Things Lincoln never said

[Rob Wick]

This speaks broadly to the differences between academic and non-academic historians as well. Certainly reminisce, to be considered valid, needs to be written closer to the time it was supposedly heard, but that doesn't mean anything written 25 or 30 or even 50 years after has to automatically be considered suspect. While it might be less accurate in the details, it's quite possible that it was correct in the main. It was often said of Sandburg that he relied too much on reminisce and was uncritical in his acceptance of stories, and to some extent that was true, but in what he was trying to get across, I would say he was far more correct than many who slave over every footnote and demand incontrovertible proof that something happened. If we required that in the historical field, not much would ever get written.

Best
Rob