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.