Lincoln's Birth

[kerry]

I didn't scrutinize them because I think it's impossible to figure it out at this point. Anyone could make a pretty bland claim, as that woman does, and sound credible. As she points out, there's not much to say about these things. It's a typical birth scene/naming scene, and those details re: the Indian, names, etc., were public. That makes me a little more inclined to give her credit, because she's not making wild claims or detailed ones 55 years later, but it's still 55 years later, and I'm sure that neat story/conversation was not copied down verbatim. I didn't realize there was an additional 42 years before reporting. I have virtually no faith in such accounts.

I don't really get Barton's logic, though I know it is common. I know we have to work with what we have, but just because it's the only account we have doesn't mean it should be used. Sometimes you just have to admit you don't have enough credible information about something. I've seen statements like, "this book is completely inaccurate, but as it is such a large part of the historiography, it must be taken into account." I get that you probably can't ignore it completely, but if it's clearly inaccurate, you don't actually have to include it just because others do. That's why I liked the latest biography on Stanton - the guy just left out the "he belongs to the ages" part with no explanation whatever. It's not credible, so he didn't include it.