Niel Alden

April 3, 2004

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to the presidency in November of 1932, the nation was in a state of economic depression. Through his New Deal, a series of emergency relief programs, Roosevelt promised to haul the United States out of the depths by providing Americans with jobs. The Georgia Writer’s Project, a branch of the Works Progress Administration’s Federal Writer’s Project, had several agendas. One of the projects that the WPA had planned was for writers to interview ex-slaves about what life was like as a slave in the last years before the War Between the States. These interviews, conducted throughout the country with elderly African-Americans, provide a great deal of insight into the life and mind of a slave in the mid-19th century south. This project sought to pick the brains of some of the last remaining people who had any recollection of slave life. However the words of these ex-slaves, enlightening as they are, cannot be simply taken at face value. There are several factors to consider which may have influenced, inhibited or otherwise altered their content. The way individuals regard history is based in large part on the way that the events of history are presented. Thus it is important to consider just how this piece of history is presented by the WPA and its workers.1

Sarah H. Hall was one of several people involved in interviewing ex-slaves for this project. Sarah H. Hall was born in White Plains in Greene County, Georgia in 1889. The daughter of Albert and Cora Howell, Sarah was raised on her father’s farm in Georgia, where Albert had moved from his home in Alabama. At the age of 26 Sarah married F.H. Hall, with whom she had three sons. By 1930 Sarah was again under her father’s roof, her husband having passed away. At the age of 41, the widowed Sarah was living with her 68 year old parents, and two of Albert’s grandsons, Fred and Ross, both teenagers. The onset of the Great Depression found Sarah involved in the WPA Georgia Writer’s Project from 1936 to 1938. During her time with the WPA, Sarah was living in Athens, Georgia where she conducted interviews from 788 Prince Avenue, where she boarded. Sarah later worked briefly at the University of Georgia for one year as a librarian. It seems that Sarah eventually moved back to her home, where she died in Greene County, Georgia in 1976. It is Sarah’s work as a representative of the WPA that is the focus of this paper.2

Sarah was very involved in the Georgia Writer’s Project. Of the narratives that Sarah did not conduct herself, she seems to have been involved in the editing of all of the other interviews to come out of Athens. Her interest in the slave narratives almost certainly had something to do with the fact that her grandfather, Judge William Watson Moore of Greene County, Georgia, had had slaves on his farm. One of the interviews that Sarah conducts, perhaps not so coincidentally, is actually with an ex-slave that was born on her grandfather’s farm during the war in 1863. Sarah’s interviews are very eloquently written, and presented in a way that sheds a favorable light on the ex-slaves. Yet given Sarah’s close ties to the peculiar institution and some of its members, and given the strange times that she lived in it must be asked whether or not Sarah’s interviews were biased in one way or another. In order to have some idea of what could have made her interviews biased, either from the interviewer’s standpoint or the interviewee’s, it is important to understand what life was like in the south while the WPA ex-slave interviews were taking place.3

At the end of the ex-slave project in Georgia in 1938, the population of Athens was approximately 22,000 people, 65% of whom were white, and 99% of whom were American born. All these numbers indicate is that roughly two thirds of the people living in Athens were American born whites who most likely were the descendants of other southerners and who, simply put, were not that far removed from a way of living that would have enslaved the other two thirds of the population. For over 200 years the south was a place that thrived on the labor of enslaved Africans and African-Americans, and lived by the conviction that whites were superior to blacks. In 1938 those convictions were still running strong, and animosity still lingered over the war that took slavery away from the south. Though relations between whites and blacks in the 1930s south were certainly not what they were when the slave industry ruled the region, there was still quite a bit of tension between the races. In the first third of the 20th century, the U.S. had made some progress in terms of racism from the time of the national catastrophe 70 years earlier. Yet animosity still ran strong in the south as ideas of white supremacy and memories of a lost empire had been passed down through generations.4

The Jim Crow laws held meaning well through the 1930s in America, making it quite clear that while the Plessey v. Ferguson decision declared that blacks were to be treated as separate but equal, most whites in the south felt that blacks were anything but equal. Blacks during the depression experienced directly the results of this projected inequality. In one of many examples of racial inequality, manifesting itself in this case in government relief programs, more whites received federal aid than did blacks even though the average black family made only 34-50 percent of what white families made. The popular sentiment among whites in the south was that blacks were not at all equal. The feeling was that even if blacks were not to serve whites, they certainly were not to be granted all of the same rights. Racism was everywhere, but if white supremacist beliefs were to be taken seriously, then there would have to be some kind of evidence to back them up.5

