Study material generated by AI from this openly licensed book (CC BY-SA 4.0). Not affiliated with or endorsed by the publisher.
The American Yawp, Volume 2, edited by Joseph Locke and Ben Wright, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Read the original free This shelf’s study material is shared under the same license (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Chapter 17 · pp. 557–564
History is built from evidence. Historians do not simply repeat what happened. They collect sources, ask who made them and why, and then argue for the best explanation of the past. This section explains the two main kinds of sources and why a careful historian never relies on just one.
A primary source is material created during the time being studied. It comes from people who lived through the events or from the period itself. Common examples include:
A secondary source is a later account that interprets primary materials. Its author usually was not present and is looking back, often after studying many primary sources. Textbooks, history articles, documentaries, and biographies are typical secondary sources.
Here is an example. A letter that a soldier wrote home in 1863 is a primary source about the Civil War. A modern article that analyzes hundreds of soldiers' letters to explain how troops felt about the war is a secondary source. The article depends on the letters, but it adds the author's own reading and argument.
The difference matters because it tells you two things:
The labels depend on the question being asked. A history book written in 1950 is a secondary source about the Civil War. But it is a primary source for someone studying how Americans in 1950 understood the Civil War. So always ask, "A source about what?"
No source is a perfect window onto the past. Each one was made by a person or group with a particular position, knowledge, and goal. This is true of primary and secondary sources alike.
When you read a source, ask these questions:
A source with a clear viewpoint is not useless. Bias is itself evidence. A one-sided account shows what its author believed or wanted others to believe. The historian's task is to read it with that in mind.
Because each source reflects its creator's viewpoint and purpose, historians cross-check (also called corroboration). They compare several sources about the same event, ideally from different kinds of people.
Imagine a factory strike. A government report might focus on property damage and keeping order. A worker's diary might focus on low wages, long hours, and fear of losing a job. A newspaper owned by the company might blame outside agitators. None of these is complete. Together they let the historian:
This process produces a more reliable account than any single source could. It also protects against two mistakes. One is trusting a source just because it is old. The other is trusting a source just because it is official.
Here is a simple routine you can use on any historical question:
Suppose you are asked how ordinary people felt about a new law. A senator's speech (primary) shows the official argument. A farmer's letter (primary) shows a personal reaction. A historian's article (secondary) may show a pattern across many letters. Using all three gives a fuller answer than any one alone.
