In the nineteen thirty’s the nation was in the midst of the greatest depression it had ever encountered. As a result President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched the New Deal, a program that was designed to boost the economy and thereby put an end to the depression1 . To do this, the program would set up a variety of different projects. These projects would provide jobs for countless Americans, at a time when the United State’s laissez fair economy was in severe turmoil. These government jobs would increase the money supply and thereby increase consumer buying power, the plan being that an increase in buying power would boost the economy and force it out of the depression. One of these programs called for documentation of slave narratives. Since slavery no longer existed in the United States, and had not since the end of the civil war, former slaves would provide these narratives. This program would be established under the Works Projects Administration2 . The WPA would be in charge or hiring interviewers across the South, whose job it would then be to interview a number of these former slaves and record their narratives. This programs purpose was not solely to provide jobs, but also to document slavery in the words of the slaves themselves. It would provide both sides of the South’s peculiar institution3 .
As is already stated it was the interviewers job to record the slave narratives. The interviewer would meet the former slaves and pose a series of questions. These questions were meant to not only retrieve certain information from the former slaves, but also to coax them to tell their story. As is obvious, these interviews required an interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee, in other words the former slave. We can therefore infer that the relationship between the two parties would directly influence the interview, and there by the information given during the interview. Let me propose this hypothetical situation to make my point. If the interviewer were to show genuine concern and interest, and moreover, seek the truth, the former slave would be more willing to tell his or her side of the story with more detail; simply because the interviewee would feel more comfortable. If on the other hand, the interviewer seemed callous or aloof or even seemed to be after his or her own account of what happened, the interviewee would be less likely to cooperate and could even feed the interviewer information to satisfy him or her, regardless of the actual validity of the information. Now as I said, the disposition of the interviewer can affect the integrity of the interview4 . However, we should be able to assume that the interviewer would conduct him or herself as a professional, meaning that the interviewer would be after an accurate account and not force his or her own opinion on the interviewee.
We must however take into account the time period in which these interviews took place. That is the nineteen thirty’s. This was a time before the civil rights movement, before Martin Luther King, and before America became a desegregated nation, believing that all humans are equal. Both the interviewers and the interviewees lived in the South of the nineteen thirty’s. In this South, African Americans were not seen as equal in the eyes of the white majority. They were not allowed to drink from the water fountains of their white counter parts, they were not allowed to sit amongst their white counterparts, be it in a restaurant or on a city bus, and they were not allowed to send their children to the same schools that the children of the white majority were able to attend. Yes, they did have their own water fountains, their own designated seats and even their own schools; however, it would be a fallacy to assume that these facilities were equal to that of their white counterparts. In reality, their conditions left much to be desired, and in today’s standards would be considered less then satisfactory. In this South, African Americans had no rights, and more importantly they had no voice5 . This is where we first encounter the one major fault in these slave narratives.
As is well known slaves in the American South were of African decent. That is to say that they were black, and not white. It is also important to note, slavery was not abolished willingly. It took a civil war for the South to finally put an end to its peculiar institution. This led the white South to still regard African Americans as inferior, because they were all just former slaves in the eyes of the whites; hence, resulting in the prior described situation. It is therefore safe for us to assume that the former slaves, or interviewees, were African American. Therefore, we can also assume that the race of the interviewer would affect the interview; that is whether the interviewer was white or African American6 .
If the interviewer was white we must be careful not to take the narrative at face value. As was already mentioned, African Americans had little rights and no voice. In the eyes of the white interviewer this may translate as the former slave not having the right to complain about his or her experience as a slave. Therefore, the interviewer might try to force his or her own opinions on the former slave. One such way would be to ask leading questions. Let me demonstrate this with a couple of examples. The interviewer might have asked: “So your Master was kind to the slaves?” or “You were not mistreated by your Master, were you?” These questions clearly show that the interviewer expected a certain answer from the former slave. Otherwise, the questions could have been worded as follows: “How did the Master treat his slaves?” and “How did the master treat you?”7 This wording does not imply a certain pre-set response sought by the interviewer.
