Literary flair in nonfiction

[breakinglight11]

Reading a new biography of Harriet Tubman, "She Came to Slay" by Erica Armstrong Dunbar, and while it's well-written and interesting, it does this thing I increasingly see in historical profiling these days-- describing speculation about what people likely experienced as if they are known fact, even if there is no concrete record.

Like, "this is what she felt when she met this person for the first time" even if that person left behind nothing that definitively indicates that. Yes, it might be likely, but it's still technically speculation, and it's presented as if the author knows it as fact. This first struck me when I was reading Hallie Rubenhold's "The Five" last year, but I've seen it in a number of historical nonfiction books since.

I imagine the authors do it to be evocative, to help the reader invest in the figures by placing them in relatable and sympathetic human experiences. But it bugs me and strikes me as "putting words" in historical figures' mouths.

What do other people think? Reasonable leaps to make for the sake of reader engagement? Or talking over people who can no longer speak for themselves?