historical writing

Just finished a book written @1914 about the state of historical writing by J. Franklin Jameson.  Why?  I wanted to have an idea why people (non-native) wrote what they wrote when they were among the Ho Chunk Nation and its people.  Interesting to note that Wisconsin was mentioned by Jameson, et al as being among the most forward thinking historical society/government of its time.  Much of our nation's early writings were undertaken by state historical societies and so much of the information that I have about Glory of the Morning comes from the Wisconsin State Historical Society and its collections.  Jameson sees this as good and bad.  It is good in that after the Revolution we (the country) has numerous historical documents about our nation's history in great detail.   It is bad in that much of it is not written on a  "scholarly" level.  So those persons writing about the Ho Chunk Nation were there commissioned by a historical society of one sort or another or perhaps through a religious mission/society.  It will be interesting to sort out the author's and their sponsors.  Those from the Eastern Historical Societies were interested in "Indians" as a whole, as with early voyages, first contacts and so forth, but by the 1860's it seems that historians, who were the historical writers of the day soon found that these pieces of history paled in comparison by new industrial machinery and vaccines for feared diseases.

Also trying to understand why someone would put Glory of the Morning's story in the form of a play.  Something I discovered while doing my literature review.  Jameson et al, says that historical labor, of which I am now a part, has three components: 1) the gathering of and printing of original sources, 2) the reporting on masses of material or on specific topics and 3) historical writing.  One and two are evidence of craftsmanship and three, historical writing is an art.  Therefore, perhaps the play was a form of historical writing in its Jameson form - art; historical writing.