Primary Source Analysis (EXAMPLE)
Please note that I am a professional historian and I wrote this paper without the need to research. You will always
need to research the topic and cite sources. I used only the source.
Special Note: The writing process for your paper should be organized in three parts.
Part 1: Read the document
Part 2: Answer the questions required of a document analysis (see chart below) This is
where research helps.
Part 3: Using the document and your responses to the questions, you should be able to
write your paper with ease
Oliver Cromwell: ‘In the name of God, go!’ speech
dismissing Rump Parliament – 1653
20 April 1653, London, England
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by
your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. Ye are a pack of mercenary
wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your
God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your
conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the
Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord’s temple into a
den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get
grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to
your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has
given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place. Go,
get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and
lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!
Source: http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/dismis…
Part 2: You need to ask these questions of your source.
Questions To be answered in
the analysis
Response
What type of Source is it? The primary source is a speech given by Oliver Cromwell to the House of
Common.
When was it written? The speech was “given” in 1653. There is no evidence that they speech applied to
any other situation than the obvious one.
Physical nature of the source We are not really told if the speech was given and later written down by him or
Cromwell wrote the speech and then presented to Rump Parliament. The speech
exists as ne example of Cromwell’s life and work.
What is the purpose of the
source?
The purpose was to let the Rump Parliament how ineffective they have
become and to dissolve the body.
What method does the author
use to get the message across?
Cromwell thoughts and feelings needed no interpretation. He was angry
and not given to long winded speeches in which his audience could lose the
meaning. I can amost hear him screaming the speech out of utter
frustration & contempt for the Rump Parliament.
What do we know about the
author?
Cromwell was a general & stateman. Born 1599. He died in 1658. He created the
New Modeled Army during the English Civil War. He was landed gentry. He was
protestant, specifically a Puritan (Calvinst). He was intensely religious. He sat in the
House of Commons, many times being elected for the first time in 1628. After his
dissolution of the rump parliament he became Lord Protector from 1653-1658. He
believed in limited powers of the monarchy but he lead the charge to have the
monarchy abolished.
Who was the audience? The audience was the House of Commons (Rump Parliament). These men he had
served with during the civil war and many he had sat with when Cromwell was a
MP. The audience were men of similar wealth and status in society. There may have
been some differing opinions about religion and the monarchy, but not a big enough
difference between Cromwell & his audience to explain how they could misinterpret
what he was saying or thinking.
What can a careful reading of
the primary source tell us?
We describe some character traits: impatience, intolerance for people who can’t
make decisions or come to consensus. He was religious. He never questioned his
actions. He took his own path when others failed to act. He was bold. He took an
unpopular stance against the king.
We can also know how Parliament ruled after the execution of the king. As least we
have Cromwell’s thoughts on the matter.
We see the hypocrisy of Cromwell coming full circle. The king dissolved
parliament—so did Cromwell.
We get a sense of the difficulty for creating a new government after the destruction
of the monarchy.
Evaluate the Source:
Was the source about an event
that people thought should
have happened or about an
event happened that people
thought did happen?
Was it about the elite or
common people?
What historical questions can
be answered by the source and
what are the benefits of having
the source?
What historial questions
cannot be answered? What are
the sources limitations?
Does the source contradict or
agree with other historians
interpretations?
The speech pertains to the inactivity of the Rump Parliament was happening after
the English Civil War.
Cromwell’s speech was given to a small group of men of at least landed gentry. So
no real common people heard the speech.
Why did Cromwell dissolve Parliament? What is bad government, as defined in the
speech. Why creating a new government is hard? Why was the Lord Protectorate
needed? Why was Cromwell there and why was he always in the midst of the fray.
The source doesn’t really tell us what went on before the speech so we have to
conduct research. We do not have Parliament’s side expressed in this document.
The limitations is that we know how Cromwell was thinking and feeling that one
day. Only when we put his entire life into context do we learn more about Cromwell.
While Cromwell is a controversial historical character, I would argue that the speech
does not conflict with other sources about his personality and religiosity. Where the
sources contradict is Cromwell’s military campaigns against the Irish—very brutal
& bloody. The Irish definitely dislike Cromwell (and many other English). Those
who disagree with the efforts to abolish the monarchy and execute the king have
their own side of the drama to tell. Any one historical figure is going to be loved by
some and hated by others.
Part 3: Write your paper.
Document: Oliver Cromwell’s Speech: In the Name of God, Go!
England just concluded the Platinum Jubilee celebration of their Queen, Elizabeth II.