There was no lack of people who were willing to give their time and efforts to the cause of proving that blacks were indeed inferior to their white counterparts. People in the certain fields of science dedicated time to proving racist theories, to the point that “the distinction between science and racism was blurred”. One good example of an individual lending his scientific knowledge to the racist cause was Robert Bennet Jean, a professor at the University of Virginia Medical School. Ties with such an institution, as well as his broad knowledge of anatomy gave Jean, who also wrote extensively on racist theories, unlimited credibility in the eyes of other southern racists. In other words it was not merely the ignorant white trash who sought to degrade the black man, but educated men of supposed integrity who used the tools at their disposal to tarnish the history, origin and existence of African Americans.6

Another aspect of life in the south in the 1930s was racial violence. Violence was an accepted if not condoned measure for whites to take against blacks who stepped out of line, so to speak. The Georgia Woman’s World, self declared “newspaper devoted to the interest of better government” expressed outrage at the passing of an anti-lynching bill under Roosevelt in 1936, declaring “the southern people will not forget….” This is a good indication of how violence was seen as necessary to keep the black man in his place, a place clearly defined in southern society.

While the now elderly people that were being interviewed for the WPA were fairly safe from white supremacist violence, they carried with them the fact that they were at one time a white man’s property, and were still part of an oppressed race. The issue of race in the south was one that reached into every facet of life. The point is that it would be difficult for the interviewer and the interviewee of a WPA interview to forget about racial differences during their time together, seeing as how race was the dominant issue of the time. The South that Sarah lived in was one that was segregated, one where interracial interaction was kept to a minimum, and one that was certainly not conducive to trusting relationships between whites and blacks.

It seems likely that in light of the prejudices that blacks had to live with there is no way that Sarah Hall could have related to her interview subjects. However it is important to note that while the south was a stratified society, that stratification was not defined solely in racial terms. Women were not accorded the same level of respect that men were by any means, and had to live in a state of quasi-servitude, though that servitude may seem trite in comparison to the history of Sarah’s subjects. A woman in the “New South” was expected to act a certain way and to stay out of certain things. Bearing the burden of these expectations and limitations gave some common ground to women and black people. If the white people who sought to keep things a certain way were justifying the stratification of their society on a common southern history, then it was imperative that “the meaning of both womanhood and blackness remain the same”. In a society where the white man was at the front of the pecking order, a woman and a black person found themselves in much the same boat in many ways. Certainly the punishment for stepping out of line was not as harsh for a white woman, yet the expectation of acting a certain way in order to preserve social harmony was clearly on their shoulders as well. In this way Sarah could have felt something in common with the people she was interviewing. Whether or not this affected the way Sarah interviewed or presented her interviews, however, is a matter of speculation.8

There are several factors that could have potentially made Sarah’s interviews biased. For one, ex-slaves may have been reluctant to give answers to questions which would imply that white masters were unjust or immoral. Taking into account the common ground of being in a position of servitude to white men, albeit on different planes, one might expect a slave to be more frank or more open with a woman than with a man. In fact there are indications that this was the case. The results of ex-slave interviews were the most reliable when the interviewer and interviewee were of the same sex, and were more reliable if a white woman was interviewing as opposed to a white man. This information means that Sarah’s interviews are likely to be pretty reliable. However there were still evidently some areas of questioning when “a high premium was placed on giving the ‘right’ answer”. That is to say that either the interviewee felt compelled by fear to give the “right answer” or the interviewer elicited the “right answer” by way of leading questions. After all, in a racist south that still glorified the days of yore, no one wanted to hear an ex-slave give a testimony that might defile the society which was looked upon as part of a golden era.9

A related factor that could have distorted the narratives was the fact that there was a certain way of speaking between blacks and whites. To understand this it is necessary to go back to life on the plantation. In the slave south, along with the clearly defined roles that the slave industry brought came clearly defined ways of communicating between whites and blacks. Slaves were taught to be agreeable to anything said by a white person. A title stood before the name of any white person, as in “Miss Sarah”. As one writer in the 1930s put it, there was etiquette that existed during slavery in order to preserve “social distances”. The people that were interviewed for the WPA of course were raised in just such a society where this kind of behavior was learned and ultimately necessary. 70 years later these ways of relating to white people still remained for these ex-slaves. Racial etiquette was not abolished along with slavery, rather new standards of what was and wasn’t acceptable came to exist even up until the great depression. Relating an example of how an ex-slave might have had to act in an agreeable manner towards a white interviewer, Stephanie Shaw postulates that: The racial etiquette of segregation that prevailed in the 1930s did not encourage him to tell whites…anything that would disturb them. If ex-slaves were constantly aware of what might rock the boat, so to speak, and as a result edited their own words as they had practiced doing as young slaves, then the validity of the narratives is certainly in question. Did Sarah Hall encounter a situation where an ex-slave kept the horrifying truth to themselves? The possibility exists.10

