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

1. CAMBRIDGEASHISTORY
HISTORYOFTHEUSA
PASTPAPERS
EXPLAINED
2015WINTERPAPER1
DOCUMENTQUESTION

2. PAPER 11 - NOVEMBER 2015
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
Lincoln’s views on Slavery
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

3. SOURCE A
Ladies and Gentlemen: While I was in the hotel today an elderly gentleman
called upon me to know whether I was really in favour of producing a perfect
equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter] I thought I
would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard of it. I will
say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of bringing about in any
way the social and political equality of black and white races [applause] – that
I am not nor ever have been in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes,
nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people;
and I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white
and the black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living
together on terms of social and political equality.
Lincoln, in the fourth debate with Stephen Douglas,
Charleston, Illinois, 18 September 1858.

4. SOURCE B
Strictly confidential
Hon. John A Gilmer
Is it desired that I shall shift the ground upon which I have been elected? I cannot
do it. I have no thought of recommending the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia nor the slave trade among slave states. On the territorial question, I am
inflexible. It is the only substantial difference between us. You think slavery is right
and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this,
neither of us has any just occasion to be angry with the other. As to the state laws
you mention, I know little of them. I have never read one. If any of them are in
conflict with the fugitive slave clause or any other part of the constitution, I should
be glad of their repeal. With the assurance of my highest regards, I subscribe
myself your obedient servant, A LINCOLN.
From a letter to John Gilmer, Whig Unionist Representative
for North Carolina, 15 December 1860.

5. SOURCE C
The laws of nations and the customs of war as carried on by civilised powers
permit no distinction as to colour in the treatment of prisoners of war. To sell
or enslave any captured person on account of his colour, and for no offence
against the laws of war, is a relapse into barbarism and a crime against the
civilisation of the age. The government of the United States will give the same
protection to all its soldiers and if the enemy shall sell or enslave anyone
because of his colour, the offence shall be punished by retaliation upon
enemy prisoners in our possession. It is therefore ordered that for every
soldier of the United States enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a
rebel soldier shall be placed into hard labour on the public works and
continued at such labour until the others shall be released.
The Order of Retaliation, signed by
Abraham Lincoln, 30 July 1863.

6. SOURCE D
He was pre-eminently the white man’s president, entirely devoted to the
welfare of white men. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle
alone, namely opposition to the extension of slavery. To protect, defend and
perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed, Abraham Lincoln was not
less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was
willing to pursue, recapture and send back the fugitive slave to his master and
to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in
arms against the government. The race to which we belong were not special
objects of his consideration. We are at best only his step-children: children by
adoption, children by force of circumstance and necessity.
From an oration by Frederick Douglass, an ex-slave, at the unveiling
of the Freedmen’s Monument in memory of Lincoln, 14 April 1876.

7. REQUEST
Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.
(a) Compare and contrast Sources B and C as evidence about Lincoln’s policies
towards slavery after being elected President. [15]
(b) ‘Lincoln’s attitude towards slavery was consistently conservative.’ How far
do Sources A to D support this statement? [25]

8. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

9. INDICATIVE CONTENT
(a) Compare and contrast Sources B and C as evidence about Lincoln’s
policies towards slavery after being elected president. [15]
Source B is a private letter, written in the interim between election and
inauguration, to a Southern politician who supports slavery. It reveals that
Lincoln opposed three possible reforms in the position of slaves. Two would
improve their position: abolition of slavery in Washington DC and the slave
trade in the South. The other, the expansion of slavery into US territories,
would benefit slave owners. The state laws Lincoln refers to are laws passed
by Northern states to limit the workings of the Fugitive Slave Act. About these
he claims to know little. Lincoln stresses how small the gap was between his
views and those of Gilmer. Source C is an executive order of the President,
published two years into the civil war. In it, he argues that black soldiers
captured by the enemy deserve as much protection as white soldiers. If the
enemy does not provide that protection by continuing to treat the black
prisoners of war as slaves, then Lincoln ordered that similar treatment would
be inflicted on the [white] soldiers under Federal control.

