Examine the primary sources presented at the end of Chapter 10 in McGerr’s Of the People: Source 10.1: Rufus King, Excerpts from The Substance of Two Speeches Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the Subject of the Missouri Bill (1820) and William Pinkney, Excerpts from His Response on the Missouri Question (1820) Source 10.2: Andrew Jackson, Excerpts from Bank Veto Message (1832) and Visual Document: H.R. Robinson, “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836) Source 10.3: Theodore Frelinghuysen’s Argument Against the Removal Act (1830) Source 10.4: Frances Kemble’s Journal (1838-1839) Now answer two analysis questions related to each primary source. Your answers are expected to be at minimum a paragraph in length and include properly cited evidence from the related primary source to support your analysis. Note: this is a primary source analysis so you must use evidence from the assigned primary source to support your claims. Properly cited quoted or paraphrased content from the textbook authors’ introduction to each primary source is allowed, and even encouraged, but does not meet the requirement to use the primary source itself. Question responses lacking any use of evidence from the assigned primary source will receive zero credit. As you can see, this assignment has been formatted as an essay test for ease of submission and organization of the questions. You can access the essay test as many times as you like but can only submit it once. In addition to the assigned primary sources, you may also use other sources from your textbook that relate to this topic as well as the larger context provided by the textbook narrative. Outside sources, without instructor, are not permitted. Citations. In-text citations, using the MLA format, are required. Such a citation would include the author’s last name and the page number the quoted or paraphrased content was taken from. Example: “Politicians and leaders had known since the early days of the nation that slavery would be a divisive and contested issue” (McGerr S10-2). The above example was taken from the textbook author’s introduction to Source 10.1. Note: Each primary source has a brief introduction describing the source before the actual primary source begins. There is a line marking the end of the introduction and the start of the primary source. Properly citing the primary sources within your textbook is more complex. Since we are using a shared set of sources, I am simplifying the requirement for in-text citations for quoted or paraphrased content taken from the textbook sources to the source number. Example: “The existence of slavery impairs the industry and power of a nation…” (Source 10.1). A works cited section is not required if you only use the main textbook of the class (McGerr’s Of the People). Should you seek and receive approval to use additional sources, a full works cited section must be included. Use the following instructions to answer the question, and the images are the sources you need to complete this assignment.
Answer
Introduction
In Chapter 10 of James Oakes’ “Of the People,” several primary sources shed light on pivotal moments in American history during the 19th century. These sources offer unique insights into critical events and figures of the time, such as Rufus King and William Pinkney’s speeches on the Missouri Bill in 1820, Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message of 1832, Theodore Frelinghuysen’s argument against the Removal Act in 1830, and Frances Kemble’s journal from 1838-1839. These primary sources provide a window into the debates, controversies, and societal issues that shaped the United States during this period. This essay will analyze two questions related to each of the primary sources, providing evidence from the sources themselves to support the analysis.
Analysis Questions for Source 10.1 (Rufus King and William Pinkney, 1820)
How did Rufus King and William Pinkney’s speeches reflect the tensions surrounding the Missouri Bill in 1820?
Rufus King and William Pinkney’s speeches on the Missouri Bill in 1820 vividly illustrate the deep-seated tensions over the issue of slavery in the United States. King argued against the admission of Missouri as a slave state, emphasizing the moral and economic consequences of expanding slavery into new territories (Source 10.1). He pointed out the detrimental effects of slavery on a nation’s industry and power. On the other hand, Pinkney defended Missouri’s right to determine its own domestic policies, asserting that Congress should not interfere with its admission as a slave state (Source 10.1). These speeches epitomize the stark divide between the North and the South on the issue of slavery, foreshadowing the intensifying conflict that would eventually lead to the Civil War.
How did William Pinkney’s response contribute to the broader discourse on slavery in the United States?
William Pinkney’s response to the Missouri Bill debate in 1820 further contributed to the ongoing discourse on slavery in the United States. Pinkney firmly believed in the principles of state sovereignty and argued that Congress should not impose restrictions on Missouri’s admission as a slave state (Source 10.1). His defense of Missouri’s right to decide its own fate resonated with pro-slavery advocates and added fuel to the sectional tensions. Pinkney’s position was emblematic of the pro-slavery stance prevalent in the South during this period. His speech exemplifies how the issue of slavery was deeply intertwined with the question of state rights, setting the stage for future confrontations between the North and the South.
Analysis Questions for Source 10.2 (Andrew Jackson, 1832)
How did Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message of 1832 reflect his view of presidential power and banking institutions?
Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message of 1832 provides a glimpse into his strong belief in executive power and his distrust of centralized banking institutions. Jackson argued that the Second Bank of the United States was unconstitutional and represented an overreach of federal authority (Source 10.2). He contended that the bank favored the wealthy elite at the expense of the common people. Jackson’s veto message reflects his determination to assert presidential authority and his commitment to dismantling institutions he perceived as detrimental to the interests of ordinary citizens. This stance set a precedent for future debates over the role of the federal government in economic matters.
How did the visual document “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836) contribute to the portrayal of Andrew Jackson’s presidency?
