Law And Order: Coursework Question 5

Coursework Question 5

Source G is a statement made by “William.J.Mcconnell”, a later governor of the western state of Idaho, he “criticises the first settlers” for the downfall of western America and mining towns. He claimed that if the first settlers “had directed their energies not only to making money but also to public affairs, including the election of good men to fill offices, life and property might have been safe from the beginning as in older and well-regulated states”, this indicates that he is accusing “the first settlers in the mining towns of Idaho” for the downfall of western America and mining towns etc, but is his statement right or wrong and is it backed up by evidence from the sources?

The sources that agree with source G are sources B, D and E.

Source B agrees because in the source it states that “ there was no safety for life and property only as far as each individual could, with his trusty rifle, protect his own”, this suggests that there was no law and order so people had to take the law into their own hands to find justice because there was no sheriff or marshals elected by the citizens which relates back to source G, also the towns were run by gangs in particular was the “ Roughs” who’s leader was Henry Plummer, a corrupt sheriff because of not getting paid enough money but the people that elected him are the fools, this also relates back to source G as it stated that “good men” should have been elected to fill offices and make decisions. Source B is reliable to some extent as it has an author “Granville Stuart”, a date and location; finally this problem of no law and order was mainly because of the Gold Rush. However Source D also agrees with source G because in the visual image its shows gangs, robbers and lawlessness, this is because there is no support from the community to have law and order, which relates back to source G, “had directed their energies not only to making money but also to public affairs, including the elections of good men”, if the first settlers had did this then there would be a sheriff, marshal, community etc, and law and order would have been established. Source D has some authenticity; it has a location “Northfield, Minnesota” and a date “1876”, but the source could have been edited/changed and could be exaggerated as it is an “artist’s impression”, also the view could be bias.

Source E along with sources B and D agrees with Source G because it is a statement made by vigilantes to gangs and robbers etc, this suggests there is no law and order so people had to seek justice themselves, which relates to source G because if the settlers had directed their energies to “public affairs” and the “election of good men”, then “life and property might have been safe from the beginning”, therefore you could blame the first settlers. The source is reliable to some extent because it has evidence, as it was “pinned to the body of a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The sources that contradict with source G are sources C and F.

Source C disagrees with source G because it tells us how miners were very independent and did not receive no help, expect from the women “Most of the miners built themselves cabins and did their own cooking”, “the women were particularly kind leaving their own work to care for those who were ill”, this indicates that they were independent and even though they had a bad environment they still continued to achieve the American dream. Most miners got ill from dirty conditions for example: “Typhoid”, therefore you cannot blame the first settlers for them getting ill as they lived a different and maybe healthier lifestyle. The source is reliable as it has authenticity which includes a date “1864”, a location “Virginia, Montana” and an author “Granville Stuart” however the author could have been one-sided and only influences the bad things. But Source F definitely disagrees with source G because it tells us that Virginia City is a great place with a “mayor and city marshal etc” and talks about how law and order rains supreme there “half a dozen jails in full operation”. Also it states that “Virginia City had grown to be the liveliest town for it’s age and population”, but the statements made by “Mark Twain a journalist” without a doubt disagree Source G because Source G talks about how the settlers ruined the mining towns and how they didn’t have “good men to fill offices” etc. The sources reliability is doubtful as it has no authenticity but does have an author; although the author is a journalist, so therefore he could be lying just to make a profit or could have edited the source. Finally the source is very bias because it only talks about how good everything is in “Virginia City” and does not mention the bad things but we already know that there were some problems due to the 1862 Gold Rush, such as no law and order, no community and the influx of migrants which suggests that the author has edited the source or is trying to influence the readers with ‘fake’ or bias information.

The source that neither agrees nor disagrees with Source G is Source A.

Source A doesn’t agree or disagree with source G because it doesn’t give any real information other than a visual representation therefore it is neutral. As well as this it doesn’t have any real authenticity expect a date “1873” which indicates that it would not have been reliable enough to use as evidence for either arguing, for or against source G.

Furthermore, in my opinion Source G is fair comment because it has sources B, D and E for evidence whilst it opposes sources C and F. As well as this Sources C and F do not have very effective information to challenge Source G. This is because Source F in my opinion has been edited or influenced in someway because it is very bias as it claims that Virginia City has nothing wrong there. But due to my own knowledge I know that problems arose because of the 1862 Gold Rush which argues my point that source F. The strengths source G has is; its evidence from sources B, D and E which are all reliable to some extent, expect source E as it only a note attached to a man that was hung by vigilantes which back up its views. The weaknesses of source G are that it has no authenticity i.e.: a date or location, expect for the author “William.J.Mcconnell” but this could suggest that it is his own opinion/view so he could be bias or might have edited the source to fit his perspective and could have portrayed it differently to how it really was back then.

Henceforth, my judgement is that source G is a fair comment.