Historians encounter a myriad of challenges in the quest to produce accurate information on those living in the “bottom rail” of society. For any credible research outcomes, researchers have to obtain firsthand information from the subjects under study. Unfortunately, such information is biased, inaccurate, or unavailable in most cases. This paper explores this issue by looking into the story, The view from the bottom, by James Davidson and Hamilton Lytle. Given the supposed illiteracy of the people living in the bottom rail, their stories could only be told from the white masters’ point of view. The majority of the slaves were illiterate, and thus they could not document their daily lives’ occurrences. Therefore, the only available information was from the white masters who kept diaries and other documents. In addition, due to their presumed superior mental capabilities, the white masters were the only people who could provide credible oral evidence of what was happening to the slaves. Therefore, when historians embarked on a journey to document information concerning the slaves’ experiences, they could only access information from the white masters. In other words, historians were learning about history through the perspective of the white masters, and this information was highly biased. The white masters were prejudiced, and their preconceptions about the slaves could not be altered easily. For instance, the white masters believed that the slaves were illiterate, and this preconception could not be changed. Therefore, in a bid to avoid unnecessary confrontation with their masters, the literate slaves acted as illiterates. This assertion stands out clearly in the story of Squires Jackson, one of the literate slaves. One time while going through a newspaper, Jackson was caught, and upon questioning, he decided to play the fool. In a witty defensive approach, he “deftly turned the newspaper upside down, put on a foolish grin, and said…”Confederates done won the war!” The master laughed and went about his business” (Davidson and Lyte, 150). From the above case, clearly, the white master was convinced that Jackson was illiterate, and he would assuredly record that in his diary. This information would be passed to the historians, and thus they ended up getting the wrong data. Ultimately, historians would encounter challenges when trying to present accurate information on those living in the “bottom rail.” After gaining freedom, Jackson would provide a different version of the same story, thus creating a conflict for the historians. On the other side, interviewing the slaves directly had its challenges. The slaves would give contradictory information concerning the same issue. In the worst cases, one person would give different stories on the same issue. Apparently, the slaves had learnt the skill of telling people what they wanted to hear; for instance, Susan Hamlin’s interview on her experiences as a slave. On one side, she told Butler, a white interviewer, that slavery was a very pleasant human encounter, and her master was one of the greatest persons that she ever met. She confessed that slaves were treated fairly well without any form of mistreatment. On the other side, when interviewed by Ladson, a black interviewer, she detailed the brutalities of slavery and branded it an inhuman act. This duplicity of ideas poses challenges to historians as they document information, and thus they cannot tell the tru