CAMBRIDGE AS HISTORY: HISTORY OF THE USA. PAST PAPERS EXPLAINED. 2014 SUMMER PAPER 1 DOCUMENT QUESTION.

1. CAMBRIDGEASHISTORY
HISTORYOFTHEUSA
PASTPAPERS
EXPLAINED
2014SUMMERPAPER1
DOCUMENTQUESTION

2. PAPER 11 - MAY/JUNE 2014
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
The Compromise of 1850
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

3. SOURCE A
The agitation on the subject of slavery now raging throughout the land
presents a most extraordinary spectacle. Congress, after a protracted
session of nearly ten months, succeeded in passing a system of
measures which are believed to be just to all parts of the republic and
ought to be satisfactory to the people. The South has not triumphed
over the North nor has the North achieved a victory over the South.
Neither party has made humiliating concessions to the other. And yet
we find that the agitation has reopened in the two extremes of the
Union with renewed vigour and increased violence. In the South, the
measures of adjustment are denounced as a disgraceful surrender of
Southern rights to Northern abolitionists. In the North, the same
measures are denounced with equal violence as a total abandonment of
the rights of freemen in order to conciliate slave power.
From a speech by Stephen Douglas, 23 October 1850.

4. SOURCE B
When the so-called compromise measures passed both houses of Congress and
received the approval of the President, there was some prospect of domestic
tranquillity. These measures were, unquestionably, of Southern origin and so
framed as to promote and encourage Southern interests. The South gained all
its points in the game of legislation and left the North, if not a victim to superior
tact and finesse, at least a dupe to systematised threat and bombast. It was
reasonable to expect that the South would be satisfied with the concessions
and advantages of the compromise measures. The result is far different; they
quarrel with their own men and their own propositions. They imagine a danger
and they proceed to act with emergency. They will admit no discussion – they
will concede nothing – but swagger on as they have done since the formation of
our union. They have their way and are not content! If the similar fanaticism
were encouraged in this section by argument and plaudit, we would never hear
the end of Southern declamation and wordy resistance.
From the ‘Lewisburg Chronicle’, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 30 October 1850.

5. SOURCE C
By the Compromise of 1850, the South, in some particulars, sacrificed its
essential interests. It gave away the magnificent empire of California. It
recognised the principle of Squatter Sovereignty. Above all, it consented
to the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. What
indemnity did the South receive for these important concessions? The
Fugitive Slave Law and nothing more. The act was drawn with care and
ability and is wanting in no provision essential to its satisfactory
operation. In view of the adversary’s strength, it was something to gain
even so inadequate a compensation for all our sacrifices. Considering the
extremity of our distress, the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law was in
some sort a triumph for the South.
From the ‘Charleston Mercury’, 25 May 1857.

6. SOURCE D
Out of Congress the abolitionists were aroused almost to a pitch of frenzy
by the passage of the Compromise measures and the Fugitive Slave Law.
Addresses were immediately issued by thousands, which freely circulated
in all Northern States, counselling resistance to the law under every
circumstance. Conventions were held of whites and negroes, in which
death was proclaimed to every slaveholder who attempted to carry out
the infamous enactment. The tide of runaway slaves from the South,
which had been flowing for so many years, swelled into a flood. Where
one slave formerly made a successful escape, scores made good their
flight now. New England became the goal of the fugitives and here they
found friends without number, who furnished them with the means for
extending their journey to the Canadian provinces.
From Felix de Fontaine, ‘History of American Abolitionism’, 1861.