The fault however, does not merely lie in the wording of the questions. The African American interviewee might be disinclined to tell the truth, simply due to his social standing. That is, that he or she is black, and therefore inferior to the white interviewer. The interviewee might be in fear that the truth would upset the white interviewer and result in some form of retaliation. For in the South that this takes place, it was not uncommon for African Americans to be hanged for no other reason than race. A black interviewee might for this reason not want to give the white interviewer any reason to harm him or her. By stating that the Master was cruel or unjust, the white interviewer might take offence and retaliate against the interviewee. While I have not come across any such cases, it is the mentality of the interviewee that makes this fear very real, and would make him or her hold back or at times even lie simply to please the white interviewer.
I hope that I have sufficiently proved why there is a great chance for error when the interviewer was white. Now we must discuss the issue when the interviewer was African American; that is the same race as the interviewee. It is much more likely that the interviewee would accurately relate his or her story to someone of the same race. This is because they share the same social status, for this reason the fear that might otherwise exist is not present with the African American interviewer8 . Despite this lack of fear we must still be cautious when considering the narratives. While the former slaves might feel comfortable talking to an African American interviewer they could still be hesitant to tell the whole truth, and for much the same reason. They could be afraid that their narratives would ultimately make it into the hands of white southerners, and the same consequences as with the white interviewer could arise. For this reason the former slave may be equally tentative to give a complete account to an African American interviewer.
There is still one more factor that we must take into consideration. By the nineteen thirty’s slavery had not existed in the United States for over half a century. This means that the former slaves would now be elderly men and women, which poses no real problem. However, it also means that they were mere children during their time as slaves. This means that the narratives would all be from slave children. While these narratives are important they do not sample the entire slave population9 . This means that we must understand that these narratives represent only a small section of the slave population and for this reason only a small glimpse of what slave life was like.
Despite these shortcomings we cannot cast these narratives aside. They still hold validity; it is now our jobs to cipher through them and use our knowledge to interpret them. Meaning, we must differentiate between fact and fiction. In order to successfully do so we must first understand a couple of things. First, we must be aware of the interviewer: that is to say that we must have some background information on the interviewer. This will help us understand who the interviewer was and as a result help us more accurately predict the disposition of the interviewer towards the interviews, as well as towards the interviewee. Secondly, knowing the race of the interviewer is key for the above mentioned reasons. This will help us determine the disposition of the interviewee. Finally, having background on the interviewer will allow us to see what kind of people the WPA hired for this project. For example, what criteria might have to be met in order for an individual to become eligible for the job.
To illustrate this I have chosen Edwin Driskell. Mr. Driskell was an interviewer from Atlanta. He was to interview different former slaves in his surrounding area. One of the interviews he conducted was with a man called George Womble. I will use Edwin Driskell and his interview with George Womble to prove the claims I have made thus far. I will discuss Edwin Driskell himself in more detail later in the paper; at current the most important information about him is that he was an African American man. Again I cannot stress enough the importance of this, for in this South race was a key social divide. This would then put Mr. Driskell in the same social standing as Mr. Womble. With this information we can now turn to the interview itself.
Mr. Driskell starts his documentation by giving some basic information about Mr. Womble. He stated that Mr. Womble was ninety three years old. If you recall, this is expected due to the time gap between the end of slavery and the interviews. He goes on to give a short description of Mr. Womble’s physical appearance, explaining that he was tall, about six feet, and was slender. He also points out that Mr. Womble is almost devoid of wrinkles, which later in the interview we learn is because he did not use soap on his face, while this statement is trivial it is none the less interesting, and I therefore found the need to include it. Upon closer examination it also provides us with a little insight of the dynamics of the interview. Mr. Driskell then also makes another observation to further help us understand the situation and relationship that took place during the interview. Mr. Driskell writes that Mr. Womble had a good sense of humor10 .