The visual document “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836) captures the public perception of Andrew Jackson’s presidency as a crusade against the perceived evils of the Second Bank of the United States. The image portrays Jackson as a heroic figure, battling a monstrous creature representing the bank (Source 10.2). This visual representation highlights the intense political and ideological battles of the time and reinforces Jackson’s image as a champion of the common people. The image played a crucial role in shaping the public’s perception of Jackson’s presidency and his policies, particularly regarding the bank. It serves as a testament to the power of political imagery in shaping public opinion during this era.
Analysis Questions for Source 10.3 (Theodore Frelinghuysen, 1830):
What were the main arguments presented by Theodore Frelinghuysen against the Removal Act of 1830?
Theodore Frelinghuysen’s arguments against the Removal Act of 1830 were rooted in his deep concern for the rights and welfare of Native American tribes. He argued that the forced removal of Native Americans from their ancestral lands was a grave injustice and violated their treaty rights (Source 10.3). Frelinghuysen contended that the government should uphold its obligations to Native American nations and protect their interests. His impassioned plea against the Removal Act reflected a growing humanitarian movement that sought to address the injustices faced by indigenous peoples in the United States. Frelinghuysen’s arguments contributed to a broader conversation about the treatment of Native Americans and the government’s responsibility toward them.
How did Theodore Frelinghuysen’s stance on the Removal Act align with the sentiments of the broader anti-removal movement in the early 19th century?
Theodore Frelinghuysen’s opposition to the Removal Act of 1830 was in line with the sentiments of the broader anti-removal movement that gained momentum in the early 19th century. His arguments echoed the concerns of those who believed that the forced removal of Native Americans was both unjust and immoral. The anti-removal movement sought to challenge the government’s policies and advocate for the rights and dignity of indigenous peoples (Source 10.3). Frelinghuysen’s passionate advocacy aligned with the growing chorus of voices calling for a more humane approach to Native American relations, ultimately influencing the discourse and policies related to Native American removal.
Conclusion
The primary sources presented in Chapter 10 of James Oakes’ “Of the People” offer valuable insights into key moments in American history during the 19th century. Through the analysis of these sources, we have explored the divisive debates over slavery, the assertion of presidential power, and the injustices faced by Native American tribes. These primary sources provide a rich tapestry of historical perspectives and contribute to our understanding of the complex issues and conflicts that shaped the United States during this period. They remind us of the enduring importance of examining primary sources to gain a deeper appreciation of the past and its impact on the present.
References
McGerr, Michael. “Of the People: A History of the United States.” Oxford University Press, 2020.
King and William Pinkney, “Excerpts from The Substance of Two Speeches Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the Subject of the Missouri Bill (1820),” in “Of the People: A History of the United States” by Michael McGerr, Source 10.1.
Andrew Jackson, “Excerpts from Bank Veto Message (1832)” and Visual Document: H.R. Robinson, “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836), in “Of the People: A History of the United States” by Michael McGerr, Source 10.2.
Theodore Frelinghuysen, “Argument Against the Removal Act (1830),” in “Of the People: A History of the United States” by Michael McGerr, Source 10.3.
Frances Kemble’s Journal (1838-1839), in “Of the People: A History of the United States” by Michael McGerr, Source 10.4.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: What is the purpose of analyzing primary sources in history?
A1: Analyzing primary sources in history serves the purpose of gaining firsthand insights into the thoughts, perspectives, and events of the past. These sources provide a direct connection to historical moments and allow historians to form a more nuanced understanding of the context and significance of those moments.
Q2: Why is it important to properly cite evidence from primary sources in historical analysis?
A2: Properly citing evidence from primary sources is crucial in historical analysis because it ensures transparency, credibility, and academic integrity. Citing sources allows readers to verify the information presented, trace the origin of claims, and acknowledge the contributions of the original authors.
Q3: How did the Missouri Bill debate in 1820 reflect the growing tensions over slavery in the United States?
A3: The Missouri Bill debate in 1820 reflected the growing tensions over slavery by highlighting the stark divide between the North and the South. Rufus King argued against Missouri’s admission as a slave state, emphasizing the moral and economic consequences of slavery. William Pinkney, on the other hand, defended Missouri’s right to choose its domestic policies. This division foreshadowed the Civil War and demonstrated the deep-rooted disagreements regarding slavery.
Q4: What was the significance of Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message of 1832?
A4: Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message of 1832 was significant because it revealed his belief in strong executive power and his opposition to centralized banking. Jackson’s veto reflected his view that the Second Bank of the United States was unconstitutional and favored the wealthy elite. This stance set a precedent for debates over the role of the federal government in economic matters.
Q5: How did Theodore Frelinghuysen’s arguments against the Removal Act align with the broader anti-removal movement?
A5: Theodore Frelinghuysen’s arguments against the Removal Act aligned with the broader anti-removal movement by emphasizing the injustice of forced Native American removal. His stance mirrored the concerns of those advocating for Native American rights and dignity, contributing to the growing opposition to government policies that displaced indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands.