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 role of the South
in the making of the 1850 Compromise? [15]
(b) How far do these sources support the assertion that the 1850
Compromise was favourable to the North? [25]

8. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

9. INDICATIVE CONTENT
(a) To what extent do Sources B and C agree the role of the South in the making of
the 1850 Compromise? [15]
Sources B and C agree that the South had a role in making the 1850 Compromise.
There is agreement, only implicit in Source B, that the Compromise included the
Fugitive Slave Law. However, they provide contrasting views of the role of the South.
Source B states that the South was dominant: the Compromise measures were
‘unquestionably’ of Southern origin, drafted to ‘promote and encourage Southern
interests’. Coming from a Northern newspaper, Source B is implicitly critical of
Northern politicians who have been ‘a dupe’ to the threats of the South. Its more
predictable anti-South slant comes in the second paragraph, which shows the South
falling out among themselves after the Compromise has been agreed. Source C
maintains that the South had a subordinate role, given ‘the adversary’s strength’, by
which it meant the North’s. Source C lists the many concessions which it believes
the South has made, the Fugitive Slave Act being its only gain. The difference might
be explained by the almost seven-year gap between the two sources. Source B is an
immediate Northern response to news of the Compromise, whereas Source C is a
more reflective piece, following the implementation of the 1850 agreement. Source
C is quite restrained given that the South must have known by then that many
Northern states were disobeying the Fugitive Slave Act.

10. CONTEXT
(b) How far do these sources support the assertion that the 1850 Compromise was
favourable to the North? [25]
The 1850 Compromise was a complex series of laws and policies which involved both
sections making some concessions – which was an essential part of the US political
process. The North conceded a new Fugitive Slave law, harsher than its predecessor,
which the South expected Northern states to uphold thereafter. The South conceded
the entry of California into the USA as a free state – it had wanted the state divided –
and the abolition of the slave trade in Washington DC. Also both compromised over
the territories of New Mexico and Utah: the North abandoned the Wilmot Proviso,
the South conceded the principle of popular sovereignty. The South had conceded
something which they could not affect thereafter – the governance of the new lands
– in an attempt to make gains with regard to fugitive slaves which were to prove
illusory. The North had conceded something the success of which depended upon its
cooperation. Many Northern states refused to cooperate. Between 1854 and 1858
nine of them passed Personal Liberty Laws of some kind or other, most giving fugitive
slaves the right to trial by jury if they appealed to state courts. These laws became a
major source of contention between North and South.

11. ANALYSIS
Source A contrasts the author’s positive view of the 1850 Compromise with the
critical responses he notes from both North and South. He asserts that in
Congress both sides made concessions. In the North and South, however, the
Compromise was much criticised. Written around the same time, Source B
certainly argues that the terms of the Compromise benefited the South and
disadvantaged the North. Most of Source C argues that the terms of the
Fugitive Slave Act favoured the South. Turning to the North, Source D argues
that many abolitionists saw the concessions made by the North as so great as
to require civil disobedience. They certainly did not see this part of the
Compromise as a victory. Thus while two sources are general and
contemporary to the Compromise, the other two focus on a specific element of
the Compromise and from a later vantage point.

12. EVALUATION
Taking the four Sources in sequence, two are Northern, one Southern, while
Source D’s origin is uncertain. [In fact, Felix de Fontaine was a Northern
journalist who reported for the South during the civil war.] The author of one
of the Northern sources, Stephen Douglas, is often mistakenly seen as a
Southerner, which might affect some candidates’ evaluation. The dates of the
four sources are significant: Sources A and B are immediate responses to the
Compromise being agreed. Source A claims a lot for the Compromise, probably
because its author played a major part in bringing it about. Source B, the
second Northern source, argues that the South dominated the making of the
Compromise. The Southern source, C, argues that given the unequal balance of
sectional power, the South gained what seemed a major concession, the
Fugitive Slave law. Sources B and C could be contrasted; one argues that the
‘opposite’ side had made gains, the other that its own side had. Which is the
more reliable?

13. EVALUATION cont.
Written a few years later, Source D explains the initial fury of Northern abolitionists
against the Fugitive Slave law and their later support for actions which undermined
the law. With regard to the implementation of the Compromise, Sources C and D are
most significant. Source C refers to other aspects of the 1850 Compromise, those
which clearly benefited the North – though it’s a Southern source which highlights the
point. Source D shows widespread Northern opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act,
which Northerners did not see as favourable. However, in that the Fugitive Slave Act
brought together ‘whites and negroes’ who worked together to resist the
implementation of the law, it could be argued that the Act worked to the benefit of
the North. Both sources are in their different ways partisan. Source D claims to be a
history of abolitionism but published at the start of the civil war, this history is likely to
argue for or against abolitionism. Contextual knowledge would show that both C and
D are reliable. This evaluation of the sources should help candidates modify the quote
to draw a distinction between the theory and the practice of the 1850 Compromise.
The theory of the Compromise, the intentions of the politicians who had negotiated it,
was that the Compromise favoured neither North nor South, as shown by Source A.
The practice, however, was very different, as shown by Source D.

