Columbus at the Edge
The Mechem papers document correspondence between federal officials and local New Mexico politicians, arguing over the fate of the 24th Infantry in Columbus in the early 1920s. The 24th was stationed permanently in Columbus as protection against further collateral violence stemming from the Mexican Revolution in the wake of Porfirio Díaz’s fall from power. Following Pancho Villa’s raid on Columbus, the reputation of the area fell sharply with regards to safety and security, in direct conflict with the aggressive colonization efforts by American capitalists since the town’s founding. It is within this context that the 24th Infantry, as a predominantly Black company, was embroiled in a racial tension as military, political, and national interests worked to repair the image of Columbus to resume colonization and development of southern New Mexico.
In Director of the Bureau of Protective Social Measures Caroline Boone’s report, the overall character of the town is denigrated, and the presence of the infantry is implicated as the primary negative influence in Columbus. The report recommends the removal of the 24th Infantry from the town, citing the crime-ridden conditions, corrupt local authorities, and fear of the white citizens to act substantively to correct these complaints. Boone’s words are written with a clear racist attitude, as seen in her references to the town as a “negro dive” and the “more respectable” and “better class of white people.” The white citizens, according to Boone, were fearful of a racial riot if efforts were made to impose the law to restore order. Boone holds local corrupt politicians ultimately accountable for these conditions, and makes numerous references to the Mayor’s conflicts of interests which, according to her, kept him from upholding his duty to general order in Columbus, “…Mayor Blair leases a good deal of property to vice activities in probably frequent contravention of State law…” (Memorandum on Conditions in Columbus, N.M., Boone).
Statements such as these begin to hint at a political rivalry which is confirmed in another archival document written by Mayor Blair, a Republican, wherein he argues that allegations against the morale and discipline of the 24th were borne of bipartisan conflict, fomented by L. L. Burkhead, who was a prominent member of the local media and a Democrat. Incidentally, the same Burkhead is one of few people mentioned by name as an interviewee whose comments informed Boone’s report.
The Mayor himself, as well as the Township Company, have an obvious interest to portray Columbus as a town worthy of settlement and a permanent military presence in the unstable region certainly would have helped to assuage the concerns of prospective settlers. I am, however, unsure of how the general American bipartisan political climate factors into a desire to remove the 24th from this small town, as is implied in Mayor Blair’s letter to Governor Mechem. It appears that the presidential election season was the larger backdrop for political posturing in which the Governor and Mayor found themselves entangled. This is a substantial gap in my knowledge which would be interesting to investigate. Perhaps more research into the circumstances of presidential politics at the turn of the century would yield some useful context.
The archival documents show that the local officials advocated for the retention of the 24th Infantry, as the security of the town was at stake with post-Porfirian Mexico undergoing political crisis. Additionally, as mentioned in Morgan’s article, the military presence provided economic benefits for the town. Director Boone, Burkhead, and to an extent, the larger Democratic political body seemed intent on undermining the character of infantry on racial grounds. Although the ethics of the mayor are called into question, the prevailing narrative put forth by Boone is a white citizenship threatened and coerced into corruption by a regional black majority.
The exercise of reading the archival documents was intriguing because one can detect the biases quite clearly. With secondary sources, one feels that authors are keen to disguise or explain away their presuppositions. However, with these sources, written as they were within a racially charged era, biases are expressed quite clearly and without qualm. I did have difficulty with understanding the actual media, however, as I’m unfamiliar with reading telegrams and memoranda of bygone eras. I had to make inferences on addressees and chronology, as some documents did not have dates. This made piecing together the “conversation” a little more difficult than I had anticipated. Furthermore, the glaring silence of the Black infantry members and Columbus citizens themselves shows clearly that the power of narrative creation rested in the hands of bureaucrats and not the people who were subject to the multitudinous political tensions in the borderlands at the time. Were there interviews or accounts straight from the experiences of the townspeople and infantry members? What would they say about the conditions in Columbus?
