HW101
Topic: Freedom, Slavery, and the Revolutionary Aftermath, XXXXXXXXXX
Question:
Document 20, Petition to the New Hampshire Legislature,Nero Brewster and
Other New Hampshire Slaves, Nov 12, 1779
Document 21, Petition to the Massachusetts Legislature, John Cuffe and
Other Free Blacks from Dartmouth, Feb 10, 1780
1. Choose two of the primary sources from your primary source list to analyze fo
this assignment.
2. Read and Analyze each of the primary sources individually. At a minimum, each
analysis should do all of the following:
1. Explain what the source is (i.e. What type of source is it? Who created it?
When? Why? For whom/what purpose? Etc.)
2. Explain whether or not you believe the source is reliable/trustworthy
and why
3. Explain how you see the source answering your research question (this
will be the bulk of the analysis)
3. Submit your two primary source analyses into this assignment as a separate file
with the following formatting:
1. Include your research topic and question at the top
2. Include the citation details of the source itself above your analysis
3. Double space your analysis
4. Be sure to use parenthetical citations in three scenarios:
1. When you quote
2. When you provide statistical information
3. When you provide any information that came from a source othe
than the primary source you are cu
ently analyzing
5. Your formatting should look something like this, although the number of
paragraphs you have will vary:
DOC 20-21
A Pocket Guide to Writing in History
A POCKET GUIDE TO
Writing in
History
NINTH EDITION
Mary Lynn Rampolla
Trin ity Washington Un ivers ity
M bedford/st.martin's
Macmillan LearningI
Boston New York
I
For Bedford/St. Mortin's
Vice President, Editorial, Macmillan Learning Humanities:
Edwin Hill
Program Director (or History: Michael Rosenberg
Program Manager (or History: Laura Arcari
History Marketing Manager: Melissa Rodriguez
Director o( Content Development: Jane Knetzger
Developmental Editor: Tess Fletcher
Associate Content Project Manager: Matt Glazer
Senior Content Work(low Manager: Jennifer Wetzel
Production Assistant: Brianna Lester
Senior Media Producer: Michelle Camisa
Editorial Assistant: Mollie Chandler
Editorial Services: Lumina Datamatics, Inc.
Composition: Lumina Datamatics, Inc.
Director o( Rights and Permissions: Hilary Newman
Senior Art Director: Anna Palchik
Text Design: Claire Seng- Niemoeller
Cover Design: John Callahan
Printing and Binding: Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.
Copyright© 2018, 2015, 2012 , 2010 by Bedford/St. Martin's.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec
tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as
may be expressly permitted by the applicable copyright statutes or in
writing by the Publisher.
Manufactured in the United States of America.
XXXXXXXXXX
f e d c b a
For information, write: Bedford/St. Martin's, 75 Arlington Street, Boston,
MA02116
ISBN XXXXXXXXXX
Acknowledgments
Art acknowledgments and copyrights appear on the same page as the art
selections they cover.
12 2b Working with Sources
2b Evaluating sources
If primary sources always told the truth, the historian's
job'would be much easier-and also rather boring. But
sources, like witnesses in a murder case, often lie. Some
times they lie on purpose, telling untruths to further a
specific ideological, philosophical, personal, or political
agenda. Sometimes they lie by omission, leaving out bits
of information that are crucial to interpreting an event.
Sometimes sources mislead unintentionally because the
authors' facts were incomplete, inco
ect, or misinter-·
preted. Many sources are biased, either consciously or
unconsciously, and contain unstated assumptions; all
eflect the interests and concerns of their authors. More
over, primary sources often conflict. As a result, one of
the challenges historians face in writing about history is
evaluating the reliability and usefulness of their sources.
: oluati ng sources 2b 13
Tips for Writers
Questions for Evaluating Text-Based Primary Sources
• Who is the author?
• When was the source composed?
• Who was the intended audience?
• What is the purpose of the source? (Note that some pri
mary sources, such as letters to the editor, have a central
theme or argument and are intended to persuade; others,
such as census data, are purely factual.)
• What is the historical context in which the source was
written and read?
• How do the author's gender and socioeconomic class
compare to those of the people about whom he or she is
writing?
• What unspoken assumptions does the text contain?
• What biases are detectable in the source?
• Was the original text commissioned by anyone or pub
lished by a press with a particular viewpoint?
