CAMBRIDGE AS HISTORY: HISTORY OF THE USA. PAST PAPERS EXPLAINED. 2015 SUMMER PAPER 1 DOCUMENT QUESTION.

1. CAMBRIDGEASHISTORY
HISTORYOFTHEUSA
PASTPAPERS
EXPLAINED
2015SUMMERPAPER1
DOCUMENTQUESTION

2. PAPER 11 - MAY/JUNE 2015
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
The Republican Party in 1860
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

3. SOURCE A
Through Wednesday night and most of Thursday I was engaged on the
labour of the Platform Committee. At 11.00pm the Committee, finding its
progress impeded by its own unwieldiness, deputed its labour to a sub-
committee of five. That the Platform presented is generally satisfactory is
eminently due to John A. Kasson of Iowa, whose efforts to reconcile
differences and secure the largest liberty of sentiment consistent with
Republican principles were most effective and untiring. I think no former
Platform ever reflected more fairly and fully the average convictions of a
great national party.
Horace Greeley, reporting on the Republican National
Convention, ‘New York Tribune’, 22 May 1860.

4. SOURCE B

5. SOURCE C
There is great trouble among the Republicans in this state. They have their
trials and misfortunes as well as the Democrats. There is a tremendous
quarrel going on about the Governorship in which Greeley is mixed up. The
object is to kill him off before the Presidential election so as to destroy his
political influence and cheat him out of his fair share of the spoils of office.
One section of the Republicans desire the re-nomination of Morgan. But the
Seward party is determined to defeat him because he was lukewarm to their
chief. If the Sewardites can, they will never let Greeley get that post
mastership which Lincoln has promised him. The usual contest between
Republican leaders of New York City and those of New York State is now
embittered by a new element of strife – the personal quarrel between
Greeley and Seward.
From the ‘New York Herald’, 5 August 1860.

6. SOURCE D
It was evident that the drafting of a Platform must be delegated to a few men to
expedite the work. A sub-committee of five was chosen. It consisted of Horace
Greeley, Carl Schurz, John A. Kasson, Austin Blair and William Jessup. This sub-
committee received all resolutions submitted and then proceeded to agree upon
the essential items to be embraced in the Platform. At midnight three of the
members retired exhausted, leaving Kasson and Greeley to complete the work. As
daylight approached, Mr. Greeley went to the telegraph office to send the
substance of the resolutions to the Tribune while Kasson finished and revised the
Platform. At nine in the morning Kasson reported the Platform to the general
committee and it was agreed by a unanimous vote. There was a diversity of
opinions on the tariff which had been difficult to reconcile.
Benjamin F. Gue, ‘History of Iowa from the Earliest Times
to the Beginning of theTwentieth Century’, 1903.

7. REQUEST
Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.
(a) Compare and contrast Sources A and D as evidence about the process
of drawing up the Republican Party’s national platform at its 1860
convention. [15]
(b) ‘The Republican Party in 1860 was deeply divided.’ How far do Sources
A to D support this view? [25]

8. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

9. INDICATIVE CONTENT
Compare and contrast Sources A and D as evidence about the process of drawing
up the Republican Party’s national platform at its 1860 convention. [15]
Source A shows the process to be slow – ‘through Wednesday night and most of
Thursday’ – and complicated – ‘its own unwieldiness’ necessitating a sub-
committee to speed things up. That the process eventually worked was to the credit
of John Kasson who worked tirelessly to reconcile differences, according to the
source. Source D confirms that a sub-committee of five was set up though without
explaining clearly the reasons for doing so. It identifies both John Kasson and the
author of Source A, Horace Greeley, as members of the subcommittee. In fact,
Kasson and Greeley were last men standing on the second morning. According to
Source D, Greely left to send the platform to the New York Tribune, which he edited,
while Kasson stayed behind to finalise the platform before reporting it to the full
committee. Source A is unusual in that its author makes no mention of the author’s
role in the events he describes, which makes it more reliable. Source D comes from
a book written much later; it adds details to Greeley’s account without ever
contradicting it. Together, the two sources provide a fairly reliable account of the
process of drawing up the Republican Party’s national platform.

