HistoryWhen Sources Disagree: Building a Historical Argument
Atlas the explorer-historian stands at a long oak table covered with letters, maps, photographs and newspaper clippings, weighing two contradicting accounts under warm lamplight.
- Identify the origin, purpose and perspective of at least three different sources.
- Distinguish between a source's claim and the verifiable evidence it offers.
- Explain why two reliable sources can honestly disagree about the same event.
- Construct a defensible thesis statement that accounts for conflicting evidence.
- Support a historical claim using corroboration across multiple sources.
Key terms
- Thesis
- A single arguable claim, defensible with evidence, that answers a historical question rather than merely restating a fact.
- Sourcing
- The practice of identifying who created a source, when, and for what audience and purpose before trusting its content.
- Corroboration
- Confidence that grows when two or more independent sources converge on the same factual conclusion.
- Perspective
- The vantage point and interests of a source's author that shape what is emphasized, omitted, or framed favorably.
- Counter-evidence
- Reliable evidence that complicates or contradicts your thesis and must be acknowledged in an honest argument.
From Fact to Arguable Claim
A fact records that something occurred; a thesis explains why or how, in a way a reasonable person could dispute. 'Grain prices doubled in 1788' is a fact. 'The 1788 riots stemmed primarily from hunger, not criminality, because prices doubled while wages stagnated' is a thesis — it makes a causal claim, prioritizes one explanation over a rival, and stakes itself on specific evidence. Strong theses are falsifiable: they tell a reader exactly what evidence would confirm or undermine them. Vague theses ('the riot was complicated') cannot be tested and therefore cannot be argued or graded as history.
Synthesizing Conflicting Voices
When sources clash, the historian's task is synthesis, not selection. Begin by sourcing each account — the clerk writes upward to superiors, the protester writes to justify, the ledger has no audience to flatter. Then map agreements and disagreements: the neutral ledger corroborates the protester's hardship claim while undercutting the clerk's 'mere lawlessness' framing. The strongest argument weighs perspectives, builds its spine from corroborated facts, and explicitly addresses the best counter-evidence rather than hiding it. Acknowledging the clerk's view, then explaining why the price data outweighs it, makes the thesis more persuasive, not less.
Worked examples
Build a thesis from three conflicting sources about a grain riot.
- Source each account: the clerk's report (official, written to superiors), the protester's diary (participant, self-justifying), the merchant's ledger (private record, no audience to flatter).
- Identify corroboration: the ledger's doubling of grain prices independently supports the protester's claim of hardship while offering no support for 'lawlessness.'
- Weigh the counter-evidence: the clerk's 'lawless troublemakers' framing reflects a vantage point invested in order, so it must be acknowledged but cannot outweigh neutral price data.
- Draft a falsifiable thesis tied to the strongest corroborated evidence, then state what would disconfirm it.
Answer: Thesis: 'The riot was driven mainly by hunger, not lawlessness, because grain prices doubled while wages stayed flat' — corroborated by the ledger and defensible against the clerk's framing.
Activity
Put the five steps of building an evidence-based historical argument in the correct order.
Practice
Rewrite the bare fact 'a protest occurred in 1788' into a falsifiable, evidence-based thesis statement.
Given two conflicting accounts of an event, explain which facts corroborate and how you would weigh the perspectives.
Common mistakes to avoid
- When sources disagree one must be lyingReliable witnesses can honestly conflict because perspective, purpose, and vantage point shape what each one sees and reports.
- A thesis is just stating what happenedA thesis must be an arguable, defensible claim tested against evidence, not a bare factual statement everyone already accepts.
Check your understanding
Two reliable eyewitnesses describe the same protest very differently. What is the best explanation?
Which of these is the strongest thesis statement for a historical argument?
A merchant's ledger shows grain prices doubled the same month a protester's diary reports families going hungry. This relationship is called:
Before trusting a government report, a historian should FIRST ask:
Recap
A historical argument synthesizes conflicting sources into a falsifiable thesis: source each account, weigh perspective, build from corroborated facts, and confront the strongest counter-evidence rather than ignoring it.
Reflect
When have you mistaken a fact for an argument, and how would you sharpen it into a thesis?