CAMBRIDGE AS HISTORY: HISTORY OF THE USA. PAST PAPERS EXPLAINED. 2016 SUMMER PAPER 1 DOCUMENT QUESTION

CAMBRIDGE AS HISTORY: HISTORY OF THE USA. PAST PAPERS EXPLAINED. 2016 SUMMER PAPER 1 DOCUMENT QUESTION.

1. CAMBRIDGE AS HISTORY HISTORY OF THE USA PAST PAPERS EXPLAINED 2016 SUMMER PAPER1 DOCUMENT QUESTION

2. PAPER 11 - MAY/JUNE 2016 The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 The Sack of Lawrence, Kansas, 1856 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

3. SOURCE A Gentlemen , Officers and Soldiers! This is the most glorious day of my life! This is the day I am a border ruffian! The US Marshal has just given you his orders and has kindly invited me to address you. Now boys, let your work be well done! Faint not as you approach the city of Lawrence but, remembering your mission, act with true Southern heroism. At the word, spring like your bloodhounds at home upon that damned accursed abolition hold. Yes, ruffians, draw your revolvers and Bowie knives and cool them in the heart’s blood of all those damned dogs that dare defend that breathing hole of hell. Tear down their boasted Free State Hotel till it shall fall to the ground . Throw into the River Kansas their printing presses. Do the Sheriff’s entire command! For today Mr Jones is not only Sheriff, but Deputy Marshal, so that whatever he commands will be right and under the administration of the US government. From a speech by David Atchison, US Senator for Missouri 1844–55, 21 May 1856.

4. SOURCE B As soon as General Atchison had concluded, the militia moved forward towards the town in solid column until near the hotel. Sheriff Jones had writs issued by the First District Court of the United States to destroy the Free State Hotel and the offices of the Herald of Freedom and Free State . The Free State office was first destroyed, the press being thrown into the river. The hotel was fired several times but put out by the bravery of some of the young men, who were not deterred by the threats of the mob. After the red flag of the South Carolinians had been hoisted upon the hotel, four cannons were pointed towards it. When the cannonading commenced, it was thought prudent for women and children to leave the town. Some ladies, sitting upon College Hill west of the town, during the cannonading, were fired upon. From ‘Kansas: Its Interior and Exterior Life’, by Sara T. L. Robinson, wife of the Free State ‘governor’ of Kansas, 1856.

5. SOURCE C When the Sheriff’s posse entered the city of Lawrence to enforce the laws, the town seemed deserted by the brave warriors who had been defending the place. They had left two days before, leaving their wives and children to the tender mercies of the ‘heartless border ruffians’. If they are honest in their belief that the law and order citizens of the Territory are ‘ruffians’, does it not show cowardice in them to run off and leave their families entirely unprotected when a few hundred men , with the fortifications of Lawrence, could have kept at bay an army of thousands? After all Robinson’s boasting, less than five hundred men took possession of the city without firing a gun. We have often denounced the paupers sent out from the brothels of the east as cowards, and the events of the past week go to show that we were right in our conjecture. From the ‘Squatter Sovereign’, 27 May 1856.

6. SOURCE D The attack and burning of Lawrence brought a great change in popular feeling. ‘We will stand it no longer ,’ was the substance of what I heard on every side from the free-state adherents. Before I left , it had become the universal conviction that a civil war had commenced. At the same moment came the news from Washington of the outrage committed in the Senate chamber upon the person of Mr Sumner. I well remember the effect this had upon many, who concluded that the rule of force and violence had been inaugurated even in the highest places of the land and was no longer restricted to the lawless inhabitants of the frontier. From ‘The Englishman in Kansas’ by Thomas Gladstone, 1857.