10. INDICATIVE CONTENT cont.
Lincoln issued the order in response to the harsh treatment of captured black
soldiers by the Confederacy, which still saw blacks as slave property and thus
not meriting equal treatment. Thus there is a huge contrast between Lincoln’s
position in December 1860 and his position in July 1863. There are contrasts
in the provenance of the sources: private vs. public, personal as opposed to
official, peace vs. war. Both sources are reliable. The war had changed
everything. There is one major similarity between the two sources, however.
In both peace and war, Lincoln bases his arguments on law. In 1860, he uses
the law of the constitution to justify his action whereas in 1863 he uses ‘the
law of nations’, international law, and the ‘customs of war’. Even in the middle
of a brutal civil war, Lincoln acts according to the law. In addition, both
sources show Lincoln opposed to slavery but not in favour of full abolition.

11. CONTEXT
(b) ‘Lincoln’s attitude towards slavery was consistently conservative.’ How
far do Sources A to D support this statement? [25]
Until 1862–3, Lincoln took a very cautious line towards the sensitive issue of
slavery. His later reputation as the ‘Great Emancipator’ arose as a result of his
actions while President rather than before. As a matter of principle, Lincoln
was always against slavery. The practice of constitutional government,
democratic politics and a free market economy caused his position to become
more nuanced. He was certainly against the expansion of slavery into new
territories, which he saw as the preserve of free white men who should not
have to face competition from black slave labour. Thus he opposed the Dred
Scott judgement. The fact that all slaves were black brought the issue of race
into play. To modern eyes, Lincoln was a racist. He did not believe that the two
races should live as one. He favoured the idea that most ex-slaves should
either return to Africa or emigrate to new states in central America. On
becoming president, Lincoln was intent on preserving the Union and not on
freeing slaves. He eventually accepted that slaves should be free because to do
so was necessary to win the civil war and thus preserve the Union.

12. ANALYSIS
Source A mentions slavery only indirectly. It reveals Lincoln’s willingness to accept the
existence of racial inequality of whites and blacks. Differences between black and white
will exist ‘forever’. On matters of race, therefore, Lincoln is very conservative. Whether
that conservatism applies to slavery as well cannot be determined from Source A.
Source B does identify Lincoln’s view on slavery. It shows that, even though against
slavery, Lincoln accepts the Fugitive Slave Act which many Republicans strongly
opposed. Thus when it came to slavery, Lincoln was a cautious conservative, unwilling
to support any change in the status quo. Source C reveals a very different attitude
towards black soldiers, if not necessarily towards all slaves, in that the order shows
Lincoln seeing them as equal to white soldiers. Source D, spoken by an ex-slave eleven
years after Lincoln’s death and the emancipation of the slaves, is very critical of
Lincoln’s attitude towards slavery, arguing that he always supported the interests of the
whites. Source B show Lincoln to be against the expansion of slavery which, while
conservative, leads him to oppose white slave-owners, who were expansionist. Thus his
attitude to slavery contains some inconsistencies: his principled opposition to slavery is
radical, his practical acceptance of slavery conservative and perhaps racially based.

13. EVALUATION
Two of the sources are from Lincoln himself. Each needs careful evaluation. One
is a private letter, the other a public speech. The letter, Source B, is actually
headed ‘strictly confidential’, which suggests that Lincoln did not want his views
to be made public. The speech, Source A, is taken from one of Lincoln’s famous
debates with Senator Stephen Douglas in 1858. [Charleston is a town in Illinois
rather than the city in South Carolina.] The difference of sources might be seen
as highlighting the differences between private and public. In public, politicians
say what they have to in order to win votes. This would be especially true of
this spoken source, taken from the contest to win a seat in the US Senate. The
extract shows the audience responding to Lincoln’s comments with ‘great
laughter’ and ‘applause’. According to the report, his detailed comments come
after the laughter. Thus Lincoln was perhaps saying things which pleased his
[white] listeners – and won him more support – rather than expressing his real
views about the blacks. He could believe in liberty for the slaves without
believing them to be equal.

