This was an opportunity not just to become famous, but also to acquire a certain reputation. People probably looked forward to acknowledge what had been going on, through his writing the author non-only satisfied a curiosity, but created an image for himself. The text was produced in which written evidence of this kind was considered not only to tell history, but to actually create it. Hence, the importance of the text and of the writer.
A country was in course of creation, important social changes were taking place and the public opinion needed evidence to support the value of the things which were happening. In addition, this kind of writing was needed in order to make sure that the importance of the events was recorded and preserved for posterity.
These are several reasons for which the text was written. First and foremost, since the writer was part of the events, he considered it was his duty to record them. In addition, he knew that performing this duty would have important consequences upon his life. On the one hand, there would be the immediate recognition of his merits, not only as a participant to the events which would make America a nation, but also as an acute witness who recorded the events and made them available for everybody.
The events taking place at that time were the most important one son the political agenda. The writer knew the importance of information. He also knew that the importance of the events will be associated to the person who would best tell them to the ones who had not been there to witness them. The text was in fact published as historic evidence to the events.
The audience of the text is one of great importance. On the one hand, it is represented by the political scene of the time, including all the people who had power of decision. In addition, it is represented by the common people who had an interest to find out about what happened in territories they did not have access to. Last and not least, the audience is represented by posterity. Historians as well as common people are interested in knowing a country's history. The only way to do that is to read what others have written about it. And the most revealing and thus most meaningful sources should be the primary documents, written by people who had been considered as having the competencies to do it.
The contemporary audience of the text probably received the text well, since it is full of details and it offers a reason for what happened, not just a description of the events. The fact that the writer actually wrote what happened must have made people appreciate him and his involvement in the story been more, transforming him into a sort of hero (he was after all part of the story).
The fact that the document was published means that its value was recognized by the people who had at least some authority in the field at the time. The involvement of the writer, as well as his social status have been enough to allow for the text to become a document. From this point-of-view one could say that it is safe to rely on this piece of paper.
However, it must be underlined that in order to be able to have a clear judgement regarding the events which took part in history, it is better to have access to documents which describe the same thing but have been written by different people. In this way the reader can gain access to different perspectives and obtain not only an increased amount of details, but also get the chance to create a more accurate idea.
It is important to now how biased the authors of the documents were. Understanding their interests, beliefs and their social positions, as well as their relation to the events which they describe might also be of help. From this point-of-view it could be stated that one should probably read something about these writers' lives as well in order to be able to make useful connections. The very understanding of why a writer has given a certain insight and not another is actually helpful in better understand why the described events happened as the did and not in another manner.