Knowing the difference between a primary and secondary source is extremely important, especially when it comes to studying historical events. A primary source provides a first-hand account, whether it be through a diary, journal, letter, or other documents of the sort. Primary sources allow historians to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an event. Secondary sources, on the other hand, include things such as pictures, articles, or textbooks about the primary source. The authors of secondary sources create their interpretations and narratives based on primary sources. Because of this, secondary sources can also be described as at least one step removed from the source under review. When it comes to slave narratives, they are considered a primary source. Slaves that went through the torment and brutality of slavery sharing their stories in a narrative, even if it's through an amanuensis, is the most valuable and reliable source for historians to get the best understanding of life in slavery.
Historians don't have many other sources to truly understand the emotional consequences slavery had on those who faced it. It was illegal to educate slaves and because of this, they were not able to keep journals or diaries throughout their time in slavery. Although other sources such as plantation account books and census data, for example, can provide information about the basics, like what they wore and ate, slave narratives are the only source that can allow an understanding of the part of slave life that was overlooked by their masters (Brown and Shannon, 208). Slave narratives provide a deeper, past the surface look into the psychological hardships that otherwise would never be published.
Fredrick Douglass, for example, provides great detail about his feelings and actions when he watched his master punish Aunt Hester. He explains seeing the blood drip to the floor and being so horrified he hid himself in a closet and dared not to come out until the beating was over, the whole time shaking with fear that his turn was next (Douglass, 6). Had it not been for Douglass's slave narrative, the fear and uncertainty he faced during those times would never have been known. Another example, but different, in his narrative is his recollection of his mistress, Sophia Auld. He said she was different than any other white woman he had ever seen. He described her as having the "kindest heart" and "finest feelings". He was so astonished at her goodness that he barely knew how to behave towards her. He states, "the meanest slave was put fully at ease in her presence, and none left without feeling better for having seen her," (Douglass, 28). This is significant because while he felt helpless and lived in fear, there was a white woman that could provide him and the other slaves a sense of peace, something they thought they would never feel again. It's special for him to be able to speak of her and because of his narrative, that was made possible.
In Henry Bibb's narrative, he reflects on seeing his little girl walk up to him and her mother with tears in her eyes and black bruises on her face in the shape of Mrs. Gatewood's hand. He can't explain with words what they felt and said, "Who can imagine what could be the feelings of a father and mother, when looking upon their infant child whipped and tortured with impunity…". He also must watch his wife get beaten knowing there is nothing he can do about it because they are both slaves, including their child. Knowing he brought her into this world just to be beaten and scorned is too much to bear and he vows she will be the last slave he ever fathers. (Brown and Shannon, 214). This excerpt from Henry's narrative is heart wrenching and shows the physical and mental abuse they faced, so strong that no matter how much he loves his little girl, although he pities her, he has satisfaction knowing he is the father of only one slave. This provides insight on just how extreme the conditions were for the slaves and that they wouldn't wish it on anyone and they especially wouldn't be the reason someone else was brought into it.
In Solomon Northup's narrative he tells about how he does what not many other slaves can say they did; he stood up to his master and told him no when he was told to take his clothes off for a beating. Not only that, but he beat his master until his arm ached. The feelings he felt afterward are provided in such detail the reader can almost feel them themselves. He says, "As I stood there, feelings of unutterable agony overwhelmed me. I was conscious that I had subjected myself to unimaginable punishment. The reaction that followed my ebullition of anger produced the most painful sensation of regret," (Brown and Shannon, 217). The fact that Northup had such a buildup of anger and resentment towards his master to beat him then immediately afterwards experienced a painful regret shows the reader what was going on inside of him, more than a textbook, or secondary source, could ever do.
These few examples from slave narratives show why they are so important in portraying the lives of enslaved people to the full extent. Slave narratives are the most reliable sources historians have access to because they are written by the people who experienced slavery first hand. They are able to go into detail about the hardships they faced while in slavery and the effects it had on them psychologically. Although, some people argue their reliability depends on the motives the person who produced it had. For example, authors who are just trying to profit from the narratives will focus on the more heart wrenching topics such as abuse and escape and not so much on topics such as their daily work or family lives. Additionally, almost all narratives were written by an amanuensis who organized the story and added or took away information to fit. Because of this, most slave narratives are the same style- they start with a summary of the slave's birth and parents, tells about the negative effects of slavery, and discuss the religious hypocrisy of the slave owners, for a few examples (Brown and Shannon, 209). This arises questions of the reliability of them as a source because it's hard to distinguish the fictional and nonfictional elements in the stories.
The types of sources historians use are extremely important because they are what they rely on to examine the past and give everyone a better, truthful understanding of it. Historians use primary sources because they are as close as possible to the actual historical event. The problem with secondary sources is that details can be left out and added so easily as someone passes the information along. For example, someone can describe Fredrick Douglass's experience in slavery from what they read about it, but for the best information, reading his slave narrative, a primary source, is what should be done.
Understanding the purpose for the creation of a source and the context it was written in is crucial. When evaluating sources, there are a few questions to answer to make sure you fully understand the context. Determining a few things such as if the document is an original or a copy, the date it was created, what was going on during that time, the author of the source, biases the author might have, and the intended audience is a good place to start (Analyzing Primary Sources). It is also important to understand how the language and concepts used were interpreted during that time, since meanings change over time. Historians have to be willing to understand the source and its concepts on its own terms. Determining the context of a source is the foundation needed to support further research.