10. CONTEXT
‘The Republican Party in 1860 was deeply divided.’ How far do Sources A to D
support this view? [25]
In 1860 the Republican Party was six years old. Its parents were Whigs, Know-
Nothings and Northern Democrats. This complex parentage and recent birth were
bound to cause tensions and strains within the new party. The main issue which had
brought them together was slavery, an issue reignited by the Compromise of 1850
and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The party was bound by an opposition to
slavery. However, there were great divisions about how to deal with the problem of
slavery. Conservatives, usually ex-Democrats, thought it should be contained to
existing slave states and not allowed to expand into the territories of the West. The
Republican Party’s candidate for president in 1856, John C Frémont, was a Free Soil
Democrat. Radicals argued that the federal government should do everything within
its power to abolish slavery as soon as possible; their leaders were politicians such as
Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens and journalists such as Horace Greeley. Some
historians identify moderate Republicans who sought a middle way between the two;
Lincoln was one such Republican. Ex-Democrats and ex-Whigs also disagreed over
economic policies, such as tariffs and infrastructure. The recession of 1857 helped to
accentuate these differences.

11. ANALYSIS
Sources A and D, writing about the same event, illustrate the unity of the
Republican Party – though Source D, right at the end, shows a division over
tariff policy, at the time a very significant issue. Source C shows how divided
the party is – at least in New York State. The viewpoints of these three sources
are easy to identify. Source B is more problematic. It shows an uneasy,
uncomfortable unity. The party is united by a single plank or platform. The
plank is being carried by an African American, presumably a slave, who
suggests that carrying Lincoln on such a narrow platform is really hard, and a
leading abolitionist, who is much more positive. Lincoln himself worries that
the 1860 platform is the most difficult he has had to straddle, i.e. support.
According to Source B, unity is rather fragile.

12. EVALUATION
Horace Greeley is mentioned in all four sources: once as the source itself, once
in a cartoon and twice as part of sources. Sources A, B and D show him to be a
key member of the Republican Party while Source B reveals him as editor of
the New York ‘Tribune’. Thus he is journalist as well as party politician, features
which bring into question his reliability as author of Source A. He is bound to
portray the party platform in positive terms. Source C further undermines
Source A as it shows that Greeley has personal ambitions for federal
government office. However, Source C comes from the New York ‘Herald’,
which almost certainly would have been a rival to Greeley’s newspaper.

13. EVALUATION cont.
Furthermore, Source A is more fact than comment. In addition, Source D, on
the same subject, confirms Greeley’s account. Source B, the cartoon, shows
Greeley doing some heavy lifting in support of Lincoln’s candidacy, in
combination with an African-American. We have no details of where the
cartoon was published; was it either the Tribune or the Herald? That the
partner of Greeley was an African-American, almost certainly a slave, whether
actual or fugitive, at a time when slaves played little or no direct part in
Republican Party politics, suggests the cartoon is critical of the party. The
emphasis on Lincoln’s relatively humble origins might support this view.

14. EVALUATION cont.
Source C is certainly critical of the Republican Party in New York State, which it
argues was deeply divided, especially between Greeley and Seward, who was
the leading radical candidate for the Republican Party’s presidential candidacy.
Perhaps that personal animosity was untypical of other state Republican
parties. The final sentence of Source D, however, suggests that division was
more widespread on issues other than slavery. Thus the evaluated evidence in
support of divisions within the Republican Party is strong: it was divided over
candidates and policy. Whether it was deeply divided is more arguable:
opposition to slavery united Republicans more than divisions over tactics and
leadership divided them.

