Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photographs in America

Acquiring photographs is a difficult process for any archive, and as Charbonneau suggests, it is important to always consider both the institutional and intellectual value of an incoming collection. But what happens when an archive gets a hold of a valuable and divisive photographic collection? Is there a question of ethics when an archive purchases controversial materials?

James Allen’s lynching photographs and postcards collection was temporarily housed at the Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library of Emory University in Atlanta. The result of Allen’s partnership with Emory (in partnership with the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site) culminated in the 2002 exhibition: “Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America.” A year after James Allen publicly expressed his displeasure with Emory’s managing practices and later sold the collection to the National Center for Civil and Human Rights. From what little information we have about the dispute between Allen and Emory, we can learn more about the nature of collecting controversial photographs and the difficulty in maintaining successful relationships with donors.

Antiques collector and Atlanta native James Allen, along with his partner John Littlefield, spent twenty-five years[1] collecting the one-hundred plus photographs that would later become the “Without Sanctuary” exhibition. These photos gave Allen the chance to “[Put] a face on murder and racial hatred in America for the entire world to see . . .  For the need to have an outlet for my own disgust and anger at the status quo, I have relentlessly pursued these photos. With every image acquired, and every face of the gawkers and killers that is brought to light, I sense a quieting of the hounds that have dogged me since childhood.”[2]

With this in mind it makes perfect sense that Allen wanted Emory to house the collection. The archive has two notable special collections, one focused on African American history and another on Southern Culture. Although the collection would be a good fit, the issue of purchasing these photographs raises an important question: what are the stakes in buying these photographs? When the Clark Historical Library at Central Michigan University purchased Ku Klux Klan records members of the CMU administration and outside community questioned their motives and accused the archive of supporting racism.[3] Some African Americans viewing the “Without Sanctuary” exhibition also negatively reacted to the collection and accused Allen of making a profit from the suffering of others, but others recognized the significance of introducing this period of history to a wider audience.[4] As Karen Lamoree suggests, collecting these controversial materials allows the archive to show their interest in being “fair and even handed.” Since Emory has an interest in documenting Black Southern history, they have a responsibility to include all records that are symbolic, regardless of the subject matter. These photographs, although incredibly traumatic, are an important part of American history and should be preserved.  The university made the conscious decision to host public and institutional forums to help them develop a plan to successfully share the collection.[5] Efforts like this demonstrated that the archive was invested in the collection, but wanted to understand the needs of their users.

Even so, there is something disconcerting about the reported value of these photographs. In 2003 Allen unceremoniously removed the collection from the archive after years of negotiations. The university refused to match the alleged $1 million Harvard had offered for the photographs, and Allen was also reportedly frustrated with their lack of “imagination.”[6] While the university had co-sponsored exhibitions with Allen at different institutions the archive had yet to host a showing on campus. If this was the case, was the archive supposed to immediately produce an exhibition after receiving the collection? How long would it take to fully process the collection and make it available for research? Did any of the photos needed to be restored? Why did Allen refuse to donate the entire collection for free? Would there have been an uproar if Emory decided to match Harvard’s offer?
Although this is not directly related to archival practices, the act of buying a collection such as this is a complicated issue. The collection as a whole is worthy of preservation but the idea of an archive buying what is virtually depictions of mutilation and murder is disturbing. Especially when considering that the source is a White male antiques collector. Perhaps it’s easier to accept that it better that these items are no longer available on the market, but there is still an uneasiness when discussing the purchase of controversial collections.Regrettably there is very little information on why their partnership fell apart, but it’s apparent that both the archive and the donor had very different objectives for managing this sensitive collection. It’s unfortunate that the two parties were unable to settle their differences, but there is much to learn from their story.

The photographs currently have a new home at the National Center for Human and Civil Rights, which opens in Atlanta next month.

Cited Sources:

Emory may lose rare collection of lynching photos. (noteworthy news). (2003, January 16). Black Issues in Higher Education, 19(24), 10. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA97172553&v=2.1&u=mlin_b_simmcol&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=ee908feea3c1f6764377755f55ddd6af

Boles, Frank. "“Just a bunch of bigots”; a case study in the acquisition of controversial material." Archival Issues: Journal Of The Midwest Archives Conference 19, no. 1 (January 1994): 53-65.

Charbonneau, Normand. "The Selection of Photographs" Archivaria [Online], Volume 1 Number 59 (1 January 2005)

Fears, Darryl. (2002, January 28). Atlanta, Ready to Revisit an American Evil; After Two-Year Debate, Exhibit of Images Depicting the Lynching of Blacks Will Be Shown. Washington Post, p. A03. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA82247695&v=2.1&u=mlin_b_simmcol&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=8d5cd99aef368f26e1f57ae1b5dad008

Lamoree, Karen. “Documenting the difficult or collecting the controversial.” Archival Issues: Journal Of The Midwest Archives Conference Volume: 20 Issue: 2 (1995-01-02) p. 149-153.

MOEHRINGER, J.R. SUNDAY REPORT; “an obsessive quest to make people see; after antique collector james allen discovered scores of lynching photos, black americans were grateful--and confused. was his motive compassion--or something else?” Los Angeles Times, Aug 27, 2000. http://search.proquest.com/docview/421714071?accountid=15071 (accessed April 18, 2014)

---

[1] An article in Black Issues in Higher Education indicated that it was ten years but the official Without Sanctuary website claims that it was twenty-five.

[2] J.R. MOEHRINGER. 2000. SUNDAY REPORT; an obsessive quest to make people see; after antique collector james allen discovered scores of lynching photos, black americans were grateful--and confused. was his motive compassion--or something else? Los Angeles Times, Aug 27, 2000. http://search.proquest.com/docview/421714071?accountid=15071 (accessed April 18, 2014)

[3] Frank Boles. "“Just a bunch of bigots”; a case study in the acquisition of controversial material." Archival Issues: Journal Of The Midwest Archives Conference 19, no. 1 (January 1994): 53.

[4] Moehringer

[5] https://www.emory.edu/WithoutSanctuaryExhibit/press.html

[6] Emory may lose rare collection of lynching photos. (noteworthy news). (2003, January 16). Black Issues in Higher Education, 19(24), 10. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA97172553&v=2.1&u=mlin_b_simmcol&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=ee908feea3c1f6764377755f55ddd6af