The 1911 Mill Strike Plaque
The Aldergrove County Historical Society must install a permanent exhibit for the mill's 120th anniversary, opening in five months. Its holdings are: 43 letters written by striking workers in 1911, donated in 1988 by a strikebreaker's descendants; 12 letters from the mill owner's family, donated last year on the condition that nothing be displayed "that defames my grandfather"; and a payroll ledger covering six weeks of the strike, which a volunteer has partially transcribed. The board is split. One trustee says the owner's letters are "official records" and therefore the most reliable; another says the workers' letters "prove" the owner starved families. A teacher on the board wants a label that lets students "decide who was right." The display budget is $9,000, there is no archivist on staff, and the society must decide whether to accept the owner family's condition.
1. A trustee argues that the owner's family letters are the most reliable evidence because they are "official records." Assess this claim.
Read the worked answer
The claim confuses institutional authorship with accuracy. Three tests:
- Provenance and purpose. Private family letters are not official records at all; they were written to persuade, reassure or justify. Official status would matter if these were mill minutes or court filings, which carry different incentives but are still not automatically true.
- Question-relative reliability. A source is reliable for a question. The owner's letters may reliably show how the family explained the strike to itself. They cannot establish wages, hours, or whether force was used.
- Corroboration and silence. The payroll ledger is the closest thing to a record here. It can test claims about pay and who was on the books, but it will be silent on coercion and intent.
Nor does the strikebreaker descent of the workers' letters make them suspect: provenance shapes how you read a source, it does not apply a blanket discount. The donation condition is an ethics and access problem, not an evidentiary one.
2. Identify one question the collection as described cannot answer, and name the kind of source that could.
Read the worked answer
Question: did strikers' families actually go hungry? The letters assert it and the payroll ledger shows pay, not household consumption. A wage figure alone cannot settle it, because hunger depends on prices, rent, credit and whether other household members earned.
Sources that could: local grocers' account books, charity and poor-relief distribution records, rent rolls, a Board of Trade retail price series for the town, or newspaper reports of relief kitchens. Even then the answer would be partial, since relief may have gone unrecorded.
This matters for the label. Without such sources the exhibit should say "workers described going hungry," not "workers went hungry." The first quotes a source and keeps the attribution visible; the second silently endorses the claim. That distinction is the core historical-literacy move the exhibit is meant to teach.
3. Draft a three-sentence exhibit label of about 60 words that presents the strike without presentism, and explain in two sentences how your wording handles the evidence problem.
Read the worked answer
Label: "In 1911 the Aldergrove mill stopped for eleven weeks. The letters shown here - from strikers' families and from the owner's - disagree about why the stoppage began and what it cost. The payroll ledger records what each side was paid; it does not record what either side believed."
How it works: The label attributes every claim to a named viewpoint, so no contested assertion is presented as settled fact while both sides are still heard. It also names the limit of the ledger explicitly, which turns the collection's silence into part of the interpretation rather than something the curator hides. The phrase "disagree about why" replaces "who was right," moving the visitor from verdict to analysis - which is what the teacher asked for, without pretending the sources are neutral.