15. PAPER 12 - MAY/JUNE 2015
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
The Caning of Senator Sumner in 1856
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

16. SOURCE A

17. SOURCE B
No meaner exhibition of Southern cowardice – generally miscalled Southern
chivalry – was ever witnessed. It is not in the least a cause for wonder that a
member of the House of Representatives should attack a member of the
Senate because the last had uttered words which the first chose to consider
distasteful. The reasons for the absence of collision between North and South,
which existed a few years back, have ceased. As the South has taken the
position that Slavery ought to exist, irrespective of colour, that democracy is a
delusion and a lie, we must expect that Northern men in Washington,
whether members or not, will be assaulted, wounded or killed so long as the
North will bear it. The acts of violence during this session – including one
murder – are simply overtures to the drama of which the persecutions,
murders, robberies and war upon the free-state men of Kansas constitute the
first act. We are either to have Liberty or Slavery.
From the ‘New York Tribune’, 23 May 1856.

18. SOURCE C
Immediately upon the reception of the news on Saturday last, a most
enthusiastic meeting was convened in the town of Newberry. The meeting
voted the Hon. Preston S. Brooks a handsome gold-headed cane, which we
saw yesterday on the way to Washington. We heard one of Carolina’s truest
and most honoured matrons send a message to him saying that ‘the ladies of
the South would send him hickory sticks with which to chastise Abolitionists
and Red Republicans whenever he wanted them.’ And, to add the crowning
glory to the good work, the slaves of Columbia will present an appropriate
token of their regard for him who has made the first practical issue for their
preservation and protection of their rights and enjoyments as the happiest
labourers on the face of the globe.
From the ‘South Carolinian’, 27 May 1856.

19. SOURCE D
We received yesterday a report of Rev. Mr Kirk’s speech. It reads as follows:
‘He pointed to the thunder cloud that hung over us. “God,” said he “may avert
it. Man cannot. Coaxing, compromising, letting alone are all too late. Mr.
Brooks is nothing in this matter. Mr. Douglas is nothing in this matter. The
doctrine that a negro is not a man and the doctrine that the negro is a man
have now come to a death struggle. Neither will yield until a continent has
been swept with the deluge of civil war”.’ Patriotic citizens! Consider this
example of all the mad resolutions which turned up yesterday. Is this wildness
to be publicised as the views of the solid men of Massachusetts? Are they
ready to cast off in a day what it cost so much precious blood to win and so
much God-given intellect to preserve? Shame on the whole Beecher, Sharps
rifle, fanatical brood who are engaged in the terrible work of stirring up the
community to such a dreadful outcome.
From the ‘Boston Post’, 3 June 1856.

20. REQUEST
Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.
(a) Compare and contrast the responses of the states of South Carolina
and Massachusetts in Sources C and D to news of the caning of Senator
Sumner in May 1856. [15]
(b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that the caning of Senator
Sumner was a disaster for the South? [25]

21. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

22. INDICATIVE CONTENT
(a) Compare and contrast the responses of the states of South Carolina and
Massachusetts in Sources C and D to news of the caning of Senator Sumner in
May 1856. [15]
According to the South Carolinian, Source C, the news that Preston Brooks had
caned Senator Sumner was welcomed by the people of South Carolina, both
freemen and slaves, white and black. At a time when politics was for men only,
even the women of South Carolina gave Brooks their support. The support of
some slaves comes as a real surprise. It is very doubtful that their support was
freely given. The Boston Post, Source D, might be expected to be as critical of the
beating of Sumner as Source C had been supportive. The response, however, is
more nuanced. The Post identifies the very strong response of critics of slavery
such as the Rev. Mr Kirk, who reportedly argued that people such as Preston
Brooks would be swept aside in the coming civil war. This group of abolitionists
thus responded to the news with very dramatic, apocalyptic language. The
Boston Post reports this view in order to criticise it as coming from ‘a fanatical
brood’ and being unrepresentative of the ‘solid men of Massachusetts’.