14. PAPER 12 - MAY/JUNE 2014
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
Daniel Webster’s Seventh of March Speech, 1850
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

15. SOURCE A
In the excited times in which we live, there is found to exist a state of bitterness
between the North and the South. There are lists of grievances produced by each;
and those grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the
country from the other. I shall bestow a little attention on these various grievances.
I begin with the complaints of the South. I will refer to one which has in my opinion
just foundation: and that is there has been found in the North, among individuals
and among legislators, a disinclination to perform their constitutional duties in
regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free
states. In that respect, the South, in my judgement is right and the North is wrong.
I put it to all the sober and sound minds of the North as a question of morals and a
question of conscience. What right have they, in their legislative capacity, or any
other capacity, to endeavour to get round this Constitution, or to embarrass the free
exercise of the rights secured in the Constitution to the persons whose slaves escape
them? None at all, none at all.
From the Seventh of March speech to the US Senate
given by Daniel Webster, Senator for Massachusetts, 1850.

16. SOURCE B
Mr Webster’s speech seems to us to have for its object not at all the great
question of right and wrong now open before our people but the mere
quieting of the country. He treats the North and South as a father might treat
two quarrelsome boys by dividing the dispute between them. The doctrine of
equilibrium – plainly stated by Mr Calhoun, obviously meant by Mr Webster –
is simply shocking and utterly inadmissible. The great Northern statesman,
after defending the Constitution with his unrivalled powers, has at length
sacrificed himself to it. He seems not to know how deep a hold the anti-
slavery movement has on the conscience of the great mass of the New
England and the Western people. No genius, no eloquence, no public position,
no past services can make his views tolerable to the calm reflection of the
Free States.
From ‘The Liberator’, 29 March 1850.

17. SOURCE C
About eight hundred men, most of them citizens of Boston, have addressed to
Daniel Webster a letter expressing their approval of his late, notorious speech
in the Senate. The leading signers belong to the class expressively termed the
‘Cottonocracy’, of whom it is said that if they were ever to reach heaven, they
would no doubt seek to dam up the waters of the river of life to drive their
spinning machines. Webster has been for years not the Representative of
Massachusetts but the tool of these ‘cotton lords’, the Trinity of whose
worship is the golden eagle, the silver dollar and the copper cent, these three
being, according to their faith, ‘one Money, and entitled to the supreme
adoration of their stunted souls’.
From ‘The Anti-Slavery Bugle’, New Lisbon, Ohio, 20 April 1850.

18. SOURCE D
Four years ago tonight, on one of those high critical moments in history when
great issues are determined, when the powers of right and wrong are
mustered for conflict, Mr Webster most unexpectedly threw his whole weight
on the side of slavery and caused by his personal and official authority the
passage of the Fugitive Slave Bill. People were expecting a totally different
course from Mr Webster. The old fugitive law was fast becoming a dead letter.
The new Bill made it operative, required me to hunt slaves. The way in which
the country was dragged to consent to this, and the disastrous defection of
the men of letters, of some preachers of religion, was the darkest passage in
our history.
From a lecture on the Fugitive Slave Law
read by a prominent abolitionist at the
Tabernacle, New York City, 7 March 1854.

