (enslaved individuals).
Freedom Seeker versus Fugitive
Freedom seeker describes an enslaved person who takes action to obtain freedom from slavery.
The labels fugitive, runaway, and escapee were constructs of slave-holding society and patronizing abolitionists. These terms reflect
how slave-holding society viewed African American efforts toward freedom and ultimately and take away their individual agency.
The term fugitive is linked to the various Fugitive Slave Laws (1793, 1850) passed by the U.S. Congress, and emphasizes that the fugitive was acting criminally to escape from bondage. This language was key in attempts to preserve the view that the law was on the side of the slaveholding society—which it was—while reinforcing the view that the fugitive was incapable of acting responsibly in a society governed by the rule of law.
Manumission
The
freeing of an individual or group of enslaved African Americans by will, purchase, legal petition, or legislation. Some enslaved African Americans saved up from jobs for hire or sale of goods to purchase their own manumission. Slaveowners sometimes freed individuals as a favor or picked favored enslaved people to free at the slaveholder's death. Some enslaved people were willing to take the risk of going to court to seek their freedom. Some people distinguish manumission from emancipation, using manumission to refer to only one individual at a time.
Maroon
Describes
a community when used as an adjective or a member of a community when used as a noun of enslaved African Americans who escaped slavery and lived in a remote place like a swamp or the mountains. These settlements
often actively assisted other freedom seekers. The Everglades and the Great Dismal Swamp were sites of maroon communities.
Operative or Station Master
An
accomplice to escape by a freedom seeker. They might help arrange an escape, serve as a conductor, or otherwise help those escaping. If the freedom seeker was caught, the operative might provide a lawyer or money for fines and bail and/or arrange purchase from the slaveholder.
A
stationmaster provided shelter or a hiding place to freedom seekers. They often served as a clearinghouse for information regarding safe routes and nearby pursuit of freedom seekers and coordinated with conductors and other stationmasters to provide safe passage for freedom seekers upon departure from that station.
Personal Liberty Laws
These
laws for rights like habeas corpus, trial by jury, and protections from
seizure defended those escaping, in direct opposition to the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. Northern states like Indiana enacted laws providing these rights to freedom seekers starting as early as 1824. Such laws show the growing resistance to slavery in the North. Due to the cases of Ableman v. Booth and the United States v. Booth,
the state of Wisconsin acted to nullify the decision of the Supreme Court whose southern justices found personal liberty laws unconstitutional.
Slave
As
with enslaved person, this term is used for a person forced to perform labor or services against their will under threat of physical mistreatment, separation from family or loved ones, or death. For the general purposes of this website, the term refers to one of the tens of millions of kidnapped Africans transported to the Americas and their descendants held in bondage through the American Civil War.
Slave
is a commonly used term to describe an enslaved African American, but one that suggests that the individual’s identity was more fundamentally as property than as a human. It can also suggest that the person accepted their enslavement as a definition of their own identity. Additionally, it leaves out the presence of an enslaving individual or group whose ability of enforcement through violence backed the system of
slavery. The National Park Service uses slave only when necessary in a
historical context as part of a quote, preferring enslaved person as a more descriptive, complete choice.
Slave Patrol
Formed
by state militias and county courts or by plantation owners themselves,
these groups were responsible for preventing crime by Blacks and for keeping enslaved African Americans in the place prescribed for them by slave-holding society. Members might be poor whites or wealthier property owners. Mounted on horses, they were often armed with guns, whips, and clubs, and were not afraid to be brutal. They stopped Black individuals and demanded identification to demonstrate that Black individuals were not freedom seekers. Slave patrols had the right to search slave quarters.
Station
The
station provided a haven for traveling freedom seekers, was secured by the stationmaster, and took many forms. Stations might be basements, cabins, homes, barns or caves, or any other site that provided an element of security while giving the freedom seeker an opportunity for rest and provisions.
or
Go to Home Page