Hannalee+Alrutz-+Machinery


 * __Source 1: Doc Edwards Interview, August 6, 1937 __**

Summary: This historical document is a primary source. Daisy Wheley interviews Doc Edwards, an enslaved African American man who served Paul Cameron and his son Benehan. He was a cook and a field hand. This interview provides Doc’s perspective of Cameron’s personality. It describes how they made tools, shoes, clothes, and food. A hand thrashing machine is noted. It separates wheat from the straw. The purpose of this document was probably to explain Doc’s experiences as a slave on Cameron’s plantation.

Contextualizing: The source was produced August 6, 1937 at Stagville plantation in North Carolina. This interview was part of the Federal Writers’ Project. This project was created in 1935 as part of the United States Work Progress Administration to provide employment for historians, teachers, writers, librarians, and other white-collar workers (Library of Congress). 2,300 first-person accounts of slavery are recorded. Before this interview, racial discrimination was common and lynching still happened. The Great Depression increased the amount of neglect and hostility shown to African Americans. The government started prohibiting discrimination.

Inferring: The source suggests that Cameron was either a benevolent slave master, or that African American slaves became so used to the conditions they were in, that when given the ability to change, they prefered their old lives. It also suggests that African American slaves were taught to accept the condition of life and those things out of your control. Society taught them to love the masters over them. Society said that they belonged as slaves because they were less human and needed harsh discipline and work. I think those societal values probably shaped Doc’s answers. He could also have said mostly nice things because he was being interviewed by a white female working on a federal project. The tensions of the day and fears could have shaped Doc’s answers. Doc indicates Cameron’s perspective. He makes Cameron sound like a caring father, one who makes him work out doors for his health, and one who has so many slaves, that he can’t keep up with them. He makes him sound carefree. Doc leaves out information about other slaves and their perspectives. He leaves out any harsh conditions (though not the hard work). This suggests either the interviewer did not ask about those things, or Doc did not want to mention them. He may not have been comfortable. We can also infer that Cameron was wealthy because he had many slaves and machinery.

Monitoring: We need more evidence from other slaves during this time of interviews or even documents during the time they were under Cameron to verify if Doc’s claims are true.


 * __Source 2: Paul Cameron Letter to Hon Cameron, November 8, 1847 __**

Summary: This is a primary source. Details include that Hon, Paul’s father, was sick but now better. They have a doctor. Mildred is sick and away from home. Paul had visited Anne and her children. Anne is his sister. Anne and Mary are sick, but the other children (Anne, Rebecca, Duncan) are getting better. Betsy, a slave girl, had died from sickness on the Little River Plantation. Many slaves are getting sick. Paul’s brother is also sick. Paul describes trade and money, late deals, and future budgeting plans. Economic times are tough, and the Camerons are having trouble with unfaithful business connections. The purpose of this text is to respond to a father’s letter and update a business partner in what is going on; what is affecting the production and selling. The author of this source is Paul Cameron, and he is writing to his father.

Contextualizing: The source was produced the 8th of November in 1847. It was written at Stagville and sent to Raleigh, NC. The source was produced in order to update Paul’s father and business partner of the sickness going around the slaves, and the condition of their crops and trade. This letter was written after Paul received a letter from Lewellyn in Alabama. Lewellyn, in charge of the Cameron plantation there, spoke of a sickness going through the slaves. A year before this letter to Hon was written, the Mexican-American War began.

Inferring: This source suggests that the Camerons own a big business. They have multiple plantations. They can afford to have a doctor look at their family in sickness and even their slaves (though they never get there in time). It is suggested that Paul and his father are very business oriented. They see the loss of life in the their slaves as a loss of business. Paul gives readers his perspective of family. He cares for his sister and her children. This might be because of his values, and also it may be a societal value. Siblings take care of each other.

Monitoring: More sources are needed to find out where Anne and the children are, though it seems they are with Hon in Raleigh. More sources are needed to understand the trade talk, and terms could be defined better.

__**Source 3: Charles Lewellyn Letter to Paul Cameron, October 31, 1837 **__

Summarizing: This source is primary. Lewellyn is updating Paul about the status of the plantation in Greene County, Alabama. He speaks about cotton bales and hogs. He also updates Paul about the slaves. Seventeen are sick though most not serious.

Contextualizing: This source was produced in Greene County, Alabama on October 31, 1847. It was sent to Paul Cameron in Orange County, North Carolina. It was produced because Lewellyn is in charge of Cameron’s plantation in Alabama and must keep the owner updated.

Inferring: Lewellyn uses very respectful language such as “dear sir,” which suggests that he is under Cameron in authority. He also speaks of Cameron employing people, which shows that Cameron has the authority to employ and fire workers.

Monitoring: We need more resources on Col. Tindal to better understand the source meaning.