19. REQUEST
Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.
(a) To what extent do Sources B and C agree on the reaction of the North
to Daniel Webster’s Seventh of March speech? [15]
(b) ‘A disaster for the abolitionists.’ How far do these sources support this
assertion about the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850? [25]

20. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

21. INDICATIVE CONTENT
(a) To what extent do Sources B and C agree on the reaction of the North to
Daniel Webster’s Seventh of March speech? [15]
Source B is very critical of Webster’s speech. It argues that Webster was aiming
to keep the USA quiet and in a state of equilibrium rather than addressing a
great political problem, namely the issue of slavery. The Liberator sees
Webster as a father resolving a quarrel between two sons by making
concessions to each rather than deciding who was right, who was wrong.
Source B also suggests that Webster is badly out of touch with Northern public
opinion. Source C focuses on part of that public. It identifies a group which
approves Webster’s speech. It is a Northern group but an elitist group which it
dubs the ‘Cottonocracy’, Boston traders who have grown rich by organising the
cotton trade between the South and the UK. They support the speech because
Webster recognises the arguments of the South over the Fugitive Slaves issue.
Thus while B reacts to the speech itself, Source C considers the reaction of one
small Northern group which supports the speech.

22. CONTEXT
(b) ‘A disaster for the abolitionists.’ How far do these sources support this
assertion about the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850? [25]
Daniel Webster was a leading Whig politician from the Northern state of
Massachusetts who had played a major part in US politics since the 1820s. By
1850, towards the end of his life, he was anxious to ensure that the related
issues of territorial expansion and slavery did not threaten the unity of the
USA. By 1850, however, the issue of expansion had become more complex
following the war with Mexico in 1846–48. Huge areas of frontier territory had
to be absorbed, initially as territories, eventually as states. Were these states to
be slave or free? The answers had huge consequences for the future of the
USA. Webster’s Seventh of March speech was a major attempt to help resolve
the issue. He tried to put US interests before those of his section by offering
concessions to the South. His speech helped pass a new Fugitive Slave Act,
which was seen as benefitting the South. This speech shocked people in the
North who had supported his leadership over many years.

23. ANALYSIS
Source A is an extract from Webster’s speech in which he criticises those in the
North who had failed to uphold the Fugitive Slave law of 1793. Webster is blunt
in his criticisms. He also says the matter is one of morals and conscience. This
antagonised those Northerners who saw the very existence of slavery in the
South, let alone its expansion to new states and territories, as a matter of
conscience. This point is made by Source B, a Northern newspaper, which
argues that, when it comes to the issue of slavery, there can be no balance, no
compromise between North and South. Source C, a second Northern
newspaper, if from what was then known as the West, shows that some in the
North, in Webster’s state, did approve of Webster’s speech and thus, by
implication, his position on the Fugitive Slave law. Source C, however, heaps
criticism on these supporters, arguing that they do so only from narrow self-
interest. Source D is an abolitionist’s reflection on the passage of the Fugitive
Slave Act of 1850 made four years later. The author certainly sees the act as
disastrous, if for the USA rather than just for abolitionists.

24. EVALUATION
Three of the four sources are abolitionist. Each has a slightly different focus.
Source B analyses the speech and how out of touch with Northern opinion it
shows Webster to be. Source C concentrates on a small group of wealthy
Northerners who support Webster’s arguments. Source D reflects on how
Webster’s speech ensured the passage of a bill on the topic of fugitive slaves
which until then was becoming less significant with time. They can be used to
support each other by means of cross-referencing. Conversely, they can all be
criticised because they are abolitionist. Both approaches are valid. Contextual
knowledge needs to be used to evaluate the arguments which Webster puts
forward in Source A. Northerners were reluctant to return fugitive slaves to the
South, Webster was right.

25. EVALUATION cont.
Uncle Tom’s Cabin, published two years later, though fiction, was based on
many such examples. By not returning these fugitives, Northerners were
breaking US law and thus failing in their duties as US citizens to obey the law.
The Fugitive Slave act of 1850, part of a complex compromise between North
and South and passed by Congress, was a legitimate attempt to address the
problem. The problem was Northern abolitionists did not see the new law as
legitimate and were prepared to resist it. At the same time, Southerners
expected the new law to be more rigorously upheld than the old. And the new
act was tougher than the old, which further antagonised Northern
abolitionists. The number of fugitive slaves dealt with under the Act appears to
have been relatively small. More importantly, radicals on both sides of the
argument argued more passionately, spoke in more dramatic terms for and
against the act. In terms of the law, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a
disaster for the abolitionists. In political terms, however, it was almost the
complete opposite as it revived their campaign against slavery.

