William Ward
Professor Farless
HIS3600_CMB-25Spring 00251
18 January 2025
Primary vs Secondary Sources
When it comes to Primary and Secondary sources its clear what makes them different. Primary is firsthand accounts while secondary is retelling or combining information from firsthand accounts. Neither of these perfectly means that the narrative or ideas conveyed and either of these is that of truth or free of bias nature. Primary and secondary can have a variety of motives and ideals placed into them and it’s the job of the historian or person reviewing them to determine and see those purposeful or ignorant biases.
Primary sources throughout history have a great issue with bias nature. Winston Churchill said it best about history, history is written by the victors. When reviewing written opinions and accounts of nations and peoples there is very ample time throughout written history for blatant bias to be shown. For example, the written work that still exists for Nations like Carthage or First Persian Empire the Achaemenid Empire are almost entirely written from their conquerors. Which is why almost all written accounts and thoughts on them are always taken with grain of salt. When it comes validity primary sources it can be best defined as, “Although primary sources comprise the basic material with which they work, historians do not take the evidence provided by such sources simply at face value. Like good detectives, they evaluate the evidence, approaching their sources analytically and critically” (Rampolla, 2024). Primary sources can provide keen information but should always be maneuvered through with a clear cut as day understanding they may not be accurate or truthful information.
When it comes to secondary sources, they also have unique qualities. Secondary sources, especially ones covered in academic field, are usually created collections of primary sources to paint a narrative to share the idea of information the author is trying to bring forth. Which brings forth problematic nature, “Sometimes, students hesitate to question the conclusions of established scholars; nevertheless, as with primary sources, it is important to read secondary sources critically and analytically, asking the same questions you ask of primary sources” (Rampolla, 2024). Secondary sources can have clouded judgement or bias narratives painted and just because they are written by scholars and academics doesn’t mean they are free from problems. I personally saw this experience firsthand when taking on Civil War and Reconstruction with Professor Sacher. In it we saw the narrative of who freed the slaves, which evolved from Abraham Lincoln to the idea of the slaves freed themselves. The events that led to self-emancipation taken in mass wouldn’t have ever transpired had the civil war not started because an abolitionist was elected, Lincoln, which was quite glossed over by those secondary source authors. Which is why one must look at secondary sources also with a grain of salt and evaluate what you read the main skill for looking at sources critical thinking.
Works Cited
Rampolla, Mary Lynn. A Pocket Guide to Writing in History. Bedford/St. Martin’s, Macmillan Learning, 2021.