7. REQUEST Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) To what extent do Sources B and C agree about the reaction of the people of Lawrence to the attack by the Border Ruffians? [ 15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the assertion that ‘a civil war had commenced’ in Kansas in 1856? [ 25]

8. GUIDANCE IN BUILDING YOUR ANSWER

9. INDICATIVE CONTENT a) To what extent do Sources B and C agree about the reaction of the people of Lawrence to the attack by the Border Ruffians? [ 15] According to Source B, the reaction of the people of Lawrence was mixed: some stayed to defend the town against the Border Ruffians while others left for their own safety. According to B, the former were the young men, the latter women and children, which conforms to the traditional view of the role of men and women in conflict. In contrast, Source C states that the men had already moved out, leaving their women and children behind without any protection. This reversal of tradition enables Source C to describe the men of Lawrence as cowards. Source B says that the women and children left after the attack by the Border Ruffians, implying that their men stayed behind to defend the town.

10. INDICATIVE CONTENT cont. The sources are similar in that they show a withdrawal from Lawrence by some if not all of its inhabitants in response to the Border Ruffians’ aggression. They also show that the occupying forces were acting to uphold federal law. Source C is more critical of the response of Lawrence to the attack as shown by labelling them cowards. The language of Source B is less emotional, more descriptive, if still favouring the people of Lawrence. The difference can be explained by the authorship of the two sources: Source C comes from a leading pro-slavery newspaper commenting on the events at Lawrence. Source B is from a book written by the wife of the man who was leading the Free State movement.

11. CONTEXT (b) How far do Sources A to D support the assertion that ‘a civil war had commenced’ in Kansas in 1856? [25] The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established two new Territories in the mid-West. This jeopardised the careful balance of slave and Free States achieved until then. It also meant the end of the 1820 Missouri Compromise which confined slavery to lands below latitude 36”30 ’ North – with the exception of Missouri. Rather than deciding itself whether the Territories should be slave or free, the US Congress accepted Senator Douglas’s idea of popular sovereignty, which left the decision to resident voters in Kansas and Nebraska. Kansas became the focus of the struggle between pro- and anti-slavery forces. Immediately to the west of Missouri, a slave state, but north of the 1820 Missouri Compromise line, Kansas became the key battleground. Pro-slavery supporters in Missouri had no distance to travel as Kansas was on the other side of the Missouri river. Abolitionists, strongest in New England , had a much longer journey, though the first arrived in 1854, establishing the new city of Lawrence.

12. CONTEXT cont. Though most settlers went to Kansas for economic reasons, those committed for or against slavery made the most noise, even taking the law into their own hands at times. John Brown was the best-known example of the latter, as shown by the Pottawatomie massacre of May 1856 . This was a response to the sack of Lawrence, the opening ‘conflict’ in the struggle for dominance in Kansas. Similar examples of violence during the summer of 1856, often, if inaccurately , described as ‘battles’, resulted in the label ‘Bleeding Kansas’. The federal elections of 1856 led to a decline in hostilities. In 1857, the struggle for control of Kansas became more political than military, the focus of the debate being the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution . Though estimates vary about how many people died in the conflict (between 50 and 100), Kansas joined the USA as a free state in January 1861.

13. ANALYSIS Source D can be seen as supporting the assertion as it states the universal conviction that ‘a civil war had commenced’ in Kansas, an assertion supported to a great degree by the caning of Senator Sumner in the US Congress. The other sources come down more on the side of rejecting the hypothesis. Source A, while a blood-curdling speech, can be seen as exhorting men who are authorised by US federal law – and led by a federal officer – to use force against the people and premises of Lawrence. The reasons why such extreme action is needed are not specified. Source B shows little resistance from the people of Lawrence to the Border Ruffians’ attack on their city. Source C says much the same. If a civil war requires the use of force by both sides, then the sources as a group do not suggest that civil war had commenced.

