John Brock: Slave narratives offer firsthand view of life before & after freedom

For the past few weeks I have been reading slave narratives written from interviews by writers working for the WPA projects in the 1930s. I suppose it was my personal way of observing Black History Month. Or, perhaps it was because they are in the public domain and are a free download for my Kindle.

Editor’s note: you may also find many of these on the Library of Congress Web site or by an Internet search for “WPA ex-slave narratives.

Either way, I have read between three and four hundred — almost all of them concern life under slavery in South Carolina. Although I had read selected accounts through the years, this was the first time I have undertaken a marathon of reading so many. It has offered me a different perspective from the normal conclusions most often offered.

Readers should be cautioned about the use of the “N” word. The interviews abound with the term universally used by the former slaves in reference to themselves and others. I was also surprised at how many claimed American Indian ancestry. I had also thought that offspring from a slave and the master was an occasional occurrence. The interviews indicate that it was a common fact of life on the plantation and there are many references to the slave master being the father of one or more slave children. I had also assumed that the slaves welcomed the arrival of Northern troops and there were undoubtedly some who did. The interviews, however, point toward a general hatred of “Yankees” on the part of the vast majority quoted in the project. Even after seventy years, the primary recollection is that the invaders stole all of the food and livestock; burned houses, crops and churches leaving the slaves and their owners destitute.

The whole WPA project was a worthwhile effort when the Federal government offered employment to out-of-work writers and other artists during the Great Depression. I found it interesting, however, that the vast majority of these jobs went to white citizens. This was even more surprising when it becomes apparent that most of these former slaves were interviewed by local white writers. But as that may be, I found my reading quite engrossing and informative — but sometimes puzzling.

The former slaves who agreed to be interviewed were at least in their late seventies and older. I can personally attest that early memories have a tendency to fade or become distorted with age. Nevertheless, the reader must assume at least a modicum of accuracy and it is here that I found more surprises.

First of all, almost without exception, the participants were less harsh in their assessments of life under slavery than one might expect. The majority spoke lovingly of their white owners and their wives. The accounts are most often expressions of the generosity and kindness shown the slaves by their masters. But occasionally, the interviewee would let slip with contradictory and revealing statements such as, “My Massa never whipped his slaves — except when they deserved it.” This ambivalence of expression was quite puzzling to me, so, I decided to try to interpret their stories:

First, we must recognize that these expressions of devotion are being offered by formerly enslaved individuals who at that time had nothing else to compare life with. Under slavery, there was no way of true liberty being experienced by these individuals, thereby; allowing no proper assessment of what life was like under freedom. They sometimes almost authenticate the oft-heard expression of the “Happy Slave” myth. And it's true that more than seventy years after freedom, many of the former slaves assessed that life was better under slavery than under freedom. This opens up a whole new mystery of — Why?

Well, I have formed several of my own theories and they are just that — theories. First of all, perhaps even after seventy years or more, the participants were telling “whitey” what he/she wanted to hear, thereby, revealing another fallacy of all-white interviewers. Additionally, the participants were told that a permanent record was being prepared of their interviews; therefore, they were abundantly aware that their white contemporaries would have access to their testimony. Under the subservient life of the black population during the then-Jim Crow days, black people were mostly dependent upon white generosity. Could it be that those being interviewed were taking no chances of offending their white neighbors who were very often the children or grandchildren of their former masters?

Most also claimed to know little about or to have not had personal encounters with the KKK. Could it possibly be that they feared their comments might be read or heard by contemporary neighbors who had present-day associations with the Klan either personally or through other connections? We don't really know but we do know that the KKK was certainly still active from time to time during the period the interviews were taking place as well as before and after.

Additionally, the reader must conclude that freedom did not result in a life of immediate milk and honey. When they were freed, slaves were told that they could go and do whatever they wanted. But how? Through no fault of their own, most could not even read or write and had little knowledge of how to survive in a free society. Although several Union generals falsely spouted off about each slave being given “forty acres and a mule,” it was never the policy or intention of the federal government. In fact, both white and black Southerners faced generations of poverty that so-called “Reconstruction” instituted. It could have seemed to them that life was, indeed, better under slavery because under slavery they had been endowed (if somewhat poorly) with a job, home, clothing, medical attention and enough to eat. Now, they were abandoned to live on their own in an environment almost totally foreign to them.

And it's true that many if not most, freed slaves continued for the time being, to live on the former owner's land but worked for meager wages or shares of the crops they raised. (Share-cropping.) It didn't work out too well in many cases because the former slave-owning masters were also living in dire economic circumstances and barely able to provide for their own families. A better life was never ensured under Reconstruction.

I also found that the former slaves had a great deal of empathy for what they called “poor white trash” who were also trying to survive under conditions not unlike that of the freed slave.

Who knows for certain what the real narratives would reveal, unencumbered by the realities of life and circumstances during the generations following “The War?”

I don't regret the hours upon hours I have spent delving into the interesting narratives because they have given me much to speculate on. I can, however, continue to be convinced, as has most of civilized society, that any institution of human bondage is repulsive and against any concept of humanity.

Thank God it finally ended in America. But we have still not totally eradicated all of the lingering biases of what the interviewee termed, “Slave Days.” Perhaps, one day we will.



John Brock is a retired newspaper editor and college professor who lives in Georgetown County. He can be contacted at brock@johnbrock.com