Essay about documents in Voices of Freedom: A Documentary

FIVE STEPS TO READING A PRIMARY SOURCE

Historians do not simply accept primary sources “as is.” We understand that both primary source creators and primary source readers (that’s us!) have significant limitations as we work together to try to understand the past. Primary source creators have the same limitations as any other human beings in trying to understand their own times. Their attempts to do so are very valuable to historians because they are the only witnesses to the past that we possess. But, they’re not perfect witnesses.

Likewise, as primary source readers, historians have their own limitations. Because primary sources were not originally created for us, the creators of primary sources do not always give us as much context as we might like. They are going to assume certain knowledge on behalf of their intended audience that we may or may not have access to. We often have to do some footwork to provide that context for ourselves. Because we were not “there,” either for the event being observed or to talk to the primary source creator as they were making the primary source, we are not perfect readers any more than the primary sources with which we are interacting were created by perfect witnesses.

The steps below are designed to help you read primary sources responsibly.

STEP 1: Contextualize the document

Who is the original creator of the primary document? Is there anything in our textbook or other readings about this person? Who is the intended audience for this primary source? Hint: It’s not you! So, who do you think the creator of the primary source originally had in mind? Why was this primary source originally created? What do you know about what is happening in the US history around the time of this primary source’s creation that might be relevant to understanding why it exists?

STEP 2: Determine What Argument the Primary Source is Making

Some primary sources are merely informative or descriptive. However, many are consciously trying to persuade the original audience to agree with the creator about something. A letter home might try to persuade parents to send more money. A political speech might try to persuade listeners to see a certain political issue in a certain way. Even an informative or descriptive primary source usually has an implied argument. After all, the creator has taken the time to create the primary source in the first place. Regardless of the primary source, ask yourself this question continually as you read: what does the creator want the original audience to believe or agree with when done interacting with this source?

STEP 3: Note HOW the Creator of the Primary Source Makes Their Argument

This step is worth doing multiple times as you are reading. Think about what you just read in the past few sentences or paragraphs and try to figure out how that portion of the primary source backs up the creator’s argument? What information did the creator include in those sentences/paragraphs, and how did that information help make their argument? What sorts of examples did the creator give, and why? You get the idea. Keeping track of HOW a creator is making his/her argument can help you understand the entire primary source – and its purpose -- much better. Remember, you are interacting with someone’s attempt to argue, witness, analyze, or describe within a past historical context. You still have to evaluate their attempt. They don’t get to be right just because “they were there.”

STEP 4: Identify Potential Biases and Limitations

Sometimes people have this strange idea that because they’re interacting with a primary source, they’re getting the “unbiased” version of a historical period or event. This is nonsense. People in the past are no more objective or omniscient than you or me. Like a good detective, you must “interrogate” your sources. Does the creator of the primary document have any obvious personal loyalties or ideological commitments that might influence the source? For example, what if your primary source about a Native American ceremony was written by a European priest? Or, what if you are reading a letter from Jefferson Davis describing the strength and wisdom of Confederate government officials during the war? In addition, does the creator of the primary document have any limitations that might affect how they understand what they are talking about? For example, what if you find a letter describing the experience of watching open heart surgery, but it’s not written by a doctor? Or, what if a civilian witness to the Battle of Gettysburg wrote in his diary why he thought Union forces won the battle? To say that a source is biased or limited in some way is NOT to say it is completely unreliable or useless! It just means that you need to read with a critical eye.

STEP 5: Identify Potential Issues of Censorship

Censorship – meaning information intentionally left out-- can come from outside the primary source creator. Outside censorship might come into play with something like a letter written home by a soldier serving on the front lines or a letter written by a prisoner to his family. In each case, these communications would be pre-screened before being sent on. Censorship can also come from the creator themselves (self-censorship). Self-censorship might happen if the creator leaves out certain information in light of who their primary audience is or what the intended purpose of the primary source is. So, for example, if you found a letter from someone trying to convince their relative to move to Chicago, they probably wouldn’t mention the sometimes brutal winters. Yet, such a letter wouldn’t refute the idea that Chicago can have brutal winters, right? Think about George Washington writing two letters on the situation at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777 – one to the Continental Congress, and one to be published in newspapers throughout the colonies. How might the content of those letters differ? To say that a source is censored in some way is NOT to say it is completely unreliable or useless! It just means that you need to read with a critical eye.