14. EVALUATION All three processes of source evaluation can be used to evaluate these sources. Firstly , cross-referencing and provenance show differences of interpretation which must discount the reliability of some sources. The greatest contrast is between Sources B and C and their accounts of which groups of the citizens of Lawrence remained in town to meet the incursion of the Border Ruffians, as already considered in sub-question (a). That Source C is a newspaper report and intended to rally support for the Pro-slavery cause undermines its reliability . Source B has a different, less political purpose and thus is preferable. Source A is similar to Source C, if with a still narrower focus – to energise ‘troops’ into battle. Its reliability is equally questionable. Source D focuses on the consequences of the sack of Lawrence, the author describing the convictions of the Free State supporters that a civil war had begun.

15. EVALUATION cont. Here provenance comes into play. Source D is the only source written by someone not directly involved in the conflict. At the same time, Thomas Gladstone was in Kansas in 1856 and thus his comments are based on personal observation. He reports the reactions of people on one side of the conflict only but does so unemotionally, giving his observations greater credence.

16. EVALUATION cont. Then contextual knowledge can be used to evaluate the sources. Even the term ‘ Bloody Kansas ’, a term not mentioned in any of the sources, can be used to provide some support for the hypothesis. Similarly, the people of Kansas and their supporters were so divided that both sides were prepared to use violence – think of Beecher’s Bibles aka Sharpe’s Rifles being sent out to Kansas by Northern abolitionists. Finally, the violent actions of John Brown at Pottawatomie in 1856 show how close Kansas was to a local civil war. It did not occur, however. Events in Kansas in 1857–58 were more peaceful than violent, even though the differences between the two sides persisted. Southern supporters quickly lost heart, especially as the vast majority of emigrants into Kansas came from Northern states.

17. PAPER 12 - MAY/JUNE 2016 The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 The Wilmot Proviso Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

18. SOURCE A It is well known that there is no slavery in Mexico. Should the United States therefore acquire any territory from that government, could human beings, or negroes, be held as property by citizens emigrating with slaves to that territory from the Southern States? We think not. Unless we are mistaken, negroes can only be held as property by statute law. Then, until Congress would pass a law authorising slavery – and that they would never do – negroes could never be held as property in any such territory. The following is the form in which this proviso was passed by the House: That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any territory on the continent of America which shall thereafter be acquired by or annexed to the United States by virtue of this appropriation of funds or in any other manner whatsoever, except for crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. The votes on this proviso stood: yeas 113; nays 106. From ‘The Spirit of Democracy’, Ohio, 27 February 1847.

19. SOURCE B The Wilmot Proviso, it will be seen, has been killed in the Senate, by the decisive majority of 31 to 21. We have feared this from the first. We knew that some Whig Senators who are against the extension of Slave Territory would nonetheless vote against the Proviso. It was clearly doomed. No matter: the PRINCIPLE is fixed. The House will not consent to incorporate another inch of Slave Territory. Many who voted in favour in the House were not enthusiastic for it but their constituents were and will continue to be. The battle is not yet fought out but the end is unmistakable. Fair notice has been given that Slavery shall not stealthily cross the Rio Grande and spread itself on the other side. The next Congress must complete the work in ratifying the Treaty with Mexico and in organising the territory acquired from her, if such there be . Advocates of Universal Freedom, let us calmly and steadily move on! Our victory, though postponed , is morally certain. From the ‘New York Daily Tribune’, 3 March 1847.

20. SOURCE C In short, the Wilmot Proviso is Abolition – Abolition in the most dangerous form and, if it is not now resisted and defeated by peaceful compromise on the Missouri basis, it will end in the utter ruin of slaveholders, or compel them to resistance by the sword. The Mexican treaty may add territory enough to make ten or fifteen new states. All of these the despot Proviso will force to exclude slavery and of course add them to non-slave states. The Proviso will limit the slave states to their present number while new free states, without limit, may be admitted into the Union. From the Charleston (South Carolina) ‘Mercury’, 11 August 1847.

