7042 - Evaluating contemporary sources
Learn how to judge a source's value for a particular historical enquiry by connecting its content, creation and historical context. A complete short document and its background are supplied, so no prior knowledge of an option is needed.
Value for a particular enquiry
A source is valuable because it helps a historian answer a question, so begin by identifying exactly what the enquiry asks. A leader's letter might reveal that leader's fears very well while revealing little about the feelings of ordinary people. Its value changes with the question.
Contemporary source
Material produced during the period being investigated. Its date places it within that situation, but does not guarantee that its claims are accurate or that its creator knew everything relevant.
Primary evidence comes from the people, institutions or material traces being studied. A participant's memoir written much later can be primary evidence of their recollection, but it was not contemporary to the earlier event: memory, later experience and hindsight require evaluation. A later historian's explanation is a historical interpretation, an argument constructed from evidence. Evaluate that argument as an interpretation; do not treat it as a contemporary witness statement. The category depends partly on the enquiry: a historian's book can itself be primary evidence for a study of historical thinking when the book was written.
Value is broader than factual accuracy. An inaccurate claim may reveal a fear, assumption or attempt to persuade. Conversely, an accurate fact may contribute little to the particular enquiry. Ask what the source reveals, what supports that inference, and where that use reaches its limits.
This foundation practises AO2: analysing and evaluating source material within historical context. Its checks are formative. Applying the method to your examined depth option requires that option's knowledge. For a submitted Historical Investigation, your research, source judgements and writing must remain your own; a practice model here is not text to submit or a means of authenticating NEA.
Read content in its immediate context
Reading a source accurately means distinguishing what it states from what you infer, using the circumstances at the time of creation. The following document allows us to practise that distinction.
Background supplied for this example
In 1864 the United States was fighting a civil war. Abraham Lincoln was president of the Union government, which sought to preserve the United States against the Confederate states' attempt to form a separate country. The war had begun in 1861. During summer 1864, costly fighting and a lack of decisive Union success made Lincoln's political position look insecure. His advisers also warned him that he might lose the coming presidential election.
The election was due on 8 November 1864. A president elected to replace him would take office at the inauguration on 4 March 1865; Lincoln would remain president in the interval. A president elect means a person elected president who has not yet taken office. Lincoln wrote this memorandum on 23 August, before the election. He folded and sealed it and asked his cabinet ministers to sign the outside without reading its contents.
Source: Lincoln's memorandum, 23 August 1864
Abraham Lincoln, Memorandum on Probable Failure of Re-Election, Washington, 23 August 1864. The full main text, including dateline and signature, follows the Library of Congress transcription of Lincoln's original manuscript in Series 3 of the Abraham Lincoln Papers, transcribed by the Lincoln Studies Center. The cabinet endorsements on the reverse are omitted; there are no cuts within the main text, no translation and no modernisation of wording. The 1864 document is public domain; the Library also identifies its digital scans as public domain. Credit: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Abraham Lincoln Papers. Original and transcription.
Executive Mansion
Washington, Aug 23, 1864.
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.
A. Lincoln
The opening records an expectation of defeat. “Exceedingly probable” expresses strong pessimism, not certain knowledge of the result. “My duty” makes the next sentence a statement of intended conduct if defeat occurs. It does not report conduct already carried out. Lincoln also asserts that the future winner's electoral position would prevent that person from saving the Union later. That is Lincoln's assessment of a possible successor, not independent proof of what the successor would do.
For an enquiry into Lincoln's attitude to preserving the Union in August 1864, these distinctions matter: the document connects electoral anxiety with a proposed response to what he perceived as a danger to the country. It is not a general survey of public opinion or a report of the eventual election result.
Connect provenance, style and emphasis
Provenance becomes useful when you explain how a source's creation affects what it reveals about the enquiry. Naming an author, date or document type is only the beginning of the reasoning.
Provenance
A source's origin and circumstances of creation, including its creator, date, position, access to information, intended audience and purpose.
Lincoln's position gave him access to military reports and political advisers. The supplied context of costly fighting and warnings about defeat therefore makes his pessimism understandable. Yet access does not make him an observer of every voter's mind. The document is strong evidence of his recorded assessment, rather than a measured finding that all voters opposed him.
Its restricted circulation also matters. The cabinet signed a sealed document, and it was not a campaign speech addressed to voters. This reduces the immediate pressure to use its words to win public support. But confidentiality is not a guarantee of complete candour: Lincoln was deliberately preserving a commitment to duty that could shape how his conduct was understood later. Treat that purpose as a reason to analyse the words carefully, not as proof that the whole document was false.