14. EVALUATION cont.
Thus Source A must be viewed with great caution. The letter is perhaps more
valuable in helping to identify Lincoln’s views of slavery because Lincoln is
likely to be more honest is a ‘strictly private’ letter. However, Lincoln’s private
views in 1860 do not greatly contradict his public statements in 1858. There is
a big difference between his views of 1858–60 and those of 1863, as shown in
Source C, when he shows a commitment of equality of black and white
soldiers. This change is more the result of the needs of war rather than any
great change of heart. Spoken by the leading ex-slave of the era, Source D
attacks Lincoln for being the white man’s president. Douglas’s attack gains
credibility because it was made at the unveiling of a monument in recognition
of Lincoln’s work in emancipating slaves. Such an occasion would be expected
to praise Lincoln, not criticise him. Thus Source D has great credibility,
perhaps supported by Sources A and B. These evaluated sources do show
Lincoln to have been profoundly conservative on the issue of slavery.

15. PAPER 12 - NOVEMBER 2015
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
The Freeport Debate between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

16. SOURCE A
Everyone knows Douglas, a short, thick-set burly man with a fierce bulldog
look. Skilled by a thousand conflicts in all the strategy of a hand-to-hand or a
general fight, proud, defiant, arrogant, audacious, unscrupulous, ‘Little Dog’
ascended the platform and looked out impudently upon the immense throng
before him. The other – Lincoln – is in physique the opposite of Douglas. I
must admit that ‘Long Abe’s’ appearance is not attractive. But stir him up and
the fire of his genius plays on every feature. Listening to him on Saturday,
calmly and unprejudiced, I was convinced he has no superior as an election
speaker. The Republicans of Illinois have chosen a champion worthy of their
heartiest support and fully equipped for conflict with the great ‘Squatter
Sovereign’.
From a report of the Ottawa debate in the ‘Chicago Press
and Tribune’, 1 September 1858.

17. SOURCE B
The debate at Freeport was attended by 20 000 people. At two o’clock the
debates began. Lincoln led off by replying to the questions put by Douglas at
Ottawa. Lincoln then proceeded to bring out Douglas’s views by asking him
some questions. Mr D. replied to Lincoln’s questions. Mr D. here retracts what
he said in Chicago. Douglas evidently adapts his speeches to the section of the
state he is in, taking for granted that his followers in southern Illinois cannot
or will not read the anti-slavery sentiments he may advocate in the north.
Lincoln in his reply utterly demolished Douglas and exposed his double dealing
and his cowardice so fully that the friends of Douglas slunk away. No more
was heard of them while the Republicans held rousing meetings during the
remainder of the evening.
From the ‘Galesburg Semi-weekly Democrat’,
1 September 1858.

18. SOURCE C
The discussion between Douglas and Lincoln drew an immense concourse of
people, numbering we think about 10 000, though some put the figure as high
as 15 000. The weather was cloudy and cold and in consequence of a high
wind which prevailed a part of the time, many were prevented from hearing
the speakers. Lincoln had the opening speech and consumed his time in vain
attempts to extricate himself from the unpleasant position in which Judge
Douglas’s arguments had placed him in Ottawa. Taken as a whole, his speech
was made up of lame and impotent conclusions and came very short of the
expectations of his friends. Of Douglas’s speech, suffice it to say it was a
masterly effort. We heard more than one Republican acknowledge that, much
as they admired Lincoln, he was no match for the ‘Little Giant’.
From the ‘Freeport Weekly Bulletin’, 2 September 1858.

19. SOURCE D
When I was a boy of fourteen I had the good fortune to see and hear Lincoln
in one of his series of historic debates with Douglas – at Freeport. I was within
a few feet of the low platform from which the two speeches were made and
both saw and heard everything which went on. The contrast between the two
speakers was immense, not in physique and bearing only but in relation to
their supporters and the audience as a whole. Lincoln seemed a man of the
people. His arguments were as direct in their appeal to Democrats as to
Republicans. Douglas, on the other hand, was the aggressive, defiant party
leader, determined to browbeat and cow his opponents by a violence of
bearing and expressions of contempt. I came away from the meeting quite
aflame with enthusiasm for the new Republican party and especially for
Lincoln as its new champion.
From an account written in 1917 by a Professor at Illinois University.

