Primary Source Analysis

A primary source is created during the time period being studied by someone who witnessed or participated in events (letters, speeches, photographs from the era). A secondary source is created later by someone analyzing or interpreting primary sources (textbooks, documentaries, scholarly articles). Primary sources provide direct evidence; secondary sources provide analysis and context.

Questions to consider: (1) What was the soldier's role and location - could they observe the whole battle? (2) When was the entry written - during or after the battle? (3) Who might read the diary - would this affect what was written? (4) What details can be corroborated by other sources? (5) What biases might the soldier have based on their side, rank, or experiences?

The audience affects what an author includes, omits, and how they present information. A private diary might be more honest than a public speech. A letter to a friend differs from a letter to an employer. Politicians speaking to supporters might emphasize different points than when addressing opponents. Understanding audience helps explain the document's tone, content choices, and potential bias.

Speaker: Who wrote the editorial? Were they a reformer, journalist, or anonymous? Occasion: What prompted the editorial - a specific incident, proposed legislation? Audience: Who read this newspaper - working class, middle class, specific region? Purpose: To inform, persuade voters, or shame businesses? Understanding these elements helps interpret the editorial's arguments and potential biases.

Historians may: (1) Focus on different aspects of the source, (2) Use different analytical frameworks or questions, (3) Place the source in different contexts, (4) Weigh the source differently against other evidence, (5) Have different interpretive lenses based on their own perspectives. Primary sources rarely speak for themselves - interpretation is always involved.

Visual sources reveal: (1) Popular attitudes and emotions that text might not capture, (2) How people understood complex issues through metaphor and symbolism, (3) What audiences found persuasive or concerning, (4) Perspectives of those who might not have written formal documents. The octopus metaphor conveys fear of concentrated power more immediately than statistics about monopolies.

This limitation reveals: (1) The government's view of enslaved people as property rather than full persons, (2) The challenge of recovering individual stories from historical records, (3) The need to use multiple sources to understand enslaved people's experiences, (4) How official records reflect the biases and priorities of those who created them. Primary sources can reveal attitudes through what they include and omit.

Propaganda is valuable because it reveals: (1) What arguments leaders thought would persuade people, (2) What values and fears existed in society, (3) How governments tried to shape public opinion, (4) The visual and emotional techniques of the era. Bias does not make a source useless - it makes it useful for different questions. We study propaganda not for factual accuracy but for what it reveals about attitudes and persuasion.

This context tells you: (1) The speaker likely advocates for workers' interests, (2) The audience already supports the cause - the speech may rally rather than persuade, (3) Expect language emphasizing solidarity and workers' rights, (4) Historical context of 1920 (post-WWI, labor unrest, before Great Depression). Use this information to anticipate the speaker's purpose and interpret word choices.

Comparing sources: (1) Reveals different perspectives on the same event, (2) Helps identify facts that multiple sources confirm, (3) Highlights what is contested or uncertain, (4) Shows how position affects perception, (5) Provides a more complete picture than any single source. For example, understanding a strike requires sources from workers, owners, newspapers, and government - each sees the event differently.