Strange Death of Silas Deane

¶ … Strange Death of Silas Deane" add to our conversation about truth? Choose one passage or idea from the text, and discuss how this specific passage supports your response to the question above.

Generally, when we refer to truth, we mean the objective facts that exist before any attempt to interpret, editorialize, or explain them. In the Strange Death of Silas Deane (Davidson & Lytle, 1992), the authors illustrate the fundamental difference between objective facts and subjective interpretation and the importance of distinguishing between them. That is especially true in the case of historical recollections, because the impression conveyed of past events depending tremendously on the point-of-view of the historian. Davidson and Lytle illustrate that a typical historical event, such as the life of Silas Deane, can be interpreted entirely differently depending on what sources the historian choose to rely and how that historian and those upon whose prior accounts that historian relies viewed the individual and his exploits.

The authors' main point is valid, except in that it belies one obvious a priori requirement incumbent on all those who consider themselves to be "historians": namely, the historian's first and foremost obligation must always be to objective truth and to good faith in identifying it. Certainly, historians are entitled to their own subjective interpretation of events; on the other hand, they have an obligation to make a good-faith effort to search for and identify all of the available information rather than just sources that may support their particular points-of-view. In the following passage, the authors outline the principle challenge in that regard.

Such, in outline, was the rise and fall of the ambitious Silas Deane. The story itself seems pretty clear, although certainly people might interpret it in different ways.

Thomas Jefferson thought Deane's unhappy career demonstrated "the consequences of a departure from right," whereas one English newspaper more sympathetically attributed his downfall to the mistake of "placing confidence in his [American] Compatriots, and doing them service before he had got his compensation, of which no well-bred Politician was before him ever guilty." Yet either way, the basic story remains the same -- the same, that is, until the historian begins putting together a more complete account of Deane's life. Then some of the basic facts become clouded.…at this point we face a substantial problem. Obviously, historians cannot rest content with the facts that come most easily to hand. They must search the odd corners of libraries and letter collections in order to put together a complete story. But how do historians know when their research is

"complete?" How do they know to search one collection of letters rather than another? These questions point up the misconception at the heart of the everyday view of history.

The author's point seems to be that the accuracy of history depends on the historian's ability to identify the most relevant and accurate information. No doubt, that is true; however, the authors make it sound as though the historian is completely at the mercy of whatever evidence he or she happens to find or whatever evidence happens to be available. I would argue that in their analysis, the authors fail to address the fundamentally important issue of good faith on the part of the historian. In that respect, all historians are limited by the amount and quality of information that is available. However, the types of historical discrepancies outlined by the authors are more attributable to biases than to the limits of the information that is available.

Certainly, the historian may, despite his best efforts, overlook relevant information; likewise, every historian is entitled to editorialize when he presents his account of history. However, the discipline of History imposes the obligation to make an honest and good faith effort to ensure that the only limitations are the availability of information and never the subjective bias of the reporter reflected in a less than comprehensive search. Only after devoting equal effort to identifying all of the available information, regardless of what view it may support, and only after distinguishing between raw data and subjective editorializing may the reporter with integrity supplement the historical record with personal analyses.