Today the monarch serves as a ceremonial leader of the country. Beginning in 1688, much of
the monarch’s power was given to a Prime Minister and Parliament by a bloodless revolt known
as the Glorious Revolution. Oliver Cromwell died thirty years before the Glorious Revolution
occurred. Prior to the Glorious Revolution many English subjects wanted to limit the power of
the king. Oliver Cromwell represents a man who believed in the power of Parliament to rule
England. By 1653, the time of Cromwell’s “In the name of God, Go!, speech a new government
had been established only after a bloody civil war (1642-1649) had been fought and after the
king had been tried and executed (1649). The king, Charles I, believed in divine right of kings
and absolute rule. Charles I only tolerated parliament because it had become a governmental
necessity, but Charles I never really considered that Parliament had really any power other than
to sanction the king’s wishes. Cromwell’s speech dissolving the Rump Parliament in April of
1653 is a denunciation of the parliament who he believed could rule England, and for which he
played a major role in bringing the king to justice and making sure the monarchy ends on his
watch. Cromwell was tired of the fight by 1653, and his frustration now with Parliament was
equal to his frustration with the king prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1642.
The controversy centered around the power of the king, Charles I (1625-1649). During
this period, Parliament questioned monarchial power and how to limit it. Charles I had tried to
rule with Parliament but with little success. Parliament understood their role in the
governmental process was merely to agree with the King’s decisions and give in to his demands.
Parliament already had the right to argue and debate but ultimately the king would win.
Charles I by 1642 still had some support in Parliament. Parliament was divided into two houses,
the House of Lords and the House of Commons. While the House of Lords, who represented the
wealthier subjects of the country, but they also represented the supporters the king; the House
of Commons was the opposite. The House of Commons wanted real power that would call into
question the King’s power. Commons wanted to increase their power by limiting the power of
the king. This controversy between the monarch and the House of Commons will ultimately
result in the trial of Charles I, his execution in 1649, and the abolition of the monarchy very
soon thereafter. The abolition of the monarchy ended over 700 years of monarchial rule.
Oliver Cromwell was an eyewitness to the events but by no means was he the only player.
Cromwell’s life and work has great importance for us today. Not only did he experience the
events, he was a major player in how the events unfolded. This speech gives us a clear picture
of the statesmen.
With Charles I’s execution, Stuart rule in England ended abruptly. The Stuart dynasty
had not been popular. The Stuarts were Scottish. They came to the throne, when the English
queen, Elizabeth I died childless in 1603. England and Scotland had never been friendly but a
childless queen and her cousin’s children in Scotland, united the two kingdoms but the union
was not trouble free.
While political events eventually led Cromwell to make his speech, less obvious were
the religious events which influenced the man and his actions. Europe had undergone a
“reformation” starting in 1517, which created new protestant groups which rivalled Catholic
leadership in Europe. Popes and Kings who were still practicing and devout Catholics were
having to spend much of their time and resources stomping out Protestantism wherever it
occurred. England’s reformation began with Henry VIII, adjusted by Edward VI, overturned by
Mary I, and eventually the protestant cause was victorious due to the efforts of the last Tudor
queen, Elizabeth I. The Elizabethan Settlement acknowledged that the monarch was the “head
of the Anglican Church” and both Protestants and Catholics were allowed to be a part of the
kingdom, as long as Catholics worshipped privately but supported the state and the protestant
Anglican Church in public. This coexistence somehow worked until Elizabeth I (1558-1603) died
childless, and the Stuarts came to power. The Stuart Kings were protestants, and they enjoyed
the English perk of also being Head of the Anglican Church. James I (1603-1625) was a king who
thought he could be a protestant and a friend to Catholics. Charles I, James I’s son, even
married a catholic. This was too much for many protestants. Religion is always divisive and
England is no exception. Catholics & Protestants never got along until more recent times. With
the reformation and the establishment of the Stuart dynasty the stage was now set for Oliver
Cromwell.
Oliver Cromwell, represents the Puritans, one of many protestant groups emerging in
post reformation England. Puritans wanted to “purify” the Anglican Church of its Catholicism.
Each Tudor monarch had their own way of dealing with the new protestant church, but in the
early days, the Anglican church was protestant in name only. Puritans were religious
conservatives, in the modern definition of the term. As a group they believed in simplicity in
worship and in church design. Catholicism and Anglicanism were too fancy for simple Puritans.
