Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In her article for Rethinking History, Martha Hodes uses a combination of primary source material and her own speculation to tell the story of Eunice Richardson, a Civil War widow who later remarried a West Indian man of color. I enjoyed Hodes’ writing and appreciated the fact that the article’s arguments were rooted in primary source documents, namely from Eunice’s correspondences. However, I’m conflicted about Hodes’ use of speculation in her creation of the possible scenarios that would have led to Hodes’ courtship with her second husband, William Smiley (though Hodes was totally honest about when she was employing such speculation). In my time doing history in school, I have always been told that any argument I make must be rooted in hard evidence in primary source documents. Hodes clearly does not do this at certain points.
For example, on page five, Hodes discusses the possible ways Eunice and Smiley could have met in Massachusetts, concluding that the most likely place was a Congregationalist church in Pawtucket, based on the church’s reputation for being inclusive of non-whites and those of other Christian sects. However, I felt that Hodes glossed over the fact that neither Eunice nor Smiley were Congregationalists, which was the only hard evidence she had on the matter. Again, Hodes did not try and fool the reader into taking her speculation as absolute truth, but I’m unsure about how seriously one can take an argument that relies so heavily on speculation. Similarly, on pages six to seven, Hodes now having decided on Alabama as their most likely meeting place, speculates that Eunice’s trip to Vermont was part of a courtship custom of the time to test Smiley’s resolve as a suitor. Hodes admits she is speculating when she first mentions it, but then that one piece of speculation is used as an underpinning of her later arguments as if it is hard fact. I have some trouble with that kind of argument because it goes against so much of what I have learned about writing history.
However, after reading some classmates’ posts on this article, I gained more respect for Hodes’ work. In his blog, Ben Hartshorn says that “writing about Thomas Jefferson (who filed and recorded his prolific writing so well) would not require this sort of reconnaissance work.” He makes an interesting point. Someone like Thomas Jefferson produced countless writings of his own—not to mention, his status as a wealthy landowner in 18th century made his contemporaries more likely to pay attention to him and record his words—a poor widow like Eunice Stone did not have that benefit. So, as long as one is honest about what they are doing, it can be useful to engage in some speculation (backed up by primary source material and a knowledge of the times’ customs) to see the possibilities of an interesting life that unfortunately went undocumented. So, while Hodes’ methods can be a bit jarring at first, upon further consideration, I certainly can appreciate her motivations.