 * __Source 4: Charles Lewellyn Letter to Paul Cameron, July 31, 1847 __**

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Summarizing: This document is a primary source. Lewellyn is writing to Cameron, the owner of the plantation in Alabama. Lewellyn is apologizing for a recent charge against him for packaging cotton falsely. The rains are causing wet cotton and worms. Lewellyn talks about the other crops doing well, and he gives reasons for his actions earlier to get the fodder collected in time. Cameron had worried that the hands and team suffered because Lewellyn pushed too hard to meet the deadline. Lewellyn updates Cameron on the sickness of two people in Alabama and his own sickness which is lingering. This letter was written in response to a concerned letter from Cameron about the wet corn falsely packed and the condition of his hands and team.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Contextualizing: This source was produced in Greene County, Alabama on October 31, 1847. Lewellyn produced this letter in response to a letter from Cameron. Lewellyn had been charged with falsely packing cotton, and Cameron had heard of Lewellyn pushing the team and hands hard in order to meet a trade deadline. Lewellyn is the author, and Cameron is the audience.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Inferring: It is suggested by Lewellyn’s long apology and explanation that he desires to keep his job. He promises that it will not happen again. He explains that even in his own home, he cannot stay dry, so it has been exceedingly difficult to keep the cotton dry. This very respectful and long apology suggests that Cameron may not be a very lenient boss. He probably takes business seriously and intimidates those under him. However, because Cameron was concerned for his hands and team when Lewellyn pushed them hard, it could be suggested that he is not only efficient in business, but he cares for his workers. However, he may just care because they are no good to him dead. It could be further interpreted this way because Lewellyn does not take too much time explaining the reasons for his actions. This suggests that he knew if Cameron understood the tight schedule he was in, he would understand the need to meet a deadline precedes over the needs of the workers.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Monitoring: We would need more information about who made the charge. Who told Cameron about Lewellyn’s actions? Who are Fanny and Caroline? We need more sources to figure out if these are slaves or family of Cameron's.

__**<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Source 5: Charles Lewellyn Letter to Paul Cameron, April 3, 1847 **__

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Summarizing: This source is primary. Lewellyn is the author, and Cameron is the audience. Lewellyn is updating Cameron about the cotton planting and the potential corn crop. Sillen is feeling better from sickness, and Lewellyn is being eaten by mosquitos. Lewellyn’s purpose is to give Cameron an idea of the possible plantation profit for the future.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Contextualizing: The source was produced on April 3, 1847 in Greene County, Alabama. It was written to give the owner of the plantation an idea of the possible future profit and the current crop attempts. Lewellyn was hoping for a better turn out this year with cotton because last year the rains ruined the cotton and gave it worms.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Inferring: It is suggested that Nathaniel is a new worker who has joined the team in Alabama. It is also suggested that Cameron is an organized man. Lewellyn tells him his schedule of planting, when things take longer than expected, and what the estimated turnout this year is going to be for crops. I interpret this as Lewellyn being organized and his boss expecting that from him.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Monitoring: This source is not very useful when it comes to machinery discussions, but I think it is when it comes to exploring Cameron’s personality. We need to further define the terms harnaws and funers. It would be helpful to have more sources on Cameron’s letters so we can see both sides of the dialogue.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Similarities between sources include trade and crop discussions, respect and thorough explanations when there are misunderstandings. All texts have to do with the Cameron plantations. The first text from Doc Edwards is very different from the others because the interview was done way later, and the letters were written during the time of the actions mentioned. All the letters spoke about sickness as well. I think we can pull out of all these sources that Cameron was a organized and efficient businessman who owned a lot of plantations. He had access to machinery and doctors, which gives evidence to his wealth and the amount of workers he had under him. We would need more sources about trading that went on and about Cameron’s family to give more context.
 * __<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Corroborating: __**

__**<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Claim: **__ <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Paul Cameron was a wealthy plantation owner who had the business skills to organize, maintain, and grow his land. Sources suggest that he had a serious and impersonal attitude toward work and was respected.

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">Reflection: <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",Times,serif;">This SCIM-C process is thorough. I found myself repeating a lot because the sources I pulled from had many commonalities. I learned history from the people who were actually there which makes it authentic and powerful. I enjoyed reading the documents, but it was tedious going through the SCIM-C questions. I believe students could definitely use this. It would need to be scaffolded however. If contextual information was not given through the primary source, I would have to provide them with other ways to find the context (such as the Library of Congress). Otherwise, they might just piece the story together based on what they find on Google. When it comes to pedagogy, this process implies that students can learn and discover for themselves. They do not need to be told the "right" answers; they can find them themselves! It also implies that history is based on interpretation. Many different people can analyze the same documents and come up with different stories. And finally, it implies that the best information is from eye witnesses. I love these implications because it puts learning in the students' hands. I do not need to be the master of all knowledge, as the teacher. Also, it gives a better view of history, a more holistic view, and of controversial discussions. One can claim anything if they can back it up with evidence from the primary sources.