20. REQUEST
Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.
(a) Compare and contrast the accounts of the Freeport meeting given by
Sources B and D. [15]
(b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that, in the debates with
Douglas in 1858, Lincoln showed all the talents needed to be a leader of the
new Republican party? [25]

21. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

22. INDICATIVE CONTENT
(a) Compare and contrast the accounts of the Freeport meeting given by
Sources B and D. [15]
The two sources are similar in that they both see Lincoln as winning the debate
with Senator Douglas. Source B describes a very large meeting in which Lincoln
demolished the arguments of Douglas so thoroughly that Douglas supporters
left the meeting in a demoralised state. Source D makes no mention of the size
of the audience – which is a difference of detail – but is equally convinced
about the superiority of Lincoln over Douglas. Another difference of detail is
that Source B makes no comparison of the physique and speaking style of the
two men while Source D spends some time contrasting the both. A third
difference is that Source D concentrates on his own response to the two
speakers and their speeches, making no mention of the audience, while Source
B does the exact opposite. The difference is due mainly to the contrasting
origins of the two sources: Source B is a contemporary newspaper report,
Source D an autobiographical account written more than half a century later.
The difference raises questions about the relative reliability of the two sources.

23. CONTEXT
(b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that, in the debates with Douglas in
1858, Lincoln showed all the talents needed to be a leader of the Republicans? [25]
The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 were debates between the Republican and
Democratic candidates to become US Senator for the state of Illinois. Lincoln was the
challenger, Douglas the incumbent. Senator Douglas was one of the national leaders
of the Democratic Party and the leading advocate of popular sovereignty – also
known as squatter sovereignty – a concept which attempted to defuse the issue of
slavery in the territories. Lincoln was little known outside the Midwest. Times were
turbulent. Slavery was become more of a national issue following the Dred Scott
judgement and ‘Bloody Kansas’. The seven debates, which attracted national as well
as local attention, reflected this concern with slavery. They made Lincoln a national
figure, even though he lost the ‘election’ to be a US Senator – narrowly – to Douglas.
The Freeport debate has been described by Allan Nevins as ‘the most momentous of
all the debates’ between the two men. In the months before the debate Lincoln had
made his ‘house divided’ speech, which also gained him attention. By the end of the
contest, Lincoln had emerged as a national figure, a candidate for President.

24. ANALYSIS
Source A is a journalist’s report of the appearance of Douglas and Lincoln at the
very first of their seven debates. It draws a clear and vivid contrast between the
physical appearances of the two men before finishing with praise for Lincoln’s
qualities as a debater. Thus Source A shows that Lincoln has the talents and
skills needed to lead the Republican Party to electoral victory. Source B supports
Source A. It argues that Lincoln ‘utterly demolished’ Douglas in the debate at
Freeport. Source C is not convinced. It describes how Lincoln’s speech
disappointed his supporters, which suggests that Lincoln lacked the qualities
needed to win elections. Source D is the third which argues for Lincoln’s
potential as a party leader. It argues that Lincoln’s speech had a broad appeal
which Douglas’s lacked. In addition, Douglas was narrowly and aggressively
sectional. Though no direct contrast is made with Lincoln on the matter of style,
the implication is that Lincoln was the opposite: bipartisan, reasonable and
rational. The author of Source E certainly saw Lincoln as the ‘champion’ of the
Republican Party. Sources A and B supported him, if less enthusiastically.

25. EVALUATION
The four sources were all written by people who attended the Lincoln-
Douglas debates. One reported the first debate, three the second. Three were
adult journalists, one retired professor aged 73. All are partisan. All can be
doubted. All three pieces of journalism are less than reliable. Two – Sources B
and C – contradict each other so completely that you wonder if they were
reporting the same meeting. They could be seen as cancelling each other out.
Both are exaggerating, probably to appeal to the readers of their respective
papers. Source A is a little more even-handed but then it does not comment
on the content of the debate, unlike Sources B and C. Source D is perhaps the
most intriguing. It is taken from a letter written almost seventy years after the
debate.

