Abstract

When faced with a primary source which seems to refute received historical knowledge, what should the historian's response be? The first step is to determine the truth of the statement. The source must be examined for its authenticity, date, and place of inception. It is also necessary to examine whether the witness meant what he literally said, whether he was physically and mentally capable of telling the truth, and whether he had any motivation to lie. In the case of a letter by Charles Ellet accusing Grant, Porter, and Sherman of treason, the testimony loses its credibility when the circumstances of Ellet himself were inspected. But validity is only one use of an historical source. For example, Ellet's story reveals the intraservice rivalry present during the Civil War. What answers an historical document provides depends upon the questions asked