vent, 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, David...