21. SOURCE D The whole of the North has taken up arms against us on this matter and we have no alternative . In the South, whatever differences may exist on the old party questions, all are united upon one point – and that is that the presidential candidate whom it may support must declare uncompromising hostility to the spirit of the Proviso. The Proviso aims at the annihilation of the black race and the depopulation of the Southern states by means of starvation. Anyone aware of the rapid increase in the black population of the South is also aware that the day will come when an outlet must be found for the multitudes who cannot obtain food from its overtasked soil. If we do not secure this outlet, starvation and insurrection will speedily obliterate all that the hand of man has done in the fair land of the South . From the Jacksonville (Florida) News, 17 September 1847.

22. REQUEST Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) To what extent do Sources B and D agree about the aims of the Wilmot Proviso? [ 15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the assertion that there was never any chance that the Wilmot Proviso would pass? [ 25]

23. GUIDANCE IN BUILDING YOUR ANSWER

24. INDICATIVE CONTENT (a) To what extent do Sources B and D agree about the aims of Wilmot Proviso ? [ 15] Source D reads oddly when it asserts that the Wilmot Proviso aims to annihilate the black race and to depopulate the South. It does explain how the Wilmot Proviso, which would prevent the expansion of slavery into territories to be acquired from Mexico, would thereby result in huge demographic pressures in the South. The rapidly growing slave population would have to stay in the South, causing economic pressures so great that famine and depopulation would result. This is a very fanciful set of assertions.

25. INDICATIVE CONTENT cont. Source B makes no mention of the problems which the South might face if the Wilmot Proviso became law, which is a major difference between the two sources. Source B focuses not on the South but on the new lands to be acquired from Mexico. Even though the Wilmot Proviso had been defeated by the US Senate, Source B is confident that in time any new lands would be Free Soil rather than slave-based. The two sources are similar in that they both consider the issue of slavery in the context of newly acquired territories. They focus on completely different aspects of that issue . This contrast is a consequence of their different origins, North and South.

26. CONTEXT (b) How far do Sources A to D support the assertion that there was never any chance that the Wilmot Proviso would pass? [25] The Wilmot Proviso was an attempt to restrict the expansion of slavery into the territories acquired from Mexico following the war of 1846–48. It was first introduced in the House of Representatives by David Wilmot, a Northern Democrat from Pennsylvania in August 1846, three months into the war with Mexico. It was passed by the House of Representatives but rejected by the Southern-dominated Senate, both in 1846 and 1847. By 1848 the war was over and peace agreed at Guadalupe Hidalgo, where Mexico conceded huge amounts of land to the USA.

27. CONTEXT cont. The documents refer to the second attempt to introduce the Proviso. The President of the time was James Polk, also a Democrat. He refused to endorse the Proviso. Wilmot and fellow Northern Democrats were not abolitionists. Rather they believed in the importance of Free Labour to the American way of life and saw the expansion of slavery into new territories as threatening that importance. In contrast, Southern slave owners saw a need to expand their ‘peculiar institution’ into new territories in order to preserve their position in the carefully balanced distribution of power within the USA. In this respect, the problems of the West began to widen divisions between North and South. Only with the Compromise of 1850 did North and South reach agreement about how the new lands taken from Mexico should be governed – and that Compromise was short-lived as within four years it had begun to unravel .

28. ANALYSIS Though the sources do not comment directly on the fate of the Wilmot Proviso, they do express views and reveal attitudes which show either strong opposition to or positive acceptance of the Proviso, which makes its passage either impossible or possible. Three sources support the assertion: B, C and D. Source B talks of the Proviso having been ‘ killed’ in the Senate, as being ‘clearly doomed’. However, Source B goes on to argue that the failure of the US Congress to pass the Proviso is irrelevant. If the expansion of slavery has not been prohibited, neither has it been authorised. Source B argues that in reality the House of Representatives would never support such a proposal. The defeat of the Proviso does not mean the defeat of the principle. Source C shows how the Wilmot Proviso never stood a chance simply because Southern opposition to its terms were so strong. The source argues that there needs to be either a compromise on the matter or its rejection by means of civil war . Neither allows the acceptance of the Wilmot Proviso. Source D also shows how the Proviso would never be passed because North and South had become divided on sectional lines .

