In order for history to be 100% accurate historians would have to replicate it instead of representing it. Gaddis describes this as an impossible task. From this one can perceive how it is not unusual for historians to view the same events and end up with different conclusions. Historians unable to replicate must represent smaller parts of history. For example, in representing the motives for continental soldiers enlisting and remaining in the military three respected historians, Lender, Royster and Knouff, deduce different conclusions. Lender insinuates that continental soldiers enlist for patriotic reasons, but once this fades they remain enlisted to obtain their own self-interest. Royster attacks Lender’s ideas stating that Lender’s representation is inadequate. Royster concludes that patriotism which does not fade, not self-interest, was the key motive for continental soldiers enlisting and remaining enlisted. Knouff gives credit to both Lender and Royster, but asserts they have missed the true key motive of continental soldiers. Knouff states that a since of localism drove civilians to enlist. Also, those continental soldiers felt a need to fight as enemy forces threatened the communities in which they, the continental soldiers, lived in. Through the thesis set up by Lender, the antitheses written by Royster and Knouff’s synthesis we can see the basic form of academia at work. These historians choose to represent facts and sources that would best persuade readers to accept their individual theses. Through adding and excluding information that would or would not assert their representations as correct or others representations of the same event as incorrect, different conclusions were inevitably formed.