Grand Theory: Summary And Analysis

Words: 1736
Pages: 7

“Facts are stubborn things; whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” (John Adams). Historians are accepted as the investigative experts of the past. Assimilating information across generations, they construct the history of our world. However, there are some circumstances when historians find negligible evidence to support their claims. So they analyze their meager information, intertwine it with assumptions about coexisting events, and create historic recounts. This does not necessarily imply that Grand Theory prevails but does make us mindful that historians may include assumptive liberties with no concrete historical information. Therefore, it’s wise for us to question historical accounts. A good example …show more content…
The author’s narrative and analysis use examples of historical documents that serve as proof of John Brown’s character, motives, and sanity. He cautions readers to be mindful of misinterpreting evidence and admits that due to evidence reliability, historians sometimes base conclusions on extrapolated assumptions. In the author’s mind, the documents described in the chapter are not sufficient to conclusively prove Brown is insane, and that his insanity and mental disorder prompted him to attack Harpers Ferry. For example, he comments, “...we cannot be convinced our diagnosis [of his insanity] is correct. The evidence is simply too fragmented to lead us to a certain conclusion” (A.T.F. Pg. 167). He also admits that from the DSM-IV psychological scale, there is too little evidence that Brown actually possessed a mental disorder. He also comments that the use of Brown’s repeated failures as evidence is not only misleading but focuses on his personality and mental condition rather than the far-reaching and substantial impact his actions had on the future of our