Churches had, gold everywhere, their stain-glass windows, their elaborately designed churches
and cathedrals were too rich for Puritans. Religiously Puritans represented Calvinist theology,
which grew out of the teaching of John Calvin (1509-1564) in Switzerland. It is believed
Cromwell converted to Puritanism in the 1630s. His conversion was profound and impacted all
he did. Upon Cromwell’s election to the House of Commons, Cromwell became an outspoken
advocate for parliamentary rule and thus anti-monarchy. Puritanism taught him that God is
supreme and all governments should not stand in the way of God’s work. As Charles I became
more outspoken about his power as king, Cromwell became outspoken about his contempt for
such a king. Business in the House of Commons was conducted by, speeches, debates, royal
decree, and voting. Cromwell’s speech is a common way to conduct business and debate issues.
In his speech, Cromwell called the members of parliament “Esau” and “Judas”. The biblical
references would definitely be understood by all, Protestants and Catholics. One can easily
determine that Oliver is angry, frustrated and his insult of his fellow members of Parliament
was direct, and meant as a undisguised slap on the face of this political body. Cromwell went
on to say that the House of Commons has no more religion than his horse and they worship
only Gold and took bribes. Cromwell goes so far as to called his colleagues prostitutes. Notice,
however, that Cromwell stills speaks of the House of Common’s chamber as “this sacred place”.
Cromwell is not reluctant in putting Commons in their place, but he seems through all of this to
hold some reverence for the mission of the House of Commons. Cromwell seems to believe
that righteous indignation is always in order in such cases as these. Just as Jesus was indignant
when the money changers were located in the temple. This holding nothing back speech tells
me that Cromwell was bold, had no time for diplomacy, right was right, type of man. I like most
people would have had difficulty dealing with his sharp tongue.
The speech was given on April 20, 1653. We know nothing about the preparation of the
speech, but the tone is one of utter frustration with the House of Common. We must assume
that the speech reflects his true feeling at the time the speech was given. The past and the
future of England was beginning to weigh on Cromwell. Parliament, with Cromwell forceful
leadership, was trying to rule the nation. It is apparent to me that Cromwell grew impatient
and intolerant all those who deviated from the plan or slowed it down. People had died, and
for what? After the war and execution change was slow in coming due to the fact that the old
factions reemerged. With a king, parliament could quarrel all they wanted, because the king
made all decisions ultimately. Now, with no king, parliament, especially the House of Commons,
had to build consensus. That was the hard part. The enemy was dead, but Cromwell began to
see new threats. The speech is filled with Cromwell’s frustration over the inability of Commons
to agree to do anything. He called the Commons “an enemy of government” and “mercenary
wretches”. Finally, Cromwell states, “You were deputed here by the people to get grievances
redressed, are yourself become the greatest grievance”.
The purpose of the speech is at least two-fold. Cromwell wanted to shame the House of
Commons into action, but it seems what he had planned on doing from the beginning was to
dissolve the Commons. Maybe he hoped Commons would change but it seems clear he had lost
confidence in them doing anything. He called them “intolerably odious”. Cromwell was not
afraid of taking command. His commitment to the state, to God, and to what is right, Cromwell
does not deviate from the course. While Cromwell was not the only person responsible for the
route events took, Cromwell was a doer and a visionary. The solution to the problem was
simple and parliament just needed to do their jobs and fulfil the mission that had led the
country into civil war. I suspect events weighed heavily on Cromwell. How could it have not?
So many people died. He knew what had been done and been a part of and he convinced
others to follow. I do not think Cromwell questioned to what was done, but want was gained at
so great a cost. A king had been executed but for what purpose if nothing changed? In the
post-civil war era, the House of Commons was having difficulty building consensus on how to
move forward. Crowell did not mince words. He was blunt and insulting but he was clear and
unapologetic. There is no questioning his thoughts or actions.
All of Cromwell speeches and other works should be read with that understanding of his
personality and his personal religious code. His speech includes religious references which
speaks to the religiosity of his audience and his knowledge of scripture. To understand his
thoughts, and the righteous anger with which he spoke, it is not difficult since his words were
not cloaked in respectable diplomacy. Cromwell’s audience was not only religious men but men
of political ambitions and desirous to serve the government. Only a select number of people
heard the speech. I think the speech was more reactionary than planned. The people in the
House of Commons were men similar to Cromwell in economic status, but the people came
from all over England and obviously had different opinions on the monarchy, Cromwell,
Catholicism, Protestantism, and how should England be ruled. The House of Commons
represents many segments of English society. No actual common people were in the House of
Commons. Members were people who took part in the civil war, who witnessed the king’s
execution. They witnessed Cromwell’s rise to power and many supported him up until the end.
