Teaching history through primary sources instead of textbooks changes how students engage with the past, but is it always better? I spent a semester using only letters and diaries from the Civil War, and my students argued passionately about soldiers' motives—something a textbook summary never triggered. Still, primary sources are messy, fragmented, and often biased; not every classroom has time or training to handle that. Do the benefits of critical thinking outweigh the risk of leaving students without a clear narrative thread?