23. CONTEXT
(b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that the caning of Senator
Sumner was a disaster for the South? [25]
Representative Preston Brooks caned Senator Sumner in the chamber of the
US Senate because two days previously Sumner had made a very strong
personal attack on Brooks’ uncle, Senator Butler of South Carolina, even
alluding to a mild physical disability he had. This had come at the end of a very
long and very emotional speech entitled ‘The Crime against Kansas’ which
blamed the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its two authors for the problems in
Kansas. The authors were Senators Douglas and Butler. Brooks thought the
speech to be a crime against the honour of both Butler and South Carolina.
While Sumner was working at his desk in the Senate, Brooks walked up to him
and launched an assault so fierce that he broke the cane he was using. Sumner
did not return to the Senate for over three years. Censured by the House,
Brooks resigned and was immediately re-elected. There was a strong reaction
in both North and South, usually along sectional lines: the North lambasted
Brooks, the South defended him.

24. ANALYSIS
Source A is a contemporary cartoon of the caning. In the background are
Senators presumably, some of whom are standing and watching rather than
intervening to stop the beating. The cartoon shows Brooks raising his cane
while Sumner, on the floor, holds a quill pen against him. The title of the
cartoon uses the beating to comment on Southern values. It does so by
highlighting the contrast between the assault and the chivalry and good
manners which the South saw as distinguishing itself from the North. Source A
certainly supports the assertion. Source B, which argues that the beating was
one of many assaults by slave power against the North, also makes the wider
case for the assertion. Source C, from South Carolina, argues the opposite,
maintaining that the beating will help protect the rights of the slaves
themselves. Source D focuses on the response in the North, which is shown to
be divided between radical abolitionists and moderate constitutionalists. If
Northern responses to the caning are divided, then the beating might not have
been quite so disastrous after all.

25. EVALUATION
The provenance of Source A does not give information with which to evaluate
the cartoon. One other source gives some: Source B renames Southern chivalry
as Southern cowardice, which puts the cartoon’s comment in stronger terms.
Source B is from a Northern newspaper. Source A must be as well. Both are
against the South. Their interpretation is one-sided. However, contextual
knowledge suggests that Source A is reliable, that the comment is deserved.
Brooks chose a cane used to beat dogs rather than challenge Sumner to a duel
as he was no gentleman. Several senators did stand by and let the assault
continue. Thus Source A has some credibility, despite being a cartoon. Source B
argues that this violent incident indicates how the South is leading the
offensive against democracy and liberty, as shown in Kansas.

26. EVALUATION cont.
The first part of Source D, the report of Rev. Kirk’s speech, could be used to
challenge this argument as it shows the North aggressive in its defence of
democracy. Events in Kansas, however, broadly support the arguments of
Source B. Source C makes no reference to the wider context of the caning of
Sumner. It does show the unity of all those in the South – or at least in parts of
South Carolina – in defence of slavery. Thus the caning is not seen as disastrous
for the South. The final part of Source C, the assertion about slaves being ‘the
happiest labourers’ in the world, is open to serious doubt. There is a
contradiction within the source: slaves cannot have rights, by definition. The
evidence of anyone who believes such is seriously undermined. Contextual
knowledge also challenges Source C. The increasing number of Fugitive Slaves
using the Underground Railroad following the Fugitive Slaves Act of 1850 can
be used to do so.

27. EVALUATION cont.
Source D shows how some in the North have reacted furiously to the news of
Sumner’s caning while some have been more restrained in their response. The
other sources do not help evaluate Source D. Contextual knowledge suggests
that moderates such as the ‘solid men of Massachusetts’ lost ground to the
‘fanatical brood’ of abolitionists, thereby making North-South conflict much
more likely. The only source which challenges the assertion, Source C, is shown
to be much less reliable than the others. Even after evaluation, the assertion
remains valid.

