I am currently working on a Bachelors in history, and I’ve found Chicago Manual of Style frustrating. Although not many of my professors expect us to use primary sources, when they do they haven’t really explained how to cite them or how to deal with digital archives and repositories.
However, I’ve been doing genealogical research for a long time, and one of my favorite resources is Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills, which has a a model format for almost every source imaginable. I feel like Evidence is a better system for keeping up with an ever shifting digital/historical landscape. Could someone familiar with both systems explain how they are different? I know that Evidence is based on CMS; are they similar enough that I can use the models from Evidence in my papers?
Do historians and genealogists have a different relationship to sources?
I'm sorry CMOS is frustrating for you. You can take solace in the fact that you're not alone. That said, I would suggest sticking with Chicago for your paper(s) for two reasons. First, there is a chance there will be a difference between the two. And while your professor will (hopefully) not be checking every citation, if you're a major, it would be good to familiarize yourself with the "correct" way of doing things. CMOS has a wide variety of models in the full version of their style guide. Most university libraries have access to a digital copy of the style.
Check out the table of contents here: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book/ed17/part3/ch14/toc.html. It's about as boring as watching paint dry, but I recommend sitting down and reading the guide. It'll improve your writing.
As for your last question, yes, historians and genealogists have a different relationship to sources. I cannot speak to genealogy specifically, I have a PhD in history, but it seems to me that genealogists go into the archive with blinders. I have seen them in the archive (looking at much more recent texts than I was) and they zero in on what they're looking for and not much else. For a historian, you need to consider the whole thing. Not just the content, but the physicality of the text, the manuscript type, original readership, size, etc. All of these things matter.