Style and emphasis are part of that evidence. “My duty” presents cooperation as an obligation. Repeating the aim of saving the Union makes national survival central to the commitment. The sharp claim that a successor “can not possibly” save it afterwards conveys the danger Lincoln perceived, while also reflecting his political standpoint. Saying only that the tone is serious or the source is biased leaves this connection unexplained.
The method also applies to public material. A speech designed to persuade an audience might simplify or exaggerate, limiting its value as a balanced account. The same choices can make it especially valuable for studying the speaker's priorities or methods of persuasion. Explain the effect of the actual purpose and audience on the actual content; do not give every speech or private letter the same verdict.
Separate writing-time knowledge from later outcomes
Historical context includes what had happened when a source was created, while later events help us test its claims without giving its creator knowledge of the future. These are different uses of context.
After Lincoln wrote the memorandum, Union forces captured Atlanta on 2 September 1864. This military success improved the outlook for his campaign. Lincoln won re-election on 8 November. Those facts show that the anticipated defeat did not happen. They do not show that he knew in August that victory was coming, or that his recorded fear must have been insincere. The word “probable” itself leaves room for a different outcome.
Thus the source has a clear limit as a forecast of November, but remains valuable for studying perceptions in August. Its apparent error can help a historian recover the uncertainty that later knowledge conceals. Connect the August pessimism with the military and political difficulties already supplied, then distinguish those circumstances from the later change.
Limitations must remain specific to the enquiry. The memorandum cannot establish all voters' attitudes, measure the overall military balance, or prove that Lincoln would have carried out the promised cooperation: the situation that would have required it never occurred. It nevertheless directly records the commitment he chose to make. His politically partial view of a possible successor also helps reveal what he believed was at stake, although it cannot by itself establish the successor's intentions or ability.
Absence requires similar care. This short commitment does not discuss every military, social or political issue. That omission limits what it can show about those subjects; it is not automatically a flaw for an enquiry into the particular attitude it does express. Seek additional relevant evidence when the question extends beyond its reach. Corroboration can strengthen a factual inference, but does not remove the need to evaluate each source's own purpose and context.
Make a substantiated value judgement
A substantiated judgement explains what a source contributes to the particular enquiry and why, while defining the limits of that use. The content, provenance and context should work together in that explanation.
For the enquiry “What was Lincoln's attitude to preserving the Union in late August 1864?”, a strong judgement might begin with the relationship between fear and duty. Support it with the prediction of defeat and the intended cooperation, explain why Lincoln's position and the August difficulties matter, then qualify what can be inferred. This produces a judgement about evidence rather than a list of source features.
Worked evaluation of the supplied source
The memorandum is especially valuable for studying Lincoln's recorded fear that election defeat could endanger the Union and his stated intention to respond. He links probable defeat to a duty to cooperate with a president elect before the March inauguration. As president, he received military and political information, and the summer's costly fighting and advisers' warnings give a specific basis for understanding his pessimism. The sealed memorandum was not an immediate appeal to voters, so it gives evidence of a deliberately recorded commitment beyond public campaigning. However, preserving that commitment could also present him as putting duty before party; it is evidence of his stated intention, not proof of how he would have acted after defeat. His claim that a successor could not save the Union reveals his political fears but cannot establish that successor's intentions. Later victory limits the memorandum as a forecast, yet does not diminish its particular value for recovering the uncertainty and priorities he recorded in August.
The judgement is balanced because it distinguishes well-supported uses from claims the evidence cannot carry. It does not manufacture an equal number of strengths and weaknesses or insist that every source is equally valuable. Another supported evaluation could place more weight on the document's deliberate presentation of duty. It would still need to explain that reading through the words, circumstances and specified enquiry.
Move from a relevant detail to a reasoned inference: explain how its content and creation, assessed in context, make it valuable for this enquiry. Qualify the use where the evidence runs out. “Biased”, “private” and “contemporary” are starting descriptions, not finished evaluations.
Quick recap
Begin with the enquiry. Read what the source actually says, connect its creation to that content and use the historical context to explain its value and limits. A prediction can reveal an earlier fear without proving the later outcome; a stated intention does not prove a completed action. Privacy and political partiality are features to investigate, not automatic verdicts.
The genuine Component 2 source question supplies three sources and awards one holistic AO2 mark out of 30 using the published best-fit levels. It is not three separately scored answers out of 10. Evaluate every source's content and provenance in context for the specified enquiry, giving supported value judgements. You may work source by source or use an integrated approach. Comparison, an introduction and a conclusion are not required. The short checks in this lesson develop the method with original formative rubrics and do not replace that full task. AQA scheme of assessment.