While his audience was diverse and opinionated, his audience by 1653 was growing
disenchanted with Cromwell and their typical response to ruling a nation was quarreling and
inaction.
Oliver Cromwell was an important figure in English history. He was a general and a
statesman. He was born in 1599 and belonged to landed gentry. Cromwell was converted to
puritanism in the 1630’s. He has been described as intensely religious but tolerate of other
protestant groups. He served In the House of Commons many years starting in 1628. During the
Civil War he sided with the Roundheads, parliamentary forces. Due to early losses, Cromwell
refashioned his own forces into the New Modeled Army. His changes brought ultimate victory
against the Cavaliers (Royalists). After the war he served in parliament again and commanded
troops into numerous raids, particularly against Ireland. When the new government (Rump
Parliament 1649-1653) failed to become a functioning government as Cromwell hoped, he
dissolved the Rump Parliament and became Lord Protector 1653-1658 of England. In other
words, he ruled alone. To some of Cromwell’s supporters, he was king in all but name.
Cromwell was guilty of some of the same crimes that Charles I was accused of in 1642.
Cromwell died in 1658 and eventually buried in Westminster Abbey.
A careful reading of the speech leaves little to misunderstand. While the speech is quite
forthright, Cromwell is a controversial figure. Was he right? Just because he believes he is right,
does that mean he is right? Was Cromwell guilty of regicide? Was Cromwell a visionary
revolutionary or just an agitator? Given that that monarchy was restored in 1660, with a return
of the Stuarts. Cromwell’s death allowed the people to restore the monarchy. What does this
tell us? Cromwell’s speech shows us a man who will never give in or change his mind. I am
convinced that his dissolution of the Rump parliament did not conflict with his vision. He did
what he had to do. What he was not able to do was change popular opinion. Even today the
monarchy is debated but is still going strong. Cromwell’s seeming hypocrisy, turned some of his
supporters against him. Cromwell had managed to convince the select members of the House
of Commons to execute a king for such actions as dissolving parliament but could not get the
Commons to work together for a common cause. Had Cromwell became the same ruler he had
so much contempt for decades earlier? Cromwell, I argue does not appear to be someone who
noticed the inconsistency in his words and actions. He never officially took the title of king, but
he understood how quick decisions could be made with absolute power. I see Cromwell as
confident, self-righteous, intelligent, stubborn, undiplomatic, and a believer in God and the
people’s right to rule. What is unclear is how to build consensus. Consensus is easier to build in
the short term. After the civil war, politics somewhat returned to a new normal and the House
of Commons was not able to adjust to the new reality of parliamentary power. Cromwell failed
to change minds in the long-term. With his death the issue would have to be revisited again in
1688 with greater success than Cromwell had.
Historians debate Cromwell. The Irish hate Cromwell, for reasons that are beyond the
scope of this paper. The English restored the monarchy and Cromwell’s legacy is more negative
than at the time of his rise to power. Cromwell is deserving of the some of his negative press,
but ultimately Cromwell was right as European countries turn against absolutism, but the
monarchy has become intrenched in English history and most likely will not be abolished.
Today the government in England is a constitutional monarchy. Cromwell was uncompromising
and his dreams were never realized in his lifetime. In many ways King Charles I and Cromwell
are similar characters although on opposite sides of the debate. One had to win and one had to
lose. In the end Charles was executed but his family was restored, Cromwell lost the real issue
of building a new government, but ultimately his ideas caught on. Maybe that is why Cromwell
and Charles disagreed on everything. Charles was as staunch a believer is absolute monarchy,
as Cromwell was a believer in parliamentary rule. The events of the day demanded victories
and losses. Cromwell and Charles I both loss but who was right and who was wrong? Don’t ask
these men, both thought they were right and both paid a price for their views.

Student will research and analyze the topic in the attached rubric. The paper must be at least four typed pages (Times New Roman Size 12 Font). The paper is expected to be well-balanced and well-organized. You may use as many outside resources as you need for the essay. It is assumed that no work will be accepted without some outside research and the use of academically appropriate sources. Your textbook will not provide enough information or insight. Your sources should be academic sources, no encyclopedia entries. See the rubric below for grading. Following standard writing practices are expected.

1. Student must use size 12 Font, Times New Roman
2. Sources must be cited (either MLA or Chicago Style) This includes subsequent notes, endnotes, or footnotes. The essay must also include a Bibliography or Works Cited page.
3. Primary Sources are very crucial to historical writing. It is expected that primary sources will be used.

(More citations and research sources may be used as the writer feels necessary than originally listed in the order)