29. ANALYSIS cont. Source A is the one source which suggests that there was a chance that the Wilmot Proviso might pass. It argues that the House of Representatives would never pass a law allowing the expansion of slavery, which is what was required by the US constitution. This meant that in practice the Wilmot Proviso would be implemented. In this respect, the argument of Source A is similar to that of Source B.

30. EVALUATION These sources can be evaluated either by contextual knowledge, by provenance or by cross-referencing. The context of the Wilmot Proviso was the war with Mexico , ‘Mr. Polk’s war’, as its many critics within the USA called it. Sources A, B and C mention the war. Some wars unite a country, some divide it. The war with Mexico divided the USA . Many in the North saw the war as furthering the interests of Southern Slave Power. By the 1840s slave owners wanted to expand US territories to include lands suitable for a slave based economy . The acquisition of Texas in 1846 helped enormously. Gaining further lands in the south west from Mexico would give slavery further potential advantage. This was why Southerners took such an exception to the Wilmot Proviso, which they saw as an attempt by the North to control the post-war settlement and prevent their right to expand.

31. EVALUATION cont. Source D is the most obvious statement of this viewpoint. Its second paragraph arguing that the Proviso is intended to annihilate the black race and depopulate the South is supported by no evidence, either from the extracts or from contextual knowledge. Source D is reliable in expressing Southern fears but completely unreliable in its analysis of the impact of the Proviso , if passed. The fears are more relevant, however, to consideration of the hypothesis that the Wilmot Proviso would never past . It never did; Southern fears were reflected in Southern opposition in the US Senate to its passage. In this respect, Source D is reliable.

32. EVALUATION cont. Source C is similar to Source D in that it exaggerates the consequences of the Wilmot Proviso intended by its supporters, presumably to alarm the readers of a Southern newspaper and mobilise opposition to its passage. Though Southern Senators had defeated the Proviso in March 1847, many Southerners still feared that the supporters of the Wilmot Proviso would make further attempts to get Congress to approve the exclusion of slavery from the new territories. These Southern sources can be supported by a Northern source, Source B, which states that the Wilmot Proviso had been killed in the Senate. However, Source B also talks of the principle behind the Wilmot Proviso, namely preventing the expansion of slavery, that it will not be defeated and ‘the battle is not yet fought’. Contextual knowledge of the 1850 Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act would support this assertion .

33. EVALUATION cont. Perhaps the most trustworthy source is Source A. Its statements about slavery in Mexico and the figures for the vote on the Wilmot Proviso in the House of Representatives are accurate. Admittedly , its one assertion – that Congress will never pass a law permitting slavery in the territories – is undermined by the 1850 Compromise and the concept of popular sovereignty but , on past practice, the assertion was a reasonable one to make. On balance, the evaluated sources support the assertion that there was never any chance that the Wilmot Proviso would pass.

34. PAPER 13 - MAY/JUNE 2016 The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 Kansas after the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Slave or Free? Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

35. SOURCE A The repeal of the Missouri restriction, in relieving the South of a hateful badge of inferiority, was a triumph. The abolitionists were not disheartened by their defeat but were rather stimulated to renewed energy and more desperate effort. They saw how they might wring victory from the grasp of the South and they set about the work with characteristic ingenuity and contempt of honest principle. All the vagabonds, paupers and discharged convicts who infested the Northern cities were shipped out to Kansas. The issue before the people of the South is simply this: shall we remain the spectators of the struggle in Kansas until the gallant spirits from Missouri are crushed by a horde of barbarians from the North? In the name of the people of Virginia we respond with an unhesitating and emphatic No. From the Richmond ‘Enquirer’ (Virginia), 18 April 1856

