FREE ESSAY ON THE VIEW FROM THE BOTTOM RAIL

THE VIEW FROM THE BOTTOM RAIL

"The View from the Bottom Rail"
After the Fact, Volume II
James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle
Copyright 1986 by Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Pages 177-210
Grant Hopkins
AP U.S. History II
September 11, 2000
The Lewinsky Scandal… A perfect example as to why we cannot accept everything at
face value before carefully examining it first. Everyone thought President Clinton was
behaving himself in the White House, but, as it turns out, he was most definitely not.
This can be the same for history. We must carefully consider different aspects of
articles so that we do no make the mistake of believing everything we read. In order to
fully understand an article, we must understand the author that wrote it. It is necessary
to examine prejudices, sources, information left out, and missing background information
before accepting an article. This method of critical analysis allows us to better
understand the article and therefore history because we are more aware of the authors and
their possible mishaps. "The View from the Bottom Rail", an article in After the Fact,
provides an opportunity to examine different aspects of analysis. If we look at it
carefully, then we will be able to determine if the thesis was proven effectively. 
In "The View from the Bottom Rail", the authors, James Davidson and Mark Lytle, proposed,
"For several reasons, that debased position has made it unusually difficult for
historians to recover the freedman's point of view." Within the article, Davidson and
Lytle cycled through different aspects as to why it is hard for historians to determine
the "view from the bottom rail". They questioned the validity of many sources that, if
accurate, would have contained the perspective of an ex-slave. These sources included
both white and black testimony. 
In order to examine these sources, the authors traced the topics using microcosm. Because
they were covering a topic and not an event, microcosm was the most appropriate method of
examining the subject. Davidson and Lytle first introduced a source. Then, they pondered
over the different ways that the source could be biased. They took small segments from
the source and used those to demonstrate why the source could not be taken at face value.
For example, when examining the proposed source of a slave master's account, Davidson and
Lytle examined one aspect of this to make a conclusion. They determined that, "With
slaves so dependent on the master's authority, they were hardly likely to reveal their
true feelings; the dangerous consequences of such indiscretion was too great." Therefore,
they were able to conclude that, for the most part, a master would never truly know what
his slave's point of view was. The authors proceeded to attack the other sources in this
method.
The other sources that Davidson and Lytle examined were not only diverse but also
effective. Many of the sources were direct quotations from the words of freedmen,
including two in-depth interviews of the same ex-slave by different reporters. Other
sources included stories and writings of both southern and northern whites. While almost
all of the sources were primary, many were taken from secondary source books that
included the words of primary sources. Taking primary sources from secondary source books
can be a dangerous habit because it is not known what the author of the secondary source
chose to leave out. The primary sources may have already been biased even before Davidson
and Lytle were able to make their own focuses. However, some of the sources were direct
primary sources such as letters and diaries. In addition, all sources used were done so
effectively. The diversity of the sources made the authors' argument more convincing
since their views were not limited to one kind of source. 
By not depending heavily on any one type of source, Davidson and Lytle were able to cover
multiple opinions. This effective use of research leaves very few questions unanswered.
However, it would be helpful to know how location affected the freedman's point of view.
Blacks were treated differently depending on location, workplace, and status. The authors
failed to examine different locations as changing point of views. Since the authors
establish that it is difficult to determine the point of view at all, it was not their
responsibility to answer this question. However, it would be helpful to know this just
because it is an unanswered question.
Another minor malady of the paper, besides leaving one or two questions unanswered, is
that the authors subconsciously have prejudices. While subtle and few, prejudices may
color the authors' view. Early in the article, Davidson and Lytle commented that,
"…most histories suffer from a natural "top-rail" bias. They stated that those who
are educated and wealthy are for the most part the writers of history. This seems to be
correct if we examine the backgrounds of historians, especially those further into the
past. Although the social and racial status of Davidson and Lytle is unknown here, it is
statistically safe to assume that the authors can be considered "top rail". They are
almost confessing to be biased from the start. Furthermore, Davidson and Lytle made one
prejudice comment. They wrote that, "By and large, those on the top rails of society
produce the best and most voluminous records." While it may be documented that those on
the "top rail" produce the most voluminous records, the simple use of the word "best" is
a red flag for a prejudice. This word entirely suggests an opinion. With opinions, come
mental baggage and therefore prejudices. However, overall this was the only display of
any prejudices. This attitude was not seen again at any other point. In the end, it did
not effect the article at all. The authors go on to prove the thesis with no more
slip-ups.
In reminder, the author was trying to prove that the social status of a freedman made it
very difficult for historians to determine an ex-slave's point of view. Despite the minor
questions left unanswered and subtle prejudices, the authors did an excellent job of
proving their thesis. Davidson and Lytle use a great depth of research, not limited to
one kind of source. The suitable use of microcosm provides a very effective job of
examining these facts needed to prove the thesis. The authors explain why it is hard to
except the testimony of any contemporary of freedmen, even freedmen themselves. Davidson
and Lytle prove that masters would not truly know what the opinion of the slave was. They
also prove that in direct testimonial from an ex-slave to a white person, the story might
be limited or exaggerated depending on the circumstances of the interview. It was also
proven that white northerner accounts could not always be trusted because of their
limited knowledge of slaves due to their separation in lifestyles. Overall, the authors
were able to prove that any source containing the freedman's point of view cannot be
taken at face value. There were too many reasons why either the ex-slave might chose to
limit what they told or why the white person did not know what the truth was. In the end,
any audience should be convinced that it is difficult to discover the freedmen's point of
view because of the status they endured.
While the thesis was proved thoroughly and effectively, there were occasions where more
information would have been useful. As earlier mentioned, the authors used two interviews
of the same ex-slave by different reporters. At the time of the interview, this ex-slave
was very old, estimated to be over ninety years old. The authors do question whether her
mental status was viable or not. However, further background information was needed. It
was imperative for the authors to examine the validity of this source before using it. It
is not know if the ex-slave was capable of recalling accurate details of her life. Since
the authors' argument was that the same slave told two different stories depending on the
circumstances of the interview, how do we know if the stories varied because of the
circumstances or because of a poor or maybe even imaginative memory? This background
information would make the authors' arguments even more convincing. However, if we assume
that the ex-slave was capable, then the argument is flawless.
Overall, the article was well written. Only minor aspects were left uncovered. In
addition, not much background information was needed. Also, the authors' only had sparse
and subtle prejudices. A variety of sources was used effectively. In the end, the thesis
was proven convincingly. Almost all audiences would be assured that, "For several
reasons, that debased position has made it unusually difficult for historians to recover
the freedman's point of view."