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

1. CAMBRIDGEASHISTORY
HISTORYOFTHEUSA
PASTPAPERS
EXPLAINED
2016SUMMERPAPER1
DOCUMENTQUESTION

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. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

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. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

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. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

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.