------------------
Andy your post is 'spot on' with contemporary sources. I had the experience of gathering with most of my surviving platoon members from my war.
Honest to Goodness I wasn't sure that we were all in the same platoon! The remembrance we all had for any particular operation or LRP, wasn't consistent very much. One of us would tell of an incident & there would be very little accuracy in the story with different partners, squad members, enemies opposed or uniforms worn by them & time of year it took place in. NOBODY was BSing but almost 50 years later & with only some pictures &
scars EVERYONE of us would've of sworn that our version was the actual truth. In fact, as we soberly compared the versions of a particular firefight or battle, someone would say "I don't remember you being my partner on that OP! (A combat operation - not an 'Original Post'). Then a picture would be shown that would 'trigger' a memory & I knew I had confused people, places & actions. This was after not seeing & mostly no verbal communications with each other for some 48 years after the events plus speanding the same amount time trying to erase from our minds certain events that had taken place in that period of time because of the sense of loss & the pain involved in recalling them.
I reflect on memories written "strictly from memory" by an individual 40-50 years after the fact & take those statements with a large grain of thought. I don't think any of us were lying but simply patching together 'pictures & videos' in our minds of certain events.
I mention this only as a warning that 1st hand accounts can be incorrect in details, not because they're not true but because they might be confused with a similar event that the author may have been involved in earlier or later then they actually occurred.
I mention all this because I support Andy's statement "…The historian has to evaluate his- or her sources carefully and, ultimately, reach conclusions based on that analysis. It's not an exact science."
Direct sources are very important & desirable but not necessarily the 'complete' truth or an irrefutable fact. Just look at the JFK assassination & from police interviews one might think JFK drove into a 360* ambush!
For example… I for one think Forrest snatching a Union solder & swinging him onto the back of his saddle is pure myth or at best he snatched one of his riderless camp servents on to the back of his horse & the story evolved from there. Just my opinion. I believe Sam Watkins was writing for his "little rebels at my feet." & took several liberties with the truth & was a victim of his own memories. Great story to read but a large part someone else's experiences, mixed with his own, someone else's story, mixed with his own, & self serving to be a bigger hero then he was in his "little rebels" eyes & I don't blame him a bit. I want my grandkids to be proud of me & my service to my country. Sam Watkins seemed like a typical CSA soldier but his memories are a bit flawed & inaccurate just as Joshua Chamberlin's or any other CW combatant. Both wrote what they experienced but not without their prejudices the same could be said for Grant & Longstreet or any news reporter… all flawed in their own ways.