36. SOURCE B Will Kansas be a free state? We answer No. Not while the existing Union stands. Its fate is settled . We shall briefly state the reasons which force us to this sad conclusion. 1. The South is united in its determination to make Kansas a slave state. She has never yet failed in her purpose thus concentrated and expressed. 2. Eastern emigration will avail nothing to keep slavery out of Kansas. 3. The omnipotent power of the federal government will cooperate with the vandals of Missouri to crush what little anti-slavery sentiment may exist in Kansas. This will prove decisive in the struggle. 4. There are no Kansas newspapers desirous of making it a free state. From ‘The Liberator’, 1 June 1856.

37. SOURCE C Can Kansas be made a slave state? Thus far the pro-slavery party has triumphed in Kansas in spite of the abolitionists and their emigrant aid societies. They have raised their millions of money and sent upon us their hordes of fools, armed with Sharpe’s rifles, to trample down our institutions and confiscate our property and drive us from the country. Yet we have peaceably whipped them at the polls, forced them to beg for mercy on the battlefield and proven to the world that truth and justice are on our side. And all this has been accomplished by the hardy squatters without any aid from the South, save now and again a straggling ‘border ruffian’ from Missouri. What then is in the way of making Kansas a slave state? Nothing can prevent it if the southern people do but half their duty. But they must do that or Kansas will be lost and the Union dissolved. From ‘ Debow’s Review’, New Orleans (Louisiana), June 1856.

38. SOURCE D We secured the freedom of Kansas while the slaveholders had every possible advantage in the contest. They had full control of every department of the government and were in force on the border of the territory while our emigrants had to make a journey of many hundreds of miles, much through the slave state of Missouri. By the Plan of Freedom adopted by the Emigrant Aid Company, Kansas was made free – very decidedly free – so that when admitted to the Union there was no slave party within her borders. No man, unless he be ignorant of the facts of the Kansas struggle or completely blinded by malice or envy, will ever attempt to defraud the Emigrant Aid Society of the glory of having saved Kansas by defeating the Slave Power in a great and decisive contest. From ‘The Kansas Crusade’ by Eli Thayer, founder of the Emigrant Aid Society, 1889.

39. REQUEST Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) To what extent do Sources B and C agree about the reasons why Kansas would become a slave state? [ 15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the assertion that the Pro-Slavery forces had only themselves to blame for their failure to make Kansas a slave state? [ 25]

40. GUIDANCE IN BUILDING YOUR ANSWER

41. INDICATIVE CONTENT (a) To what extent do Sources B and C agree about the reasons why Kansas would become a slave state? [ 15] Source B identifies four specific reasons why Kansas would become a slave state. Only one of those is mentioned by Source C, namely the ineffectiveness of emigration aid societies. The main reason that Source C sees as making it likely that Kansas would become a slave state was the efforts of pro-slavery forces within Kansas. They have won both in elections and on the battlefield. Only the occasional border ruffian has helped Kansas supporters of slavery. Source C does continue by arguing that those efforts by themselves would not be enough. The people of the South must help them out. This appeal to the South suggests that the South is not doing much to help Kansas become a slave state. This is in marked contrast to Source B which talks of the South being united in wanting to make Kansas a slave state.

42. INDICATIVE CONTENT cont. This is in marked contrast to Source B which talks of the South being united in wanting to make Kansas a slave state. Also Source B stresses the importance of the federal government and the ‘vandals of Missouri ’ who will work together to impose slavery on Kansas, a point not mentioned in Source C. There are a number of comparisons and contrasts which can be made. In terms of the sources , Source B comes from the Liberator, an abolitionist paper, which makes its assertions something of a surprise. Source C, mainly an assertion of Southern success, comes as no surprise, even if its final doubt about the likelihood of success does undermine the rest of the extract.

