+1 (218) 451-4151

Primary Source Analysis 3

Primary Source Analysis 3

Instructions: Read the two primary sources provided and answer the following questions at the bottom. The length of your analysis should be at least a paragraph or more. These assignments should not be answered in only 3-4 sentences. An excellent analysis will be thorough and detailed, providing a lot of in-depth discussion. Use complete sentences and check your grammar/spelling. Submit your answer as a text entry or as a separate file, saved as a word document or PDF. The grading rubric is posted at the bottom of this assignment page. 

What does it mean to analyze and interpret a source?

When you are analyzing a text, you are breaking it down into parts to understand it. You then interpret each part by explaining it in your own words. You look at what it is, what the author meant, who the intended audience is, how ongoing events during that time affected the author’s argument, and why it is significant. As a result, you are doing more than just directly answering the question below.

From Martin Luther King Jr., Speech at Montgomery, Alabama (December 5, 1955)

On the evening of Rosa Parks’s arrest for refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus to a white passenger, a mass rally of local African-Americans decided to boycott city buses in protest. In his speech to the gathering, the young Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr. invoked Christian and American ideals of justice and democracy—themes he would strike again and again during his career as the leading national symbol of the civil rights struggle.

We are here this evening . . . because first and foremost we are American citizens, and we are determined to apply our citizenship to the fullness of its means. We are here also because of our love for democracy. . . . Just the other day . . . one of the finest citizens in Montgomery—not one of the finest Negro citizens but one of the finest citizens in Montgomery—was taken from a bus and carried to jail and arrested because she refused to give her seat to a white person. . . .

Mrs. Rosa Parks is a fine person. And since it had to happen I’m happy that it happened to a person like Mrs. Parks, for nobody can doubt the boundless outreach of her integrity! Nobody can doubt the height of her character, nobody can doubt that depth of her Christian commitment and devotion to the teachings of Jesus. And I’m happy since it had to happen, it happened to a person that nobody can call a disturbing factor in the community. Mrs. Parks is a fine Christian person, unassuming, and yet there is integrity and character there. And just because she refused to get up, she was arrested.

I want to say, that we are not here advocating violence. We have never done that. . . . We believe in the teachings of Jesus. The only weapon that we have in our hands this evening is the weapon of protest. . . . There will be no white persons pulled out of their homes and taken out to some distant road and lynched. . . .

We are not wrong in what we are doing. If we are wrong, then the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. . . . If we are wrong, justice is a lie. . . .

We, the disinherited of this land, we who have been oppressed so long, are tired of going through the long night of captivity. And now we are reaching out for the daybreak of freedom and justice and equality. . . . Right here in Montgomery when the history books are written in the future, somebody will have to say, “There lived a race of people, a black people, . . . a people who had the moral courage to stand up for their rights. And thereby they injected a new meaning into the veins of history and of civilization.”

From The Southern Manifesto (1956)

Drawn up early in 1956 and signed by ninety-six southern members of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Southern Manifesto repudiated the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education and offered support to the campaign of resistance in the South.

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law. . . .

We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation [violation] of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.

The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States.

The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States.

Though there has been no constitutional amendment or act of Congress changing this established legal principle almost a century old, the Supreme Court of the United States, with no legal basis for such action, undertook to exercise their naked judicial power and substituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land.

This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.

With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision and inflamed by outside meddlers: . . . we commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means. . . .

Analyze and interpret the document to answer the following question(s):

  1. How do religious convictions shape King’s definition of freedom?
  2. Why does the Southern Manifesto claim that the Supreme Court decision is a threat to constitutional government?
  3. Who is the intended audience for each of these documents?
  4. How do these documents illustrate contrasting understandings of freedom in the wake of the civil rights movement?

TIP: When analyzing a primary source document, consider who, what, when, and why. For example, how does location, current events (of the period), and who the author is play a role in the author’s intent/message? Remember that you are not just answering the question, you are also breaking down parts of the source to analyze and interpret the author’s message.

A successful and strong analysis will provide evidence (specific example from the text/quote) to help explain and support the interpretation. However, do not let the quotes overshadow your own analysis.