I could not agree more. First-hand accounts are ALWAYS absolutely true . . . free of any bias . . . never written for self-serving or agenda-driven purposes . . . and completely free of any other sources of error, such as faulty or induced memories. Context? Ha! Historians . . . and all " critics" who insist on "interpretation" and "context" should simply back off and let the documents speak for themselves . . . wie es eigentlich gewesen war . . . or some variation on that theme. Failure to do so means that the deeds of great men and women . . . such as those who fought in the two black Confederate regiments at First Manassas . . . would simply be . . . alas . . . forgotten! All hail the lost cause. Dan On Jun 15, 2007, at 12:18 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote: > I love the way historians like to take such first hand accounts > and discount > the veracity of the interviewee to meet their intellectual and > academic > point of view.