26. EVALUATION cont.
The author was fourteen in 1858, which makes him seventy-three when he
wrote his reminiscence of the event. How much reliability can be placed on
such a memoir, especially given the glorification of Lincoln in the intervening
years? His assessment of Douglas is supported by Source A, which helps make
Source D a little more reliable but his view of Douglas again might be a
reflection of the historical view developed since the civil war. Thus the sources
are of limited reliability. Context needs to be considered to help decide which
is the most reliable. We do know that following these debates Lincoln did
become a national figure and that within two years he was nominated as the
Republican Party’s candidate for US president. Sources A and D certainly stress
Lincoln’s ability as an election speaker for the new Republican party. Whether
that skill was all that was needed to lead the party is another matter. Thus the
quote could be modified to say that Lincoln showed the talents to lead the
Republican Party to electoral victory.

27. PAPER 13 - NOVEMBER 2015
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
The Dred Scott Judgement, 1857
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

28. SOURCE A
The main proposition decided by the Supreme Court is that under the
Constitution of the United States a negro, descended from slave parents
imported from Africa, is not and cannot be a citizen of the United States. We
are told by the leaders of the Republican or Abolition party that this
proposition is cruel, inhuman and infamous and should not be obeyed by any
good citizen. Wherein is the cruelty, the inhumanity, the infamy? They quote
the Declaration of Independence, which says, ‘We hold these truths to be
self-evident that all men are created equal’ and insist that this language was
intended to include negroes as well as white men. Did any of the thirteen
states abolish slavery – much less place the negro on an equality with the
white man? History records the emphatic answer – No.
From a speech by Senator Stephen Douglas
in Springfield, Illinois, 12 June 1857.

29. SOURCE B
Judge Taney, in delivering the verdict of the majority of the Court, insists at
great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for
whom was made, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of
the United States. Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five
of the then thirteen states, free negroes were voters and, in proportion to
their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that white
people had. The ultimate destiny of the black race has never appeared so
hopeless as in the last three or four years. Now, to aid in making the
bondage of the negro universal and eternal, the Declaration of
Independence is assailed, sneered at and torn till, if its framers could rise
from the earth, they could not at all recognise it.
From a speech by Abraham Lincoln in Springfield,
Illinois, 26 June 1857.

30. SOURCE C
The importance of the Dred Scott decision is greatly enhanced by its
immediate effect upon two of the great political parties of the country. At a
single blow it shatters and destroys the platform of the Republican party. It
annihilates the issue which was made paramount in the recent presidential
election and takes away from the Democratic party all the advantages of its
advocacy of popular sovereignty. It leaves both of these great parties adrift,
without a single plank of their late platforms on which to rest. In the recent
election, while the Republicans demanded the restoration of the Missouri
Compromise, the Democratic party strongly advocated the popular
sovereignty doctrine incorporated in the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
From the Louisville [Kentucky] ‘Journal’, 16 March 1857.

31. SOURCE D
The decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case will bring the
enemies of the South face to face with the constitution of their country. They
cannot escape the issue presented – the observance of the laws of the land
or disunion. The leaders of the Black Republican party are denouncing the
decision of the very tribunal to which they had appealed and are
endeavouring to excite among the people of the North a bitter hostility to it.
But as fanatical as the people of New England are, they will hesitate to enter
the ranks of a political party organised for the express purpose of
overturning a decision of the Supreme Court. Some of our Southern editors
oppose the agitation to which this decision will give rise. But let it come. The
fury of the storm has passed.
From the Milledgeville [Georgia] ‘Federal Union’, 31 March 1857.

32. REQUEST
Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.
(a) Compare and contrast the interpretations of the Declaration of
Independence given in Sources A and B. [15]
(b) ‘The Dred Scott judgement greatly benefited the Democratic party’. How
far do Sources A to D support this assertion? [25]

33. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

34. INDICATIVE CONTENT
(a) Compare and contrast the interpretations of the Declaration of
Independence given in Sources A and B. [15]
Note the focus is on the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution.
Source A interprets the Declaration’s commitment to equality as excluding
negroes, thus contradicting the interpretation made by the Republican Party, as
quoted by Douglas. Source A goes on to assert that none of the thirteen states
which signed the Declaration actually abolished slavery, which provides a
further practical illustration of Source A’s interpretation. The Source blurs the
distinction between free negroes and slaves. Source B takes the opposite view.
It does not contradict Source A’s assertion that none of the thirteen ex-colonies
abolished slavery. However, it does say that free negroes had political equality
with the whites in that both had the vote and both could affect the outcome of
elections. Source B also goes on to assert that the Declaration of Independence
is much less regarded in the 1850s than it had been in the 1770s and 1780s.

