Quote:
Originally Posted by monster
As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.
|
Historians do. They also draw on other evidence, but that official record is invaluable. Not just because of what it says, but because of what can be inferred from it. I regularly consult the parliamentary record fro the period I study. I look at eveything from house debates to committee minutes. What's said and done in the House can tell historians a great deal. Not least because it is a public record of the political preoccupations of the day. When I was researching attitudes to desertion in the 18th century, my research took me all over the place, from the personal letters and memoirs of soldiers, through the debates on military finance, to the in-letters of the Secretary at War.
If the business of Congress is not routinely recorded in the way parliamentary business, without a special effort to do so, then speaking as a historian, I'd really rather they took the time to do so.
[eta] sorry, hadn't seen your previous post
But to answer it: one source is not necessarily more or less useful than another. They each bring certain benefits and also bear certain dangers. The best kind of evidence for a historian is a multiplicity of sources *smiles*. Preferably of such variety as to allow a glimpse into many aspects of the subject. That includes popular response and official record.