26. PAPER 13 - MAY/JUNE 2014
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
John Brown, 1859
Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question.

27. SOURCE A
Of Old John Brown we might say with truth, his wrongs have made him
mad. There was a time when John Brown, the Pennsylvania farmer, and
his sons were as peace-loving citizens as could be found in our country.
He came to Kansas early and, loving the cause of freedom, was an
earnest Free State man. For this he suffered. He saw his home invaded
and destroyed. He mourned the death of a beloved son. And these great
wrongs crazed the old man and made him a fanatic, a monomaniac with
but one thought, one idea, one impulse – vengeance on the slave power
which had destroyed his peace; revenge on the men who had murdered
his family and friends. It is said that he took an awful oath that while life
remained his hand should be raised against this power and he would
wage war against it to the death.
From the ‘Herald of Freedom’, Lawrence, Kansas, 29 October 1859.

28. SOURCE B
The most transparent humbug ever attempted to be played on any
community is the ridiculous pretence that BROWN is a madman. His late
conversations, however, seem to indicate a good deal less insanity than
some of his questioners exhibited in their questioning. A more sensible,
self-possessed rascal never fell into the arms of the law. It is vain for his
supporters in the non-slaveholding states to talk of Harpers Ferry as the
work of a ‘madman’, ‘a crazy fellow’. Everyone knows that BROWN has
been their chief agent in Kansas for years, chosen on account of his
cleverness and nerve, that he had the confidence of their moneyed men so
that fifteen thousand dollars were placed in his hands for the prosecution
of his infamous schemes. New England abolitionists are not very fond of
parting with their money for any purpose and we should never suspect
them of putting it into the hands of a lunatic.
From the Richmond ‘Daily Dispatch’, Virginia, 25 October 1859.

29. SOURCE C
It seems that by the law of Virginia, even after a prisoner has been
convicted, he may have the issue of his sanity tried by a jury. The whole
history of John Brown for the last two years, so far as it has come to light,
and all the incidents of his famous raid upon Harpers Ferry, have never
appeared to us to be consistent with soundness of mind. We have no doubt
that, if the issue could be tried, a very strong case could be made out for
Brown’s insanity. It would, however, be too damaging to the pride of
Virginians to admit that they had been so frightened by a crazy man.
Governor Wise will no doubt dispose of this application for another hearing
as summarily as the Court of Appeal did for a new trial.
From the ‘New York Tribune’, 25 November 1859.

30. SOURCE D
We give today full accounts of the scenes attending the execution of the
traitor, murderer and thief, John Brown. He died, as he lived, a hardened
criminal. When his wretched accomplices shall have paid the penalty of
their crimes, we hope that their allies and sympathisers in the North will
realise the fact that the South has the power to protect her soil and her
property and will exercise it in spite of all the measures which can be
levelled at her by the abolitionists and their supporters. Much very silly
ridicule has been aimed at Governor Wise for assembling a large military
force at Charlestown. Had he not assembled that force, an attempt to
rescue Brown would have been made, blood would have been spilled and
the Union would have been burst asunder.
From the ‘Raleigh Register’, North Carolina, 9 December 1859.

31. REQUEST
Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.
(a) To what extent do Sources C and D agree about Southern attitudes to
John Brown’s raid? [15]
(b) How far do these sources support the assertion that John Brown was
insane? [25]

32. GUIDANCEINBUILDINGYOURANSWER

33. INDICATIVE CONTENT
(a) To what extent do Sources C and D agree about Southern attitudes towards
John Brown’s raid? [15]
Source C, a Northern source, argues that John Brown’s raid had two effects on the
attitudes of the people of Virginia: firstly, it frightened them and secondly it offended
their pride to have to admit their fear. Thus Source C’s view of Southern attitudes is a
critical one. Note that the Source focuses wholly on Virginia, the state in which
Harper’s Ferry was located in 1859. Whether these attitudes were replicated across
the South is impossible to say. Source D, a Southern source, does write about the
wider South. However, it focuses on how the South responded to the raid on Harpers
Ferry rather than the raid itself. It argues that the South has acted vigorously to
protect its interests, in part by acting swiftly to bring about John Brown’s trial and
execution. The Source also notes the ‘large military force’ assembled by Governor
Wise of Virginia to prevent attempts to rescue John Brown, action which would have
split the Union asunder. This point perhaps provides evidence to support Source C’s
assertion that the people of Virginia were scared by the raid on Harpers Ferry. Thus
alongside the obvious differences between C and D, there are some similarities.