35. CONTEXT
The Dred Scott judgement was an extremely controversial judgement of the
US Supreme Court concerning the very sensitive issue of fugitive slaves. Dred
Scott was a slave who thought he had gained his freedom when he went with
his master to the free territory of Minnesota. When he was made to return to
slavery in the South, he appealed to the US courts to uphold his right to
freedom. The Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott, deciding, firstly, that
no black person, whether slave or free, as long as they were of African
descent, had the right to bring a case in a US court and, secondly, that no
body, judicial or legislative, had the right to deprive the slave holder of his
property. In addition, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which excluded
slavery from lands above the 36°30’ line of latitude, was overturned. This
made legal the expansion of slavery, something most Northerners, whether
radical abolitionists or moderate, were strongly against. North-South
relations, already strained by Bloody Kansas, deteriorated further as a result
of the Dred Scott judgement. The North started to use moral arguments
against slavery as part of a ‘higher law’ than the constitutional law as
interpreted by the Supreme Court.

36. ANALYSIS
Source A, from Senator Douglas, a leading Democrat, clearly supports the
Dred Scott judgement, which he uses to attack the Republicans defence of
black rights. Thus, though Douglas does not mention the Democratic Party
by name, he clearly sees it as benefiting from the Dred Scott judgement.
Source B, from Lincoln, mentions neither Democratic nor Republican party
by name. However, he does mention the hopelessness of the position of the
blacks, which indirectly must benefit the Democrats. Source C is more
explicit about the parties, arguing that neither gained from the Dred Scott
judgement, which undermines key policy pledges of both parties. Source D
clearly believes that Dred Scott has put the opponents of the South firmly in
their place. The Republican Party has to accept Dred Scott, however much it
dislikes the judgement. Though the Democratic Party is not directly
mentioned by D, the dilemmas facing the Republican Party should benefit
the Democrats.

37. EVALUATION
Two sources are from public speeches made by politicians and two are
newspaper editorials. Thus all are of dubious reliability and need evaluation
by reference to other evidence. Source A comes from a speech by Stephen
Douglas, one of the two best known Democratic politicians of the time [the
other being the President]. His argument is disproved by contextual
evidence. The reality was that some of the thirteen founder states did
abolish slavery in the years following the Declaration of Independence. Five
did so before 1787 and the establishment of the USA, two more did so by
1804. So the final sentence of Source A could more accurately be reworded
to say ‘history records the emphatic answer – yes’. If context undermines
Source A, it strengthens Source B. There were five states which freed their
slaves and gave them some political rights in 1787. Furthermore, Lincolns
talk about the situation of the blacks in the mid–1850s being never so bleak
is substantiated by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and Bloody Kansas.

38. EVALUATION cont.
Dred Scott simply meant that their position went from bad to worse. Source C
is important because it does focus on the position of the two parties, the only
source to do so. It argues that the Democrats’ support for popular sovereignty
is undermined by the Dred Scott judgement. This is valid as the Supreme
Court’s judgement argues that no assembly, state or national, can overturn
the constitution which preserves the property rights of slave owners. Thus
Source C gains in credibility, especially given that it comes from a border state.
Source D comes from a newspaper in the Deep South. It believes that the
Supreme Court’s judgement will benefit the Democratic Party if only because
the Republican Party will have to accept the judgement of the highest court in
the land. This was to prove to be wishful thinking. Northern abolitionists such
as Seward made the issue of slavery a moral issue subject only to higher laws
and not the law of the land. Sources A and D, the two Democratic sources, are
severely weakened by contextual evidence. Sources B and C prove to be more
reliable. The evaluated sources do not support the assertion.