Up a Tree Extra: Rabbit hole update

I thought I had figured out a solution or two to my problem of what Continental Army unit Sharon's third great-grandfather belonged to, and that I would be able to report a result that returned me from not-so-wonder(ful) land.

Alas, both solutions proved ineffective. I found a new source listing soldiers from North Carolina who'd fought in the Revolutionary War -- a list published by the Daughters of the American Revolution. The work is available on Google Books and is searchable. Alas, the section I could look through online did not include units and ranks of the soldiers, just their names accompanied by a number. I didn't take the opportunity to find out what the numbers meant but did look for her ancestor's name. He wasn't on the list. Perhaps he appears somewhere else in the volume, but I only had access to a section of the work.

I didn't find that particularly problematic except that it gave no support to John Womble's affidavit or the other  source I'd found that did kinda back up his claim. So I turned to another source, which listed a contact person.

I wrote and explained my dilemma, citing the sources that had caused the problem. The contact very kindly wrote back within a couple of days, but quite plainly explained that he had spent a good deal of time researching the information contained on his website, and that his work was considered definitive. By whom he did not say. He also informed me that so certain was he of his work that he didn't care what my sources were, they were wrong. 

I thanked him nicely and moved on. 

This reinforces my views on how we approach history and use it. Certainly I have not spent years researching any of this material, so I can't claim any kind of certainty. But it's frustrating to have multiple sources providing contradictory information and not have the tools to evaluate what should be given precedence. Imagine the dilemma for professional historians and writers of history who have more resources than I?

We're having quite a debate about what history should be taught and how. But much of the debate is led by people who are in no way professional historians or even dedicated amateurs and authors. Debaters on both sides toss about historical information to support their cause, often without need context. Arguing this way guarantees you'll arrive at your preferred conclusion. 

We saw this at work in a recent Supreme Court decision where the judge who authored the opinion tossed out the historical arguments in a previous decision because they took in too much history. The only history that matters, if I understood the judge correctly, is American history within a certain time frame. Never mind that our history did not develop in a vacuum. 

We need better debates. And they need to avoid the poles of "Look here, I've done all the necessary work, so I'm right and you should ignore anything else," and "Look here, I have a passing acquaintance with history and don't have to pay any attention to events and sources that don't back me up."  

Image: Coloring page available on kidadl.com