One of the recurring themes throughout
history is the notion that history has been written with a view from the top to
the bottom. As we have discussed during
class, much of the research done concerning African American history during the
Reconstruction era requires a historian to look past the bias that is typically
present in documents produced during this time.
The author Armstead L. Robinson provides many great examples in his article
titled Plans Dat Comed from God. I thought that it would be interesting
to take a look at some of the sources that he used, and how he was able to work
around potential biases that might be present in these documents.
Armstead’s
ability to work through the bias found in many primary sources is impressive,
and in the majority of the text he seems to primarily use a method of research
known as quantitative history. That is, throughout his article he uses censuses
and other documents that are based primarily off of numbers, and uses his
reason to extract meaning from them. For
example, in order to refute the claims of Reverend William G. Brownlow’s
suggestion that the African American population during the Reconstruction era
of Memphis were considered to be prone to “idleness, starvation and disease” (pg.
80), he analyzes documents that would seem to speak for themselves. The records
he uses in this example include: records of the Freedmen’s Bureau and arrest
records from the Memphis Police Department. He points out that the relative
lack of the African American‘s reliance on the Freedmen’s Bureau, and the few
arrests made tell a different tale than what the Reverend would have you
believe. In fact, the number of arrests
in this area pale in comparison to those of Irish immigrant workers who worked
on the railroad. Although Armstead does admit that this is not exactly direct
evidence, he states that this is certainly a fair amount of evidence refuting
Brownlow’s claims. Naturally, one can
never be too sure, as another historian might interpret these numbers and read
into other factors that say something else. I, however, think that Robinson’s
article provides great insight as to how one might approach researching the
history of a group that has a great deal of bias in sources concerning them.
Clearly, the
skillful use of quantitative history by Armstead L. Robinson in his article
show the merits how one might navigate the potentially hazardous environment of
African American History. What do you think about Robinson’s skill in
interpreting history through these documents? Are there any other methods,
besides quantitative history that he uses? What are some other texts you have
read that show a historians skillful use of another historical method?
