History as Documents

In the coming months, the Bureau left no investigative stone unturned. We followed thousands of leads, including a number of bogus reports that spawned cases of their own. Working with Dr. Condon and others, we developed a likeness of "John" and a profile of his character and education. And through our new scientific crime lab in Washington, we carefully studied the handwriting in the ransom notes, concluding the author was German. A break in the case came from the ransom money. On May 2, 1933, nearly 300 gold certificates matching the ransom money were reported as deposited, but no useful information was uncovered from this lead. On August 20, 1934, 16 more certificates were found, and through painstaking investigative legwork investigators closed in on an area in New York City where the bills were circulating and developed a description of the suspect, which closely resembled our portrait of "John." What does the author's use of the pronoun "we" suggest about the document he's written?

It's supposed to be seen as a primary source document.

Which statement best describes the difference between primary source documents and secondary source documents?

Primary source documents, unlike secondary sources, are written by someone who experienced or observed an event.

Which of these statements is true of secondary sources?

These sources are typically created long after an event and may seem less immediate, exciting, or authentic.

A person doing research on Hurricane Andrew, which hit South Florida in 1992, comes across the following: a person who rode out the hurricane in his house, which was destroyed a newspaper account of the aftermath of the storm; a weather forecaster who worked the day the storm hit South Florida a New York woman whose daughter was injured in the storm. Which source is most likely to be considered a primary source?

a person who rode out the hurricane in his house, which was destroyed

Which of these is an example of a secondary-source document?

textbooks

After President Roosevelt's death, it fell to Stimson to brief the new President about the atomic weapon. At a White House meeting on 25 April, he outlined the history and status of the program and predicted that "within four months we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history." This meeting, like Stimson's last meeting with Roosevelt, dealt largely with the political and diplomatic consequences of the use of such a weapon rather than with the timing and manner of employment, the circumstances under which it would be used, or whether it would be used at all. The answers to these questions depended on factors not yet known. But Stimson recommended, and the President approved, the appointment of a special committee to consider them. What information is necessarily missing from this secondary source?

what the president felt or said privately about the decision to drop an atomic bomb