r 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 via...
