Northern Britain from the Romans to AD 1000.
Scottish Independence: 1286–1329.
The Renaissance in Italy in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries.
France in the Age of Louis XIV.
Georgians and Jacobites: Scotland 1715–1800.
The House Divided: the USA 1850–1865.
Japan: From Medieval to Modern State 1850s-1920.
Germany: Versailles to the Outbreak of World War Two.
South Africa 1910–1984.
Soviet Russia 1917–1953.
The Spanish Civil War 1931–1939.
Britain at War and Peace 1939–1951.

It has been observed before that still too many candidates being presented who appear to be receiving no direct teaching of their chosen field. The examining team have always held the view that Advanced Higher needs to be a taught course. This course is more demanding than Higher and requires more sophisticated techniques of answering both the essays and source questions, and in the supervision of the Dissertation.¹¹

"Explain the reasons for the break up of the two party system by 1855."

A VERY GOOD answer (18+ marks) would show how Northern Democrats in particular became more pro-Southern in this period and also why the party was prepared to include immigrants and Catholics in the body politic. The Whig failure to adapt and the crisis, initiated in 1848 with the Wilmot Proviso following from their opposition to the Mexican War, their failure to win control of the Executive branch of government and the internecine warfare over Kansas-Nebraska would be analysed. There will be clear evidence of understanding of the views of different historians. These may include:

Craven-	politicians encouraged conflict for own political ends.
Donald-	volatile democratic electorate at this time. Party leaders responded without policies or principles.
Randall-	politicians used excesses of propaganda, intolerance, and hate.
Holt-	local ethno-cultural struggles determined, patterns.
Benson-	local issues, not national ones of slavery and sectionalism, were important.
McPherson- Kansas-Nebraska was the final nail in the coffin of the Whig party.

      As mentioned above, the American Union started growing apart with the growth of sectionalism. This fundamentally underpins everything to do with this period. People from the North and South began to pick out differences between themselves. Whether these were economical, cultural, social or political differences, the population of America had begun to differentiate themselves from one another. Issues such as trading, the federal government versus states' rights allowed people to put themselves in a 'section'. Historian G.W. Gallagher believes that without the growth of sectionalism, America even today would be greatly different. All that was needed was something to make this sectionalism explode.

      Westward expansion was that catalyst with events such as in 1848 when Whig President James Polk provoked a war with Mexico in order to gain its land. With such a vast area of land appearing it became clear it was a two legged fight for the land-North versus South. The problem was that with every move west that one side took, it was seen as aggressive by the other side. They saw that whoever won this land was trying to make their respective ideology the dominant one. The first instance of the 'slave power conspiracy' now came to light. The North believed that every Southern move was an effort to grow the slavery empire. They reacted with what the South called "Northern Aggression" with such acts as the Wilmont Proviso and even the Missouri Compromise.

      With this instant mistrust between the two sides desperate action was needed. Henry Clay came calling with his 1850 Compromise. He proposed several small Acts which would be passed individually by Congress and ultimately sort out the crisis. Unfortunately Clay's influence only "papered over the cracks" (McPherson). Basically Clay wanted popular sovereignty, that is the people to vote, to decide what to do with all the new land acquired from Mexico. In the short run both sides did not complain as both thought their respective ideology would be dominant. So, when Zachary Taylor died, Vice President Millard Filmore passed a compromise which also attacked the contentious "Fugitive Slave Act". But, as McPherson said, the 1850 Compromise did not look at the full picture. Several historians, including R. Current, believed "there would be trouble ahead" for the American Union.

      The confused population was not helped by the politicians in charge at this time. They began thinking solely in sectional terms with their policies now only helping their respective interests. Some of these policies were controversial and caused even more friction between sections. Also several individual politicians made high profile errors which caused J. Randall to call them "a blundering generation of politicians". Examples of these errors include the handling of the Compromise, the Cuban Fiasco, the Ostend Manifesto and the Gadsen Purchase, all unfortunately made by Franklin Pierce. With such weak leadership on the political front America was in a state of despair.

      The major effect that the 1850 Compromise had on future America was the fact that it greatly assisted the breakdown of the two party system, the Whigs and the Democrats. With its theme of popular sovereignty, the Compromise only aided in keeping alive sectionalism. The results of the 1854 Kansas Nebraska Act were that the North had had enough. Their people were beginning pressurised in their own country. Thus something new in American politics rose from the ashes, "a purely sectional party" (Donald), the Republican Party. It was the first party to represent one section and its success, it is believed, "doomed the Union to Civil War" (Beringer). The Whigs were ultimately finished with most of the two party system which many including Fuller believed had held America together. Ultimately the 1850 Compromise had caused what looked like "a one way road to war" (McPherson).

      This seemingly inevitable road to war was not helped by two other factors.