Another factor that could have given rise to questions concerning the validity of the narratives involves the individual interviewers themselves. Sarah is a good case in point. In one case Sarah interviewed a woman she knew from her grandfather’s farm named Emmaline Kilpatrick. The interview displays a casual and relatively informal relationship between the Sarah and Emmaline. The two presumably had known one another for some time and therefore a certain amount of candidness could be expected. On the other hand, there are two related things to consider which might have had the opposite effect. First of all it has to be considered that Emmaline may well have held back about the life she led on the farm, not wanting to say something that might elicit ill will from Sarah. Also, given the situation that Emmaline did reveal some disturbing facts about life on her grandfather’s farm, there is little chance that Sarah would have divulged that information seeing as how she ultimately decided what went into the final documents. Sarah would not have wanted the words of one of her grandfather’s slaves to tarnish her family’s name.11

A scenario of an interviewer altering an ex-slave’s testimony is neither far fetched nor was it evidently uncommon. According to John Blassingame the accounts given by slaves were often “doctored” or had certain “portions deleted” without any indication thereof. This is certainly a problem, and it seems that Sarah was in at least one situation where she might have been tempted to have some input regarding the content of certain documents containing ex-slave narratives. Sarah may well have been true to the last word of every ex-slave interview, but it is important to note that the circumstances were such that she was in a position to have those interviews read however she wanted them to.12

Another factor that has been noted by historians as bringing possible biases to ex-slave interviews is the economic situation that ex-slaves found themselves in during the time of the interviews. An elderly black person during the depression was probably not in the best financial situation. With a depression on, and considering that these people were not emancipated into prosperity, some of the most secure times in these ex-slaves’ lives may very well have been under the rule of a master who kept them fed and clothed. So when an ex-slave spoke of how the days on the plantation were not that bad, it can almost be assumed that that person was speaking relatively. This is a good example of how an ex-slave could have distorted the truth of how life was as a slave just as much as the interviewer could have.13

It is clear that the WPA slave narratives were susceptible to manipulation by several factors. There were circumstances in the 1930s which may have influenced the way an interview turned out. Relations between blacks and whites may well have inhibited brutal honesty. Sarah Hall was in a position to manipulate the narratives entirely if she saw fit. Yet the interviews that she conducted are not void of unhappy recollections that would suggest an ex-slave was either unwilling to open up to Sarah or scared of what she represented. As a white woman Sarah should have been able to relate to these people as few other groups of people could. There are certainly doubts that can be cast on these narratives from a number of different lines of reasoning. Yet there is no reason to expect that the interviews that Sarah Hall conducted or edited were biased any more than the circumstances and the times generally mandated. Considering all of the obstacles that the WPA writers had to work around, they do a good job of presenting the words of ex-slaves as a credible piece of southern history.

1. John W. Blassingame, “Using the Testimonies of Ex-Slaves: Approaches and Problems,” Journal of Southern History, Vol. 41 No. 4 (November 1975), 473-492.

2. US Census, 1930: Head of Family. Washington: 1930. Athens City Directory, (Charleston, SC: Baldwin Directory Company, Inc. and Chamber of Commerce, 1938), 151.

3. Emmaline Kilpatrick, Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writer’s Project, 1936-1938. Interviewed by Sarah Hall. WPA Slave Narrative Project, Georgia Narratives, Vol. 4 Part 3.

4. Athens City Directory. (Charleston, SC: Baldwin Directory Company, Inc. and Chamber of Commerce, 1938), 151. J. Michael Gelfand, “Chronicling an African-American life in Athens: James W. Davis and his Georgia Writer’s Project Interview, 1939,” Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 81 No. 3 (1997), 713-734.

5. John C. Inscoe, Georgia in Black and White: Explorations in the Race Relations of a Southern State, 1865-1950. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1994.

6. I. A. Newby, Jim Crow’s Defense: Anti-Negro Thought In America, 1900-1930. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1965, 37.

7. Georgia Woman’s World, 15 January 1936, Vol. 7 No. 32.

8. John C. Inscoe, Georgia in Black and White: Explorations in the Race Relations of a Southern State, 1865-1950. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1994.

9. John W. Blassingame, “Using the Testimonies of Ex-Slaves: Approaches and Problems,” Journal of Southern History, Vol. 41 No. 4 (November 1975), 473-492.

10. Bertram W. Doyle, The Etiquette Of Race Relations In The South: A Study In Social Control. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1937. Stephanie J. Shaw, “Using the WPA Ex Slave Narratives to Study the Impact of the Great Depression,” Journal of Southern History, Vol. 69 No. 3 (Aug 2003), 623-659.

11. Emmaline Kilpatrick, Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writer’s Project, 1936-1938. Interviewed by Sarah Hall. WPA Slave Narrative Project, Georgia Narratives, Vol. 4 Part 3.

12. John W. Blassingame, “Using the Testimonies of Ex-Slaves: Approaches and Problems,” Journal of Southern History, Vol. 41 No. 4 (November 1975), 473-492.

13. Stephanie J. Shaw, “Using the WPA Ex Slave Narratives to Study the Impact of the Great Depression,” Journal of Southern History, Vol. 69 No. 3 (Aug 2003), 623-659.