• How do other contemporary sources compare with this
one?
Special considerations for editions and translations
• Is the source complete? If not, does the text contain an
introductory note explaining editorial decisions?
• If you are using a document in a collection, does the
editor explain his or her process of selection and/or
translation?
• Are there notes introducing individual documents that
provide useful information about the text?
• Are there footnotes or endnotes that alert you to alternate
eadings or translations of the material in the text?
• Does the edition or translation you are using most accu
ately reflect the cu
ent state of scholarship?
2b-1 Evaluating primary sources
Since primary sources originate in the actual period
under discussion, we might be inclined to implicitly trust
what they say. After all, if the author is an eyewitness,
why should anyone doubt his or her word? Alternatively,
we might lean toward dismissing primary sources alto
gether on the grounds that they are too subjective; as
15 Working with Sources 14
Tips for Writers
Questions for Evaluating Nonwritten Primary Sources
For artifacts
• When and where was the artifact made?
• Who might have used it, and what might it have been
used for?
• What does the artifact tell us about the people who made
and used it and the period in which it was made?
For art works (paintings, sculpture, and so on)
• Who is the artist, and how does the work compare to his
or her other works?
• When and why was the work made? Was it commis
I
sioned? If so, by whom?
• Was the work part of a larger artistic or intellectual
movement?
• Where was the work first displayed? How did contempo
aries respond to it? How do their responses compare to
the ways in which it is understood now?
For photographs
• Who is the photographer? Why did he or she take this
photograph?
• Where was the photograph first published or displayed?
Did that publication or venue have a particular mission or
point of view?
• Do any obvious details such as angle, contrast, or crop
ping suggest bias?
For cartoons
• What is the message of the cartoon? How do words and
images combine to convey that message?
• In what kind of publication (for example, a newspaper o
a magazine) did it originally appear? Did that publication
have a particular agenda or mission?
• When did the cartoon appear? How might its historical
context be significant?
For maps
• What kind of map is this (for example, topographical,
political, or military)?
• Where and when was the map made? What was its
intended purpose?
• Does the map contain any extraneous text or images? If
so, what do they add to our understanding of the map
itself?
:valuating sources 2b
For video and film
• What kind of film is this (for example, a documentary or
a feature film)?
• Who are the director, the producer, and the screenwrite
for the film? Have they made other films to which you
can compare this one?
• Who is the intended audience? Why was the film made?
• Does the film use particular cinematic techniques that
convey a particular mood or tone? (For more on analyzing
film, see 3e.)
For sound recordings
• Who made the recording, and what kind of recording is it
(music, speech, interview, and so on)?
• Was the recording originally intended for
oadcast?
If so, why was it
oadcast, and who was the intended
audience?
ay police investigator could tell you, eyewitnesses see
.:iifferent things and remember them in different ways.
• fact, historians ste_er a middle ground between these
- ·o approaches. Although primary sources comprise the
_asic material with which they work, historians do not
·e the evidence provided by such sources simply at face
alue. Like good detectives, they evaluate the evidence,
pproaching their sources analytically and critically.
Historians have developed a variety of techniques
= r evaluating primary sources. One such technique is
:o compare sources; a fact or description contained in
ne source is more likely to be accepted as trustworthy
� other sources support or co
oborate it. Another tech
-.ique is to identify the authors' biases. For example, the
--astorian Polydore Vergil asserted in his book Anglica His-
- ria that King Richard III kill,ed his nephews. Since Vergil
·as a contemporary of Richard III, you might accept his
Kcount at face value, unless you were also aware that the
:iook was commissioned by King Henry VII, an enemy of
-Jchard III who had organized a rebellion against him,
.-·ned him in battle, and seized his throne. Taking this
=act into consideration, you would want to approach Ver
;il's work with a more critical eye, considering whether
"tis loyalty to his employer led to any bias in his history.
�istorians also read their sources carefully for evidence
f internal contradictions or logical inconsistencies, and
16
17 Evaluating sourcesWorking with Sources
they pay attention to their sources' use of language, since
the adjectives and metaphors an author uses can point to
hidden biases and unspoken assumptions.
Evaluating primary sources: an example. In a letter written to
heikh El-Messiri in 1798, Napoleon expresses the hope
chat the sheik will soon establish a government in Egypt
oased on the principles of