Module 1 Reading Answers
How appropriate are WPA oral history slave narratives as Primary Sources for Reconstruction?
As previously stated, the Hannah Irwin narrative seems to contain some sort of bias towards African Americans. The very writing style that the narrative was written in attempts to convey that Hannah is highly uneducated. It shows choppiness when reflecting Hannah's account, but perfectly logical authorship when the narrator is asking a question. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the narrator's own racial bigotry spilled over even into the exact events of the story. It wouldn't be fair to convict the narrative as being entirely false, but I feel that there is too much bias conveyed to by deemed an appropriate and fully accurate slave narrative.
Hannah Irwin Describes Ku Klux Klan Ride (Late 1860s)
In this oral narrative, Hannah Irwin recounts her particular memory of former slaves attempting to forcefully take over a plantation and the reaction from her boss that she was sharecropping for. Her boss, as well as many other KKK members, forced the rebellion off the plantation with threat of certain death if they returned. Although this narrative is a first hand account, its hard to tell the exact facts behind the events itself. The narrative reeks of racial bias towards African Americans. Taking into account when the narrative was transcribed, this could easily reflect the sentiments of the narrator or perhaps just the misguided prejudice of Hannah herself. Considering the degrading conditions she was born into, it wouldn't be hard to believe that she has some deep seeded negative attitude towards her own race.
Jourdon Anderson to His Former Master (1865)
Jourdan's letter seems to encompass the plight of former slaves during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War. Although there was a strong desire to be free of the former slave owners that mistreated African Americans for over a century, many former slaves knew no other life outside of the lands they had toiled for years. Without any land or compensation to start their new lives, the best option for many was to return to the oppression they had fought for so long to escape. Jourdan's position differs in the sense that he has already established a home and is making a livable income. All things considered, it would make almost no logical sense for him to return to work for Colonel Andersen. My best estimation of why exactly he expresses interest in such an offer, besides the compensation, is that he has already established rapport with his former owner. Considering the tone of the letter, it is obvious that the two have a shared trust. Jourdan perhaps interprets Colonel Andersen's offer as an opportunity to gain general rights and respect. The predominant opinion of Southern Whites at the time was that former slaves definitely did not deserve the same basic human rights that the whites had. Perhaps this was something Colonel Andersen could offer Jourdan and his family that no other employer could.
"When We Worked on Shares, We Couldn't Make Nothing": Henry Blake Talks About Sharecropping after the Civil War
On the basis of Henry Blake's account, the quality of life for African Americans didn't improve drastically once they were freed. In fact, their quality of life even seem to be degraded in some respect. Under the control of slave owners Henry and his family had few freedoms, but, by his own account, were treated somewhat fairly. Post Civil War, there were curfews, restricting laws, and much more violence (on the part of the KKK) toward Henry and his family. They lived in constant fear of being caught and beaten by bigoted, racist Southern whites. Career choice also remained very limited. Like most former slaves at the time, Henry's father chose to remain with his former slave owner as a sharecropper. The piling debt from toiling their plot of land left Henry's father, as well as many other former slaves, in an endless cycle from which they would be beaten or jailed if they tried to escape. In a sense, slavery was just hidden behind a new facade.
Mississippi Black Code (1865)
The set of laws know as the "Black Codes" was the foremost attempt of Southern lawmakers to be in accordance with the new amendment that gave African Americans rights while simultaneously restricting them in a dehumanizing manor. Under the Black Codes, had many of the same rights as whites, such as the ability to serve on a jury and purchase property, but there so many restrictions on said rights that it was basically as bad as being a slave. The Mississippi Black Codes in particular were broken up into three basic parts: Civil Rights of Freedmen, Apprentice Law, and Vagrant Law. Under the Civil Rights of Freedmen, freed slaves were entitled to fair wages, but they could only obtain those wages after a full year of work for an employer. Otherwise they could be jailed or even forced to work for said employer. Apprentice Law simply made any freed slave under the age of 18 without a legal guardian basically a slave again. Vagrant Law held all other unjust laws together by banning freed slaves from owning any sort of weaponry or gathering in any sort of setting that wasn't related to religion/church. This prevented any sort of rebellion from the mistreated minority.