Robert Todd Lincoln --The vitals

[kerry]

(01-19-2018 10:22 PM)Anita Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 12:59 PM)kerry Wrote:  Yeah, it's the way things work. I used to be a news junkie, but while interning with the government noticed how horribly incorrect the newspaper was in literally every article about policies. That's when I realized you had to go to the actual primary source of everything before you could comment intelligently, and since then I've tuned out news. Interning as a law student only reinforced it, when briefs and arguments totally misrepresented actual testimony. My favorite thing is hunting down primary sources and figuring out how a story got going, but most people take everything at face value. It amazes me how solemn historical writing can be, when the writer is clearly dealing with a questionable and dressed up assertion, but reports it as fact.

Kerry, well said and an important subject. Do you often find the credibility of the primary source in question?

A lot of it turns out to be pretty suspect. What I find interesting is how little credible stuff there is from the Springfield years. It seems like all of Springfield read Herndon and Lamon's books, assimilated their actual memories to match, and repeated it to their grandkids. Almost no one is telling a firsthand story in the Springfield sources - those who knew kept their mouths shut. Graves being an example - he's retelling his brother's story several different ways, then mentions he and his brother argued over Mary's motive for the candy pull - to make up with the kids, or to spite Lincoln. It's not something either one could know, but they are comfortable confidently stating their assertions. The Washington years sources seem more credible. But the Springfield stories are just reprinted and dressed up until they get further and further from the truth. The whole adding a second story to the house thing is told in so many different ways that it is ridiculous.