34. CONTEXT
(b) How far do these sources support the assertion that John Brown was insane? [25]
The raid on the US armoury at Harpers Ferry in late 1859 was a very dramatic incident
which did much to upset the delicate balance between North and South. John Brown,
59 in 1859, had been a Northern farmer and businessman who in the 1850s dedicated
himself to the abolitionist cause. He had become involved in ‘Bloody Kansas’, the sack
of the town of Lawrence in 1856 causing him to kill people in what became known as
the Pottawatomie massacre, which in turn led to a conflict at Osawatomie in which his
son was killed. He spent the next two years travelling the North trying to find men,
money and materiel to start military action against slavery. He hoped that seizing the
armoury at Harpers Ferry would spark slave revolts across the South. The raid was
botched. That it happened at all, however, alarmed many in the South, especially those
who feared slave rebellions. The rapid execution by the Virginian government of the
raid’s leader, John Brown, did much to anger the North. Many abolitionists saw him as
a martyr to a noble cause. Others thought him insane to undertake a raid which was
bound to fail.

35. ANALYSIS
Source A is an extract from a Kansas newspaper which provides details of John
Brown’s earlier life. The Source shows how he had suffered badly at the hands
of ‘slave power’ a few years before. His sufferings had ‘crazed’ him, made him a
‘monomaniac’, which could be seen as another way of saying he was insane.
Source B, a Virginian source, argues that Brown was not insane, despite claims
to the contrary. To support its case, it argues that Brown had received money
from New Englanders, who would never give money to a madman. Source C, a
Northern source, argues that both Brown’s recent life and the Harpers Ferry
Raid itself were evidence that Brown was insane, even if the South would
never accept such an argument. Source D provides little explicit evidence for or
against. In arguing that Brown was ‘a hardened criminal’, it argues that Brown
had acted outside the law for many years, which is hardly compatible with any
formal definition of insanity, certainly in the mid nineteenth century. As a
Southern source, it is bound to be critical of Brown.

36. EVALUATION
The two Southern sources, B and D, do not see Brown as insane. Both
Northern sources, A and C, argue in ways which suggest that they see Brown as
insane. Source A argues that his life in Kansas had driven him over the edge
while Source C argues that the Harpers Ferry Raid was itself evidence of
insanity. However, Source A is a Kansan source, a Free Soil one, and thus to be
treated with great caution. Source C, perhaps less partisan than Source A,
offers one explanation why Southern sources argue as they do: Southerners –
or at least Virginians – could not face the thought that they had been scared by
the actions of a madman. This argument can be evaluated by a careful
consideration of Source B. Contextual knowledge supports the Richmond Daily
Dispatch’s assertion that Brown received financial support from Northern
businessmen, which is what is meant by ‘confederate villains’.

37. EVALUATION cont.
Another of Source C’s arguments, that the Raid itself was evidence of insanity,
also needs evaluating. The Raid certainly failed in keeping control of the US
arsenal for more than a short time. It failed to provoke further uprisings. It was
always bound to. It was far too ambitious. The fact that Brown still went ahead
with the Raid could be seen as crazy. Contextual evidence shows that many
contemporaries thought Brown to be mad, among them Robert E Lee, the
Southern military commander who was in charge of the US forces which
regained control of Harpers Ferry and captured John Brown. Many in the North
quickly turned John Brown into a martyr, especially for the way he met his
death. Thus context supports arguments both for and against the assertion. In
deciding which is more convincing, candidates need to provide reasoned
evaluation of the sources.