43. CONTEXT (b) How far do Sources A to D support the assertion that the Pro-Slavery forces had only themselves to blame for their failure to make Kansas a slave state? [25] The balance of free and slave states within the USA was always a controversial issue . The Missouri Compromise of 1820, mentioned briefly by Source A, applied to lands gained from France via the Louisiana Purchase. It established a border at latitude 36”30’ beyond which slavery could not expand. The Compromise of 1850 did not extend that line westwards and apply it to lands gained from Mexico in 1848, as might have been expected. Instead it introduced the idea of popular sovereignty to two new territories, Utah and New Mexico , whereby the [white male] residents of those lands would choose whether the lands were free or slave as they applied to become US states. This meant that slavery might expand north of the 1820 Compromise line. [Neither territory chose slavery.]

44. CONTEXT cont. Those wanting to make the lands of Kansas and Nebraska, acquired as part of the Louisiana Purchase , into formal territories of the USA included the principle of popular sovereignty in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This also meant the possible expansion of slavery beyond 36”30 ’ north, in effect ending this part of the Missouri Compromise. Few white settlers lived in Kansas, which had been Indian territory until then. The 1854 Act created a rush of settlers into the territory from both North and South. The latter were labelled ‘border ruffians’. A series of clashes, both political and physical, occurred in the mid 1850s before those opposed to slavery won the day. Kansas joined the USA as a free state in January 1861.

45. ANALYSIS Source A focuses on the strength and determination of Northern abolitionists, as evidenced by their work in Kansas until the spring of 1856, when the balance was tilting in favour of the anti-slavery groups in Kansas. The second part of Source A is thus an appeal to the states and peoples of the South to help tilt the balance in the opposite direction. Source A thus explains two main reasons for the lack of success of pro-slavery forces: the determination of the North and the passivity of the South. This means that Source A neither fully supports nor fully challenges the assertion.

46. ANALYSIS cont. Source B is unusual because it believes that pro-slavery forces would triumph. Contextual knowledge could be used to relate the assertions of Source B to the question. Cross referencing is probably more helpful. Where did the source go wrong? The other sources make it evident that Source B overestimated the power of the South and federal government while underestimating the power of eastern immigration. There was also an active set of newspapers in Kansas supporting the cause of freedom. Thus Source B does not really point the finger of blame at the South.

47. ANALYSIS cont. Source C, however, does say that pro-slavery forces, on the advance in Kansas, would be defeated if the South does not intervene in Kansas. Source C fully supports the hypothesis. Source D takes the opposite view, arguing that the defeat of pro-slavery forces was the result of the determination shown by forces for freedom, especially in the shape of emigrant aid societies from the North East. Source analysis thus shows Sources B and D challenging the assertion while Source C supports it and Source A can be used either way.

48. EVALUATION Source D is probably the easiest to evaluate. There are three reasons why its evidence needs to be treated with great caution: it is a paean of praise for the Emigrant Aid Society , it is written by its founder; it is published some thirty years later and thus presumably written at that time, when memories are more fallible. Thus the first piece of evidence against the assertion is greatly devalued. Its companion source, B, also has to be discounted. It is from a partisan Northern source whose evidence can easily be disproved, as explained above . It is surprising that a newspaper on the side of freedom is quite so pessimistic about the chances of freedom in the new territory of Kansas – what effect will this have on the readers of the Liberator? But this surprise does not make the source a valuable one.

49. EVALUATION cont. The two sources from the South, A and C, are in their own ways equally unreliable. Source A , in describing the free- soilers who moved to Kansas as ‘vagabonds, paupers and discharged convicts’, greatly distorts reality. Source C also distorts the two sides when it refers to Northern settlers as ‘fools’ and pro-slavery supporters as ‘hardy squatters ’. This is a set of documents in which all four sources are unreliable to some degree. Contextual knowledge is needed to place these sources in their historical place. The chance of establishing slavery in a state as far north as Kansas was most unlikely. Though adjoining the slave state of Missouri, it was that much further west, making slave-based agriculture impossible to establish.