Mr. Driskell’s remark about the lack of wrinkles hints toward a genuine interest in Mr. Womble, and therefore in what Mr. Womble had to say. This alone however, is not enough for us to draw such a conclusion. To do this we must turn to Mr. Womble’s good humor to compliment Mr. Driskell’s prior remark regarding the lack of wrinkles. We can fairly safely assume that Mr. Womble felt comfortable in the presence of Mr. Driskell, for good humor is rarely seen in strenuous or uncomfortable situations. Holding this to be true we can the be fairly certain is saying that Mr. Driskell did not try to force his own opinion during the interview and rather let Mr. Womble express his own views without restraint. This will lead to a better interview, as far as an accurate depiction of history is concerned. We need not worry about Mr. Womble feeding Mr. Driskell false information, due to the fore mentioned fear.
We can find further proof of this throughout the interview. By reading the interview we learn the Mr. Womble had two masters. He describes his first Master, Robert Ridley, as “one of the meanest men that ever lived.” Mr. Womble also says about Mr. Ridley would whip them for amusement and enjoyed watching his slaves trying not to drown in a tank of water; saying that Mr. Ridley “laughed while we struggled to keep from drowning.”11 These comments show us that Mr. Womble was not afraid of any consequences that could result from telling the truth. They also show how malicious and heartless slave owners could be. We must be cautious though and be certain that this was not a unique instance. For this we can either turn to other slave narratives, in which the former slaves describe their Masters in similar ways, or we can look to Mr. Womble again and his description of his second Master. Since I stated that we would focus on this interview we shall precede with the latter.
Mr. Womble did not live with Mr. Ridley for very long. Instead, he was sold to Mr. Ridley’s brother, Enoch Womble, who will from this point on be referred to as Mr. Enoch, so as not to confuse him with Mr. Womble the former slave. Mr. Driskell makes a note saying that Mr. Womble described his new Master and even meaner then Mr. Ridley12 . This again proofs that he was willing to freely express himself without fear of repercussions.
Thus far we have not been able to find any major flaws with the interview process with regards to Mr. Driskell and Mr. Womble; from this we can deduce that the narrative is a fairly accurate depiction of history. We can now focus our attention on the information given in the interview and hope that it gives us a better understanding of slave life before the end of slavery in the United States. It is however, not my intention to discuss the life of slaves towards the end of the institution; instead it is to analyze the validity of their narratives. Yet my interest in history will not allow me to disregard the content, in light of this I will shortly remark on the harshness of slave life, if only to give more background on the white-black relations of the time.
Mr. Womble recalls that the slaves were treated more like animals then they were treated like humans. He says that Mr. Enoch would feed the child slaves by putting their food in a trough and then mix it with has cane; Mr. Womble also remembers dogs and pigs eating out of the same trough and the slaves not being allowed to push or fight the animals back. In keeping with their eating habits, Mr. Womble also explained how the slaves were given food each week, but rarely was this ration enough. Slaves would have to steal food from the master, usually chicken or pigs; they would cook them and then hide the meat and burn the remains, less they wished to starve13 . These are just two examples of the hardships that slaves had to face. This information, and that in this and other slave narrative, will better allow us to understand the situations dealt to slaves, yet again proofing their importance.
We have now established the precautions that must be taken when interpreting such narratives. Now we can shift our attention to the process of selecting an interviewer. I have not been able to find any formal documentation of the requirements for an interviewer, so yet again we will turn to Mr. Driskell to provide us with an insight into this process, or rather the attributes required.
Mr. Driskell was born in Birmingham, Alabama on March 17, 1911. This would put him in his mid-twenties at the time he worked for the WPA. By this time Mr. Driskell had already graduated from Morehouse College with a bachelor’s degree. We also know that Mr. Driskell was not a wealthy man. He would have been considered middle class. Mr. Driskell was also married, though he never had any children. We also know, that after his employment with the WPA, Mr. Driskell worked as a social worker, which agrees with his middle class status. This is all crucial information if we wish to discover what kind of skills a WPA employee might have14 .