      Many historians from the revisionist school of thought, including J. Ramsdell, believed it was the policies and actions of the more extreme parties that led to the Civil War, for example, the Abolitionists and the Southern Fire Eaters....

Source A: from "Resolutions of the Nashville Convention, 10 June 1850"

Resolved: That Congress has no power to exclude from the territory of the United States any property lawfully held in the States of the Union and that any act which may be passed by Congress to effect this result is in a plain violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved: That the slaveholding states cannot and will not submit to the enactment by Congress of any law imposing onerous conditions or restraints upon the rights of masters to remove with their property into the territories of the United States, or to any law making discrimination in favour of proprietors of other property against them.

The candidate evaluates Source A as evidence of the attitudes of the Southern States to the Union in terms of:

Origin: Primary document from Southern States.
Purpose: To state reasons for Southern opposition to the omnibus Bill of Henry Clay.
Points from the source which can be developed with additional explanation from recall:

• denies Congress right to exclude slavery from any US territory
• any Act so passed is regarded as unconstitutional
• South will not agree to any restrictions on movement of slaves in territories
• South will oppose any such legislation

Possible points from recall providing wider contextualisation:

• details of 1850 crisis
• Henry Clay omnibus Bill
• role of Stephen A Douglas
• results of Nashville convention of December 1850
• attitude of South Carolina to possible future disputes
• conditional nature of Southern loyalty to Federal government issue of states' rights
• impact of Dred Scott case on perceptions of both sides

Conclusion:

• highly significant document
• Southern support for Union conditional on South getting her way
• portent of action by South Carolina in 1850 crisis
• South saw Union as a compact under which sovereignty was retained

Marks 1–3: Vaguely written; not answering the question; minimal explanation; little sense of context; merely re-describes the source.

Marks 4–5: Fairly well-written; some relevant point of explanation made; a basic sense of context but lacking clear structure; points made randomly, indicating little real grasp of significance.

Marks 6–8: Clearly written and sensibly structured; explanation range over several relevant points; sets material in context fairly accurately; good factual grasp of topic and reasonably developed analysis.

Marks 9–12: Accurate, wide-ranging, clear and convincing argument, solid grasp of context and significance of material; well-developed levels of relevant analysis.

      The source is indicative of the attitude of many Southern States towards the Union, and in particular, that of South Carolina which had organised the Nashville Convention. In the summer of 1850, Congress was locked in debate over the admission of California. The proposed state straddled the Mason-Dixon line of 1820 – thus allowing both sides to claim that it could enter the Union either slave or free. To make matters worse, the South claimed that the omnibus bill of Clay was a back-door attempt to enact the rejected Wilmot proviso. This had been rejected by Congress.

      As to the attitude of the Southern states, this is clearly illustrated in Source A.

      Firstly, the 'sister southern states' argued that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from any US territory, a view upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Any attempt to do so would be viewed by the South as unconstitutional. Additionally, the South could not agree to any restrictions on the movement of slaves within US territories which would be met by stiff Southern opposition.

      South Carolina had taken the lead in calling this convention – as a means of putting pressure on the North to reach an acceptable compromise. She was a strong believer in states' rights and was determined to have her own way – or leave the Union.

      Stephen A Douglas, however, put together a series of bills which avoided the disruption of the Union in 1850. Although deserted by her sister states at the re-convened convention in December 1850, the attitude of South Carolina was clear. Her support for the Union was conditional on her interests being safeguarded. Thus South Carolina's action was a warning of what might happen in any future crisis, as was shown in 1860. Thus, the authors of Source A saw the Union as a compact under which their sovereignty was retained. Any threat to their position would be aggressively opposed, as the language of Source A shows.

      The candidate clearly understands the context of the source and that this could be a portent of future action. From the beginning it is clear that the question will be addressed properly. Recall concerning the origin of the source is used to make a moot point. The candidate is clearly aware of the context of the source and again supplements this with supportive recall. Three marks are awarded for provenance.

      The answer is also constructed in a sophisticated manner, with the attitude of the South being stated at the outset, with accompanying evidence drawn from the source and reinforced by use of appropriate recall. 2 marks are awarded for interpretation of source viewpoint.

      The candidate cleverly weaves analysis of the source with recalled knowledge and is engaging with the premise of the question – Dred Scott; states' right etc. – is awarded 5 marks for contextualisation recall and conclusion. It is important to recognise that the usefulness of the source may have to be deduced from the rubric and is not always explicitly stated.

      The answer could have been improved with further use of recall (see marking scheme) and a reference to the views of e.g. Holden Reid who argues that the Compromise indicated the conditional nature of the Union as far as the South was concerned, and more overt reference to historiographical debate.

(Advanced Higher) "is a lot of work and effort but if you put in the effort it is highly fascinating and worthwhile;"
"Be prepared to work hard but get as much from the course as possible;"
"It takes dedication but if you stick with it will help you a lot with University;" and
"Be prepared to work harder than Higher."