28. PAPER 13 - MAY/JUNE 2015
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
Lincoln and Disunion, 1861
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

29. SOURCE A
No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Acts
of violence against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or
revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that the
Union is unbroken. I shall take care that the laws of the Union be faithfully
executed in all the states. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace but
only the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend
itself. In doing this there needs be no bloodshed or violence, unless it be
forced on the national authority. The power confided in me will be used to
hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the
government and to collect duties. There will be no invasion – no using of
force against or among the people anywhere.
From Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, 4 March 1861.

30. SOURCE B
If I understand the inaugural speech aright, that purpose which seems to
stand out clearly and directly is one which must lead to war against the
confederate or seceding states. I must say frankly to gentlemen on the other
side that I do not see how, if we adopt the principles of the inaugural, that is
to be avoided. The President declares expressly that he intends to treat those
states as though they were still members of the Union, as though the acts of
secession were nothing. As they claim to be independent, there can be no
result except a collision. In plain, unmistakable language he declares that it is
his purpose to hold, occupy and possess the forts and arsenals in those
states. We know that he can hold them only by dispossessing the state
authorities.
From a speech in the US Senate by Thomas Clingman,
Democratic Senator for North Carolina,6 March 1861.

31. SOURCE C
I submit to the Senate that the friends of peace have much to rejoice at in the
inaugural address of the President. It is a much more conservative document
than I had anticipated. It is a much more pacific and conciliatory document
than I had expected. After examination, I am clearly of the opinion that the
administration stands pledged by the inaugural to a peaceful solution of all
our difficulties, to do no act that leads to war and to change its policy just so
often and whenever change is necessary to preserve the peace.
From a speech in the US Senate by Stephen Douglas,
Democratic Senator for Illinois, 4 March 1861.

32. SOURCE D
For the comfort of secessionists who have denounced Lincoln for the
‘declaration of war’ which they contend is contained in his inaugural speech,
we copy the following extract from the National Anti-Slavery Standard of 9
March. This fanatical paper is as bitter against Lincoln for not declaring war
as the secessionists are abusive of him for a pretence that he has declared
war. The two extremes are acting together in favour of disunion. ‘The
[inaugural] speech was made with the face turned towards the South and
with both knees bowed down before the idol it worships. Lincoln should
have plainly set forth the encroachments of slavery upon the rights of the
North and shown how they had culminated in the disruption of the Union.
He should have proclaimed his intention of stopping the encroachments and
restoring the Union by the full exercise of all his constitutional power. Then
he would have taken a position which even his enemies would have
admired.’
From the Fayetteville (North Carolina) ‘Observer’, 14 March 1861.

33. REQUEST
Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.
(a) Compare and contrast Sources A and B on the likelihood of secession
leading to war. [15]
(b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that President Lincoln’s
inaugural address was bound to lead to war? [25]

34. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

35. INDICATIVE CONTENT
(a) Compare and contrast Sources A and B on the likelihood of secession leading
to war. [15]
Source A, from Lincoln’s first speech as President, argues that secession is unlikely
to lead to civil war. First of all, he denies that a state can secede ‘upon its own mere
motion’, which means that he refuses to acknowledge the secessions which
occurred between the federal election and his inauguration. He finally states that
the federal government will not use force against the people ‘anywhere’. However,
in between, he does say that bloodshed is possible if the federal government’s
authority is challenged. Thus there is a possibility that secession will lead to war but
the federal government will not be the one to start it. Source B, from a Southern
Democrat, argues that secession is bound to lead to war. The seceded states see
themselves as having left the USA, as being independent. The US President argues
that no state has left the Union as it cannot do so on its own. When the president
acts to control federal forts in seceded states, as he says he will, war is bound to
follow. If the differences are clear, so are some similarities. Neither source wants to
be seen as starting the war; both sources need to find ways of justifying their side
going to war should it break out.