As far as the slave narratives project is concerned we can see that the WPA preferred someone who was educated. An education would mean that the person would be able to both read and write, and in the nineteen thirty’s South literacy could not be assumed. Further, we can see that the WPA looked for young adults. Probably because young adults would be willing to work for relatively low pay and also, would not have savings to fall back on. Yet another reason that young adults may have been targeted would be because they would have just entered the work force making it harder for them to find a job then someone with more experience. We can conclude this from not only Mr. Driskell’s background, but also from the mission of President Roosevelt’s New Deal; which was to produce jobs for those people that most needed them. And a young African American man living in the Jim Crow South with a wife and not much experience would most undoubtedly fall under this category15 . Mr. Driskell himself would attest to this. He is still alive, he is ninety three years old now, soon to be ninety four, and lives in Atlanta, Georgia. He was kind enough to grant me a short interview in which he expressed his thankfulness towards the WPA for providing him with a job during a time of hardship. He also recalls his time with the WPA as being both interesting and rewarding16 .
I hope that I have been able to present the issues in regard to the slave narratives of the WPA. These narratives are a crucial part of history of the American South. They provide us with a slave’s point of view as far as slavery is concerned. At the same time we must realize that there are some shortcomings with these narratives, mainly race relations. Because of this we cannot assume that the narratives are accurate. It is for this reason that we must take each narrative and interpret it. In order to do so we must look not only to the interview, but also to the former slave and the individual conducting the interview. Only then can we draw a conclusion on the authenticity of the content within the interview.
The WPA also provided jobs for individuals in need. These individuals would nonetheless have to qualify for these jobs. If they wished to be involved with the slave narratives they would have to be well educated, that is they would have to be able to both read and write. The WPA seems to have also preferred young adults who were struggling to sustain themselves, such as Mr. Driskell17 . The WPA therefore proved important in both gathering historical information as well as providing for well deserving individuals.
1. WPA
2. WPA
3. “The Background of the Slave Narrative Collection.” 6
4. Blassingame, 3
5. Kelley, 4
6. Yetman, 5
7. Blassingame, 5
8. Blassingame, 4
9. Yetman, 3
10. George Womble,” 179
11. George Womble,” 180
12. “George Womble,” 180
13. “George Womble,” 185
14. Driskell
15. McMurry, 3
16. Driskell
17. Shaw, 6
Blassingame, John W. "Using the Testimony of Ex-Slaves: Approaches and Problems," Journal of Southern History, 41 (November 1975): 473-492.
Driskell, Edwin. “George Womble.” Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves. Library of Congress. Vol. 17. 1941
Driskell, Edwin. Personal interview. 27 Feb. 2004.
Kelley, Robin D. G. "’We Are Not What We Seem’: Rethinking Black Working-Class Opposition in the Jim Crow South,” The Journal of American History, 80 (Jun., 1993): 75-112.
McMurry, Linda O. “A Black Intellectual in the New South: Monroe Nathan Work, 1866-1945,” Phylon (1960-),41 (4th Qtr., 1980): 333-344.
Shaw, Stephanie J. "Using the WPA Ex-Slave Narratives to Study the Impact of the Great Depression," Journal of Southern History, 69 (Aug 2003): 623-659.
Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects in Georgia. University of Georgia. Hargrett Rare Books and Manuscript Library. 27 Aug. 2003. 27 Feb. 2004. Yetman, Norman R. "Ex-Slave Interviews and the Historiography of Slavery," American Quarterly, 36 (Summer, 1984): 181-210.
Yetman, Norman R. "The Background of the Slave Narrative Collection," American Quarterly,19 (Autumn, 1967): 534-553.
Related Sites