36. CONTEXT
(b) How far do Sources A–D support the view that President Lincoln’s inaugural
address was bound to lead to war? [25]
President Lincoln made his address in March 1861, five months after he won the
presidential election – and that he did by winning most Northern states. He was a
sectional president who had to address a great national problem. In the South, he
was not on the ballot for the seven states which seceded between December 1860
and February 1861. Southerners saw Lincoln as either an abolitionist or too weak to
stand up to the abolitionists. Even before the election, many in the South argued
that to choose Lincoln would be to choose disunion. In the next five months, a lame-
duck Buchanan presidency did nothing to confront disunionist forces in the South.
The secession of the seven states meant that the likelihood of conflict between
North and South was much greater than it had been at election time. In March, war
had still not yet occurred and Lincoln’s speech was as conciliatory to the South as
possible – without conceding the right of states to secede unilaterally. The practical
issue of control of federal territory in seceded states remained a major problem,
however, and five weeks after the speech political divisions gave way to military
conflict as the state of South Carolina bombarded Fort Sumner.

37. ANALYSIS
Source A provides evidence of Lincoln’s approach to the secession problem,
which is best described as unyielding yet unprovocative. He is not going to
accept secession but neither is he going to order federal forces to invade
secessionist states. He will defend the Union, however, and uphold federal law
in all the states of the USA. Thus Source A rejects the assertion even if it
accepts that war might result. Source B takes the opposite stance. The North
Carolina Democrat argues that the Southern states see themselves as having
broken away from the USA. However cautious Lincoln might be in keeping
control of federal forts in disunited states, the South is bound to oppose him,
by force if necessary. Source C supports the view that the inaugural address is
not bound to lead to war as Douglas maintains that Lincoln will make any
concession necessary to keep the peace. Source D is a Southern report of an
abolitionist newspaper article which criticises Lincoln as making too many
concessions to the South. Thus Source D suggests that Lincoln is not set on war
with the South, that war is not bound to occur. Only Source B argues that it is.

38. EVALUATION
Source A is Lincoln’s first public address as federal president when he is facing
constitutional and political problems of unprecedented complexity. He has just
taken an oath of office by which he agreed to ‘preserve, protect and defend’
the constitution of the USA. Seven states have refused to accept his authority.
He has to speak to and for all parts of the USA. Source A shows Lincoln steering
a careful line between concession and compulsion. To abolitionists, according
to Source D, this is a sign of weakness. Southern politicians, as in Source B,
understand Lincoln’s position but believe it makes war unavoidable. Context
shows how narrow a path Lincoln had to walk by the time he took office.
Emotions were running high, especially in the South, and his best efforts to
defend the constitution failed to prevent the probable becoming unavoidable
just a few weeks later.

39. EVALUATION cont.
Source B is a public speech made by a Southern senator just two days after
Lincoln’s inaugural address. The extract is quite an accurate description of the
situation facing the USA and its president, which is a surprise as it comes in a
public speech made by a Democrat from a state which was soon to secede. The
source shows the importance of different perceptions and how they affect
arguments and actions. Source C is a public speech made by a Northern
Democrat and the defeated rival of Lincoln. Again, his speech is something of a
surprise as he praises Lincoln for his inaugural address. His analysis falters
when he asserts that the federal government has ‘to do no act which leads to
war and to change its policy’ whenever needed to keep the peace. Source A
shows Lincoln is not so accommodating and thus undermines Source C.

40. EVALUATION cont.
Source D contains two arguments in one. It contains the abolitionists’
argument that Lincoln should stand firm against the South. It also contains the
Fayetteville Observer’s use of that argument to address Southern extremists. It
is unclear whether the Observer was or was not keen on secession and war.
Certainly abolitionists were willing to risk war in order to defend the
constitution and defeat slave power. Many Northerners, including Lincoln
himself, had believed that Southern talk of secession was bluff. Even after
Lincoln’s inauguration, many believed war was avoidable. Events in South
Carolina were to prove them wrong. The evaluated sources support a modified
version of the assertion, namely that Lincoln’s inaugural address made war
much more probable.